THE DIFFERENCES OF STUDENTS’ MATHEMATICAL COMMUNICATION ABILITY TAUGHT BY COOPERATIVE LEARNING TALKING STICK
AND COOPERATIVE SCRIPT TYPES AT SMP NEGERI 3 KISARAN
By:
DWI MAULIDA SARI 4113312004
Bilingual Mathematics Education Study Program
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of The Requirement for Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
MATHEMATICS DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of All, praise is merely to the Almighty Allah SWT for the gracious mercy and tremendous blessing that enables researcher to finish this bachelor thesis entitled: The Difference of Students’ Mathematical Communication Ability Taught by Cooperative Learning Talking-Stick and Cooperative-Script Types at SMP Negeri 3 Kisaran. This bachelor thesis is presented to fulfill one of the requirements in accomplished S-1 Degree in State University of Medan.
The present of this thesis is because many people who help so generously. So, researcher would like to extend the great gratitude towardsProf. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd as the head of State University of Medan, Prof. Drs. Motlan, Ph.D as the dean of Mathematics and Natural Science Faculty, Dr. Edy Surya, M.Si as the chief of Mathematics Department and Prof. Dr. rer.nat Binari Manurung, M.Si as the coordinator of Bilingual and International Program
Dr. Kms. M. Amin Fauzi, M.Pd as thesis supervisor, who always generously help researcher in complete this thesis. Also who always give researcher so many great opportunities, guidance, and motivations.
Prof. Dr. Edi Syahputra, M.Pd.,Dr. E Elvis Napitupulu, M.S., Mulyono,S.Si, M.Si as truly dedicated examiners. I am particularly indebted to them for their constant advices, and constructive critics and also suggestion in perfecting this thesis
My academic supervisor Prof, Dr. B. Sinaga, M.Pd and all Lecturer and also staff of Mathematics and Natural Science Faculty and Bilingual and International Program for all the knowledge and also the help given to researcher
For my parents, my best father ever H. Syamsudin and my sprit my beloved mother Hj. Rirawati Harahap, who never stop loving, giving bless, pray, and giving motivation to me, so I still has a faith and sprit in finish my study. My beloved Sister and Brother, Indah Pristina Sari and Heru Cakra A’sari for the suggestion and unbelievable supports.
v
My PPL friends at SMA N 2 Kisaran, Zelfani, Sapta, Sifa, Lia, Guruh, Septian, and others for best memory in just 3 month. All people who help directly or indirectly. Researcher can only hope God give all of you best out of the best. Amiiiiin.
Medan 2015
Researcher
iii
THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENTS’ MATHEMATICAL COMMUNICATION ABILITY TAUGHT BY COOPERATIVE LEARNING TALKING STICK
AND COOPERATIVE SCRIPT TYPES AT SMP NEGERI 3 KISARAN
Dwi Maulida Sari ID. 4113312004
Abstract
One of the learning models that predicted were able to overcome the low level of mathematical communication ability is a cooperative learning, that is, teachers act as mentors and facilitators in achieving learning objective. As for the goal to be achieved from this research are as follows: (1) To know any difference in student’s mathematical communication ability taught by cooperative learning talking stick type and cooperative script type in learning quadrilateral at SMP. (2) To see varieties of student’s answer type taught by cooperative learning talking stick type and cooperative script type in topic quadrilateral at SMP.
