iv

**FOREWORD **

First of all, I would like to thank God Almighty for His Blessing and chance for me so I able to finish my study and complete my Thesis which the title is “ The Difference of Student’s Learning Outcomes on Algebra Using Cooperative Learning Model of Group Investigation (GI) and Using Student Team Achievement Division (STAD)” in order to fullfill one of the requirements to obtain a Sarjana Pendidikan at the Mathematics Department in Bilingual Mathematics Education class , Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science in State University of Medan.

I realize that to do and complete this all isn’t an easy work, there are many challange and problems which is faced. But , There are many people such as family, friends, lecturer, staff and others who help me to do that all , motivate me as long as in doing and finishing my study. I also would like to say thanks to all of them.

v

My specials thanks for all of my lecturer in mathematics department and the staff who help me in giving knowledge, motivation and sugestions to finish my study. Then, I also would like to say thanks for Drs.H.Ahmad Siregar as the headmaster of SMPN 1 Medan and Anita Nilam S Silalahi as the mathematics teacher at SMPN 1 Medan, all of teacher and staff in SMPN 1 Medan who help me in doing and finishing my research.

Specials thanks for my lovely parents, J. Banjarnahor and R.Siagian and also my beloved brother and sister Erpina Banjarnahor S.Pd and Her Husband S.Sitompul S.Pd, Febri Gilberd Banjarnahor, Lely Handayani Banjarnahor who always give me prays, motivations,advices,loves and supports so I able to finish my study and this thesis.

Specials thanks for my best friends “SERAPHIM” (Blessing G. Hutagaol, Janna Sri Bina Br Barus, Putri Welpha Hutajulu) and Brother Rustam Efendi Simamora for their love,pray,support and friendship. Special thanks to “Tusam Family” (Efrida Fitri, Farah Diba,Yenni Khairina, Desri , Winny, Rizky and Kakak Poppy) for their support, love,pray and friendship. I also say thanks for Eva Puspita, Siti Rafiah,Misna Fitriani and all of my beloved friends in Mathematics Bilingual class 2008 for their support,,spirit, help and kindness during my study in state University of Medan. May God bless them all.

Witter realize that there are also many weaknesses and insufficiency in this thesis, for that writter hopes suggestion and critic in making this thesis better. Writter hopes this thesis will give advantage for reader and the world of education.

Medan, January 2013 Writter

iii

**THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENT’S LEARNING OUTCOMES ON **
**ALGEBRA USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL OF **

**GROUP INVESTIGATION (GI) AND USING STUDENT **
**TEAM ACHIEVEMENT DIVISION (STAD) **

**(CASE STUDY: CLASS VII SMPN 1 MEDAN **
**ACADEMIC YEAR 2012/2013 **

**Togu Mangihut B (408111023) **

**ABSTRACT **

Learning outcomes is the learning achievement of students who can be measured after work the problems given by teacher at the time of the evaluation carried out. This research is aimed to find out if there is a difference of students’ learning outcomes on algebra using cooperative learning model of Group Investigation (GI) and using Student Team Achievement Division (STAD). This research is a Quasi Experimental Research namely Posttest -Only Control Group Design which was conducted in SMP Negeri 1 Medan. The sample is 2 sample class chosen randomly in seventh grade.

Instrument used to collect the data of research is students’ mathematics learning outcomes (posttest), student’s worksheet, observation sheet (teacher and students observation sheet). This research consist of two steps, both class VII Pythagoras as class experiment I with 28 students and VII John Locke as class experiment II with 28 students was divided the student into small groups for each class, then doing a treatment (Cooperative Learning Model Of GI and STAD) and in the last meeting was given a posttest which had been calculate the validity test and the reliability is 0.71 after tried is aimed to measure the students’ mathematics learning outcomes. All data of research is statistically analyzed.