vi
CONTENT LIST
APPROVED PAPER ... i
BIOGRAPHY ... ii
ABSTRACT ... iii
ACKNOWLEGEMENT ... iv
CONTENT LIST ... vi
LIST OF FIGURE ... ix
LIST OF TABLE ... x
LIST OF APPENDDIX ... xi
CHAPTER I ... 1
1.1. Background ... 1
1.2. Problem Identification ... 7
1.3. Problem Formulation ... 8
1.4. Problem Limitation ... 8
1.5. The Objectives of Research ... 8
1.6. The Benefit of Research... 8
1.7. Operational Definition ... 9
CHAPTER II ... 11
2.1. Learning Communication ... 11
2.2. Mathematical Communication Ability ... 12
2.2.1.Aspect of Communication ... 13
2.2.2.Factors of Mathematical Communication ... 15
2.3. Cooperative Learning Model ... 16
2.3.1.Definition of Cooperative Learning ... 16
2.3.2.Characteristics of Cooperative learning ... 17
2.3.3.Syntax of Cooperative Learning ... 18
2.3.4.The Benefit of Cooperative Learning ... 18
vii
2.3.6.Cooperative Learning Type Cooperative Script ... 20
2.4.Relevant Research ... 20
2.5.Conceptual Framework ... 21
2.6.Hypothesis ... 23
CHAPTER III ... 24
3.1.Place and Time of Research ... 24
3.2.Population and Sample ... 24
4.1.1 Population ... 24
4.1.2 Sample ... 24
3.3.Variable and Instrument of Research ... 25
3.3.1.Variable of Research ... 25
3.3.2.Instrument of Research ... 25
1. Mathematical Communication Ability Test ... 25
2. Mathematical Communication Scoring ... 27
3. Instrument Trial ... 29
3.4.Research Design ... 31
3.5.Data Collection Technique ... 32
3.6.Data Analysis Technique ... 34
3.6.1.Descriptive Statistics ... 34
3.6.2.Normality Test ... 34
3.6.3.Homogeneity Test ... 34
3.6.4.Statistics Hypothesis ... 35
CHAPTER IV ... 36
4.1 The Description of Research Result ... 36
4.1.1 The Score of Mathematics Communication Ability ... 36
4.1.2 The Description of Students’ Mathematics Communication Ability test ... 37
viii
4.2.1 Normality Test ... 38
4.2.2 Homogeneity Test ... 39
4.2.3 Hypothesis Test ... 40
4.3 The Difference in Characteristics of Students’ Answer in Research Result ... 41
4.4 Research Discussion ... 49
CHAPTER V ... 52
5.1 Conclusion ... 52
5.2 Suggestion ... 52
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 53
x
LIST OF TABLE
Table 3.1. Blueprint of Mathematical Communication Ability Test ... 26
Table 3.2. Criteria of Mathematical Communication Scoring ... 27
Table 3.3. Scoring Guideline of Mathematical Communication Ability Test ... 28
Table 3.4. Criteria of Validity ... 29
Table 3.5. Criteria of Reliability ... 30
Table 4.1 Data of Mathematical Communication Ability Test in Both Experimental Class ... 36
Table 4.2 Mean of of Mathematical Communication Ability Indicators ... 37
Table 4.3 The Result of Homogeneity Test of Mathematical Communication Ability Score in Both Experimental Class ... 38
Table 4.4 The Result of Hypothesis Test ... 39
Table 4.5 The Result of Advance Hypothesis Result ... 40
Table 4.6 Distribution of Students answer in Problem Number 1, 1st Indicator ... 41
Table 4.7 Distribution of Students answer in Problem Number 2, 1st Indicator ... 42
Table 4.8 Distribution of Students answer in Problem Number 3, 1st Indicator ... 43
Table 4.9 Distribution of Students answer in Problem Number 1, 2nd Indicator ... 44
Table 4.10 Distribution of Students answer in Problem Number 2, 2nd Indicator ... 44
Table 4.11 Distribution of Students answer in Problem Number 3, 2nd Indicator ... 45
Table 4.12 Distribution of Students answer in Problem Number 1, 3rd Indicator ... 46
Table 4.13 Distribution of Students answer in Problem Number 2, 3rd Indicator ... 47
ix
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 1.1 one of student answer to problem No. 1 ... 3
Figure 1.2 one of student answer to problem No. 2 ... 4
Figure 1.3 one of student answer to problem No. 3 ... 5
Figure 3.1. Schema of Data Collection ... 33
Figure 4.1 Diagram of Mathematical Communication Ability Test in Both Experimental Class ... 37
Figure 4.2 The Difference in Student’s Answer in Talking Stick Class and Cooperative Script Type 1st Indicator Problem No.1 ... 42
Figure 4.3 The Difference in Student’s Answer in Talking Stick Class and Cooperative Script Type 1st Indicator Problem No.3 ... 43
Figure 4.4 The Difference in Student’s Answer in Talking Stick Class and Cooperative Script Type 2nd Indicator Problem No.1, No.2 ... 44
Figure 4.5 The Difference in Student’s Answer in Talking Stick Class and Cooperative Script Type 2nd Indicator Problem No.3 ... 45
Figure 4.6 The Difference in Student’s Answer in Talking Stick Class and Cooperative Script Type 3rd Indicator Problem No.1 ... 46
Figure 4.7 The Difference in Student’s Answer in Talking Stick Class and Cooperative Script Type 3rd Indicator Problem No.2 ... 47
xi
LIST OF APPENDDIX
Appendix 1 ... 55
Appendix 2 ... 63
Appendix 3 ... 71
Appendix 4 ... 81
Appendix 5 ... 86
Appendix 6 ... 98
Appendix 7 ... 106
Appendix 8 ... 119
Appendix 9 ... 128
Appendix 10 ... 134
Appendix 11 ... 139
Appendix 12 ... 151
Appendix 13 ... 163
Appendix 14 ... 164
Appendix 15 ... 165
Appendix 16 ... 169
Appendix 17 ... 171
Appendix 18 ... 176
Appendix 19 ... 181
Appendix 20 ... 186
Appendix 21 ... 188
Appendix 22 ... 191
Appendix 23 ... 192
Appendix 24 ... 195
Appendix 25 ... 197
1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background
All countries in the world have always prioritize education. Efforts to improve the quality of education that has been done by the government including curriculum renewal, improvement of educational facilities, the use of teaching methods and to improve the quality and quantity of teaching materials. Mathematics is one of the subjects that are used as a reference for educational advancement of a country. If a country has people who follow or win an Olympic mathematics, it is considered the country's education began to advance this is in line with the view that education is a benchmark of the progress of a country
Mathematics courses is given from grade 1 in elementary school, an early attempt to instill concepts, facts or principles of mathematics, which in turn is expect to improve the quality and quantity of learning outcomes in other education purposes. As written in the book Materi Pelatihan Integrasi Buku-1 (2004: 7), that mathematics is abstract and deductive science. Mathematics is the study of patterns, shapes, and structures and mathematics is a human activity, also written on this book (2004: 4) that mathematics as a vehicle for education, not only can be used to achieve one goal such as to educate students, but can also form the personality of students and develop certain skills.
There are purposes of learning mathematics for student that under mentioned in Materi Pelatihan Integrasi Buku-1 (2004: 24) are:
2
(3) memecahkan masalah yang meliputi kemampuan memahami masalah, merancang model matematika, menyelesaikan model dan menafsirkan solusi yang diperoleh, (4) mengkomunikasikan gagasan dengan simbol, tabel, diagram atau media lain untuk memperjelas keadaan dan masalah, (5) memiliki sikap menghargai matematika dalam kehidupan, yaitu memiliki rasa ingin tahu, perhatian, dan minat dalam mempelajari matematika serta sikap ulet dan percaya diri dalam pemecahan masalah”.
So, as said by book that published by Ministry of Education one purpose of learning mathematics is communicate ideas with symbols, tables, diagrams or other media to clarify the situation and problems. It’s clearly showing that the ability if mathematics communication is also needed. Written in book published by Ministry of Education (2004: 8) in the early stages mathematics formed from human experience in the world of empirical ratios are then processed in the world, processed in the analysis and synthesis of the reasoning in cognitive structure, thus arrive at mathematics concept. In order to others understand the concept form and easily also appropriately manipulated, then use the notation and terminology carefully universally agreed upon and is known as language mathematics. Also confirmed by Ansari (2012: 1) that mathematics is a tool that can clarify and simplify a condition or situation that is abstract into concrete ideas through language and mathematics idea as well as a generalization to easier to find the problem solving.
3
mathematical communication ability of students in solving mathematics problems is very unsatisfactory.