The result of research shows that the average score of posttest in experimental I is 77.5 and the average score of posttest in experimental class II is 65. Then test the hypothesis by using t-test which is tcalculate= 2.82 and ttable = 1.67 so that tcalculate > ttable (2.82 > 1.67) consequently Ha is received and rejected the H0 that means that Group Investigation is better than STAD in students’ mathematics Learning Outcomes and there is significant difference.

vi

**CONTENTS **

**Page **

**Agreement Sheet ** **i **

**Biographic ** ** ii **

**Abstract ** **iii **

**Foreword ** **iv **

**Contents ** **vi **

**List of Figure ** ** ix **

**List of Tables ** ** x **

**List of Appendix ** ** xi **

**CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION **

1.1. Background 1

1.2. Problems Identification 7

1.3. Problem Limitation 7

1.4. Problem Formulation 7

1.5. Research Objective 8

1.6. Benefits of Research 8

**CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW **

2.1. Theoretical Background 9

2.1.1. Essence of Learning and teaching 9 2.1.2. Definition of Mathematics 14 2.1.3. Learning Mathematics and Elementary Algebra 15

2.1.4. Learning Outcomes 18

2.1.5. Cooperative Learning 24

vii

2.1.10. Support Learning Theory 44

2.1.11. Relevant Research 45

2.1.12. Conceptual Framework 47

2.1.13. Research Hypothesis 48

**CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD **

3.1. Type of Research 49

3.2. Place and Time of Research 49

3.3. Population and Sample of Research 49

3.3.1 Population 49

3.3.2 Sample 49

3.4 Research Variables 49

3.5 Operational Definition 50

3.6. Research Design 51

3.7. Research Instrument 56

3.7.1 Test of Student’s Learning Outcomes 56

3.8. Data Analysis 59

3.8.1 Calculating Mean Score 59

3.8.2 Calculating Standard Deviation 59

3.8.3 Normality Test 59

3.8.4 Homogeneity Test 60

3.8.5 Hypothesis test 61

**CHAPTER IV RESEARCH METHOD **

4.1 Descriptive Data of the Research 63 4.1.1 Division of small groups to Both of Class 63 4.1.2 Posttest Data of Students Learning Outcomes 63

4.2 Analysis of the Research Data 65

viii

**CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION **

5.1 Conclusion 72

5.2 Suggestion 73

**REFERENCES ** ** 74 **

**APPENDIX ** 77

x

**LIST OF TABLE **

**Page **

Table 2.1 Syntax of the cooperative learning model 26 Table 2.2 Progression Score Calculating 36 Table 2.3 Comparison of GI and STAD type of cooperative learning 38 Table 2.4 the Difference Phase of GI and STAD 39