The statement above is agreed by Baroody (1993: 2-99) “For children, mathematics is essentially a second or foreign language. When instruction focuses on memorizing terms rather than communicating ideas, many find mathematics impenetrable. Children’s difficulties in learning the new language of mathematics are compounded when it is introduced too quickly”.
Thus, all the opinions clarified that ability of mathematics communication is one of fundamental capability. Said by Ansari (2012: 10) there are three indicators of ability mathematics communication that concern to be repaired are: (1) the ability of explaining mathematical problem into figure, (2) the ability of explaining problem situations by own words, and (3) the ability of stating mathematical problem into mathematical model and doing calculation.
In fact, based on preliminary observation conducted by researchers in SMP Negeri 3 Kisaran, the students aren’t able to answer. It clearly seen in student’s answer sheet that student’s mathematical communication ability is low. For example, problem number one: Write down every sentence below to be mathematical model by using x and y variable. (a) The result of multiple from two natural numbers 2 is 9, (b) Amount of Ikhsan and Bayu book is 11, while difference of their books are 1, (c) Circumference of a rectangular is 14m, when size of the length 3 feet longer than the width.
Figure 1.1 one of student answer to problem No. 1 Student state that the 2 number in different place, but the real answer is x.y + 2=9 Student state that the 2 variable
4
For problem number one the indicator of mathematical communication ability is students able to state problem in writing into mathematical model (Ansari, 2012: 10). From the figure 1.1 above students can’t form the mathematical model for the two natural number, also the sum and the difference of Ikhsan and Bayu book also they can form mathematical model from the circumstance of the rectangular. So from this first problem we found that student’s ability in stating problem in writing in mathematical model is very low.
For the problem number two the indicator for the mathematical communication ability is explaining problem in writing into figure and stating problem in writing into mathematical model (Ansari, 2012: 10). The problem to test the indicator is: Indicate the
2 1
5 apples in picture form.
Figure 1.2 one of student answer to problem No. 2
From the picture above, it can be seen that the student is still difficult to determine half of the apple and the majority students are only focused to solve the problem half of the apple. Even partially other students are able to describe the half of apple properly. This indicates that the ability of mathematical communication in explaining problem and writing into figure is also week.
The problem number three is: a company will deliver package to their 60 employees, which consists of 2 bottles of syrup and 12 cases of instant noodles. Then explain how dozen syrup and instant noodles are required by the company.
5
Figure 1.3 one of student answer to problem No. 3
The indicator of mathematical communication ability in problem number three stated by Ansari (2012:10) is explaining problem situations by own words and doing calculation. From figure 1.3 can be known that student can doing the calculation but they can explain clearly meaning of the number in their sheet. Also students make the syrup and instant noodle as one, even syrup and instant noodle are different type. Students also find it difficult to change the problem number three into a mathematical model, it means student’s ability in explaining problem by own words and doing calculation us also weak.
From this preliminary observation, it can be concluded that the student’s mathematical communication ability is still weak and unsatisfactory. This is also happen because student’s lack of understanding of algebra and the system of linear equation. Besides that, their lack of mathematical communication ability because they not familiarized to change something abstract becomes real problem in form of mathematical model.
Lack of student’s mathematical communication ability of SMP N 3 Kisaran is so relates with learning process which has done by the mathematics teacher. Teacher design the unsuitable learning model to increase students activity in the learning process.
Student knowing and understand the problem, but they can’t state it into mathematical model. They also don’t state from the problem, which one as known and which one as the question
Student can’t use their own word to explain the number on
6
Then, the next happen is the lack of reflect of the leaning mathematics itself. It’s can also means the model that teacher use isn’t suitable or need by students in terms to increase the student’s activity in class.
As said by Paulo (in Agus, 2009: 13): teacher do the things, learners imagine how to act in accordance with his teacher action. It means that everything that teachers says it’s true also teachers known everything when student’s know nothing. Because teachers use this old paradigm of learning mathematics, the mathematical communication ability of students is decreasing. Teachers only transfer the knowledge that they know and students passively accept everything. This kind of learning behavior already used really long time in Indonesia learning process.
To fix it, is necessary to develop an approach to learning that is more effective, creative, and fun. On this basis, the authors try to apply cooperative learning model talking stick and see the difference with the use of cooperative learning cooperative script to improve the mathematical communication ability.
Learning model type talking stick has an aims to expand students' knowledge and accuracy in understanding a concept. As Agus (2009:109) said talking stick teaching methods encourage students to dare to express opinions. Agreed by Istarani (2012: 89) that talking sticks learning model, encourage students to dare to express their opinions, teachers give an explanation about the material, then students have time to read and write things they know after that the talking stick will be given to students and student that hold the stick must answer the question that teachers give.
7
According to Istarani (2012: 15) that model of learning in which students work in pairs and take turns verbally summarize, the parts of the material being studied. Cooperative learning model type cooperative script begins with the delivery of teaching materials that start with giving a discourse or a summary, then given an opportunity to the students to read it for a moment and provide, input or new ideas into teaching materials being studied.
So, cooperative learning type cooperative script also one of an alternative learning model that appropriate to develop the student’s mathematical communication ability by give students opportunities to answer an also provide, input or new ideas in material that supplied.
Based on the background above, researcher intends to conduct a research entitled: “The Differences of Students’ Mathematical Communication Ability Taught by Cooperative Learning Talking Stick and Cooperative Script Types at SMP Negeri 3 Kisaran”
1.2. Problem Identification
Based on the analyzing in background, problem identification in this research are:
1. Student’s mathematical communication ability is still low. 2. Student’s activity in the learning process is passive.
3. The learning model that teacher use isn’t suitable for students in terms to increase the student’s activity in class.
1.3. Problem Formulation
The problem formulation in this research is:
8
2. Is student’s answer sheet taught by cooperative learning talking stick type and cooperative script type has varieties answer?
1.4. Problem Limitation
This research bound the problem to get precise target expectation. The problem limitation is:
1. The model used is cooperative learning talking stick type and cooperative script type.
2. The student’s mathematical communication ability bounded in quadrilateral matter in grade VII semester 2.
3. The research was concluded at SMP Negeri 3 Kisaran
1.5. The Objectives of Research The objective in this research is:
1. To know any difference in student’s mathematical communication ability taught by cooperative learning talking stick type and cooperative script type.
2. To see varieties of student’s answer type taught by cooperative learning talking stick type and cooperative script type.
1.6. The Benefit of Research
1. For the teachers, especially mathematics teacher, this research can be consideration in selecting one of alternative model or approach in mathematics learning.
2. For the candidate of teacher, this research can be proper consideration for handle the problem which often appears in mathematics learning in school.
9
4. For the researcher, this research used for increase researcher’s knowledge about problem in learning process and try to solving it.
5. For the school, this research can be consideration and suggestion to improve the quality of teacher also the learning activity at class
1.7. Operational Definition
Operational definition emphasize to things which will be standard or indicator of variable. Operational definition in this research is:
1. The indicator of student’s mathematical communication ability which will be measured are:
a. The ability of explaining mathematical problem into figure. b. The ability of explaining problem situations by own words.
c. The ability of stating mathematical problem in writing into mathematical model and doing calculation.
2. The syntax of Talking stick, are:
a. Phase 1: teachers prepare a stick
b. Phase 2: teachers deliver the subject matter to be studied then give the opportunity to students to read and learn the material. c. Phase 3: after finishing read the material in their subject book
and learning it, student’s close their book
d. Phase 4: teachers take a stick and give to students, after that the teacher provides questions and learners who hold the stick must answer, so until all learners take part to answer all questions from the teacher
e. Phase 5: teachers and students to make conclusion
f. Phase 6: evaluation
10
3. The syntax of cooperative script, are:
a. Phase 1: Teachers divide students into couple.
b. Phase 2: Teachers give a script about material to read and be summarized.
c. Phase 3: Teachers and students make a decision student’s going first as speaker and other student’s going to be listener. d. Phase 4: Speaker read summarized as complete as possible, by
inserting the key ideas in the summary. Other learners: Listening and shows the main ideas incomplete
Helps to remember or memorize the key ideas with the previous material, or with any other material
e. Phase 5: exchanging roles, originally a listener later became speaker, and vice versa
f. Phase 6: did back phase 4
g. Phase 7: teachers and learners together conclude the subject material.