Table 3.1 Research Design Table 52

Table 3.2 Blue print of Posttest 56

Table 3.4 Criteria of Student’s activities 58

Table 3.4 Criteria of Teacher’s activities 59

Table 4.1 Summary Data of Student’s Learning Outcomes 64

Table 4.2 Normality Test Result of Students’ Learning Outcomes 65

Table 4.3 Homogeneity Test Result Of Student’s Learning Outcomes 66

ix

**LIST OF FIGURE **

**Page **

Figure 3.1.Research Design Figure 55

xi

**LIST OF APPENDIX **

**Page **

Appendix 1. Lesson Plan GI I 77

Appendix 2. Lesson Plan GI II 85

Appendix 3. Lesson Plan GI III 93

Appendix 4. Lesson Plan STAD I 98

Appendix 5. Lesson Plan STAD II 105

Appendix 6. Lesson plan STAD III 111

Appendix 7. SAS for GI Class 116

Appendix 8. SAS for STAD Class 130

Appendix 9. Quiz for STAD 135

Appendix 10. Observation Sheet of Student’s Activities GI 136

Appendix 11. Observation Sheet of Student’s Activities STAD 142

Appendix 12. Observation Sheet of Teacher’s Activities GI 148

Appendix 13. Observation Sheet of Teacher’s Activities 154

Appendix 14. Research Instrument 160

Appendix 15. Posttest Of Student’s Learning Outcomes 163

Appendix 16. Blue Print Of Posttest 165 Appendix 17. Calculation Table of Validity and Reliability Instrument 168 Appendix 18. Validity Test and Reliability Test 169 Appendix 19. Group Division Both Experiment Class 172 Appendix 20. Data of Posttest Score both Class Experiment 174 Appendix 21. Normality Test of Learning Outcomes Data 175 Appendix 22. Homogeneity Test of Learning Outcomes Data 177

xii

Appendix 24. Table of Critical Value Liliefors Test 179 Appendix 25. Table of Area Normal Curve 0 to z 180 Appendix 26. Table of t-distribution 181

1

**CHAPTER I **
**INTRODUCTION **

**1.1Background **

Education is a very important thing and it has a strategic role in the development of human civilization in the world. Therefore, almost all countries, including Indonesia put the variables of education in developing human resources to face the development of civilization nation and state.

As expressed by Trianto (2009:4) that entered the 21st century national education system face very complex challenges in preparing the quality of human resources to compete in the era of globalization. Appropriate measures to prepare qualified human resources and the only place that can be in view and a tool for building high-quality human resources is education. However, the quality of education in Indonesia is now considered by many people is still low. Kunandar (2009: 1) mentions several indicators, namely:

1. Graduates from high school or college are not ready to enter the workforce due to lack of competency

2. Rank Human Development Index (HDI) of Indonesia is still low. In 2004 Indonesia ranked 111th of 117 countries, ranking 110th in 2005 under Vietnam is ranked 108th. Later in the year 2010 ranked 111th and in 2012 Indonesia down to 124th of the 187 countries ranked. 3. Report of International Educational Outcomes (IEA) that the reading

skills of elementary school students Indonesia was ranked 38 of the 39 countries surveyed.

4. Quality among the nation's colleges / Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2003 show Indonesia ranks 38th of 41 countries in science then mathematics and reading was ranked 39th compared with south Korea is ranked 8th in science, mathematics and reading ranked third on the ranking of seventh.

2

6. The position of favorite universities in Indonesia, UI and UGM are at 61 and 68 of the 77 universities in Asia (Asia week, 2000)

7. Underdevelopment of Indonesia in the field of science and technology compared to neighboring countries such as Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand.

Mathematics is one of the basic sciences in school curriculum and must be learned in educational institutions. Based on the data above, Indonesia ranks are located in 39th of the 41 states and this must be very worrying. This problem must be improved immediately and be seriously handled because the usefulness of mathematics and very important both in development thinking, mastery of science and technology and its role in several other scientific subjects. It is also expressed by the Daniel Muijs and David Reynolds (2008: 332) which states mathematics is the main means for developing the ability of logical thinking and higher cognitive skills in children and plays an important role in several other scientific fields such as physics, engineering, statistics and others. Therefore, it is necessary teach students to mastery the mathematics early on creating, face and master modern technology for globalization era. Then, Cornelius in Abdurrahman (2003: 253) show several reasons for studying mathematics, namely:

1. Means of a distinct and logical thinking 2. Means to solve problems of daily life

3. Means to know the patterns, relationships and generalization of experience

4. Means to develop creativity

5. Means to increase awareness of cultural development.

Based on the above quotation through the learning of mathematics is expected that students can develop the ability to think, reason, develop creativity, communicate and present ideas and information and solve problems in daily activities.

3

It can be concluded that the teaching and learning process is not able give the good effect in increase the learning outcomes of students. It also can be seen from the Ujian Nasional result in 2012, Mendikbud M.Nuh explains that most of students failed in mathematics. From the above quotations provide clear information that until now the learning outcomes results mathematics students have not achieved the desired level.

(http://edukasi.kompas.com/read/2012/06/02/10035432/Banyak.Siswa.