52 CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 5.1 Conclusion
From the research result and discussion can be conclude that:
1. There is difference in students’ mathematical communication ability
taught by cooperative learning talking stick and cooperative script types at SMP Negeri 3 Kisaran
2. The students’ mathematical communication ability taught by cooperative
learning talking stick type is better than students’ mathematical
communication ability taught by cooperative learning cooperative script type.
3. There are the difference in students ways to answer the problem in experimental class I taught by cooperative learning talking stick with experimental class II taught by cooperative learning cooperative script type.
5.2 Suggestion
Based on research that has been done, mathematics teachers are suggested to: 1. Use cooperative learning talking stick or cooperative script types as an alternative learning model in improving students’ mathematical communication ability.
2. Based on communication aspect which will be achieved, cooperative learning talking stick type is more effective than cooperative script type. 3. Before use the learning model, need to find additional ways to increasing
students’ mathematical communication ability in 2nd
53
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ansari, B.I., (2012), Komunikasi Matematik Dan Politik Suatu Perbandingan: Konsep dan Aplikasi, Penerbit PeNA, Banda Aceh
Arends, R.I., (2011), Learning to Teach,McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc, USA Arikunto, S., (2009), Manajemen Penelitian, PT RinekaCipta, Jakarta
(2013), Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik, Jakarta: PT Rineka Cipta,
Asmin, (2012), Pengukuran dan Penilaian Hasil Belajar Dengan Analisis Klasik dan Modern, LARISPA INDONESIA, Medan
Baroody, A.J, (1993), Problem Solving, Reasoning, and Communicating K-8 Helping Children Think Mathematically, Merril An In Print of Macmillan Publishing Company, New York
Calmorin, L., (2006), Statistics in Education and the Sciences, Book Store. Inc, Manila
Connaway, L.S., & Powell, R.R, (2010), Basic Research Methods for Librarians 5th Edition, Greenwood Publishing Group, California
Felder, Richard M., & Brent, Rebecca, (-), Cooperative Learning, N.C State University, New York
FMIPA Universitas Negeri Medan, (2012), Pedoman Penulisan Proposal dan Skripsi, FMIPA Universitas Negeri Medan: Medan,
Gliner, J.A., & Morgan, G.A., (2009), Research Method ins in Apllied Settings, Taylor & Francis e-Library, United Kingdom
Istarani, (2012), 58 Model Pembelajaran Inovatif, Media Persada, Medan
Jones, Karrie A., & Jones, Jennifer L., (2008), The Journal of Effective Teaching, Vol.8 No.2, Niagara University, New York
Kraemer, H.C., Lowe, K.K, & Kupfer, D.J., (2005), To Your Health: How to Understand What Research Tells Us About Risk, Oxford University Press, New York
Mustajab, Maksud, (2012), Jurnal Radiasi Vol.1, Universitas Muhammadiah: Purworejo
54
Robinson, Ann, (1991), Cooperative Learning and The Academically Talented Students, University of Arkansas Little Rock, Arkansas
Ibrilusiyanti, Nurul, 2013, Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Vol.2 No.3, Program studi Pendidikan Matematika, Universitas Jember: Jember
Santoso, Singgih, 2009, Panduan Lengkap Menguasai Statistik dengan SPSS 17, PT. Elex Media Komputindo, Jakarta
Setyosari, Punaji, (2012), Metode Penelitian Pendidikan dan Pengembangan, Kencana Perdana Media Group, Jakarta
Sugiyono, (2013), Stastistika Untuk Penelitian, Alfabeta.cv, Bandung
Suprijono, Agus, (2009), Cooperative Learning Teori & Aplikasi Paikem, Pustaka Belajar, Yogyakarta
Syaodih, Sukmadinata Nana, (2012), Metode Penelitian Pendidikan, PT. Remaja Rosda Karya, Bandung
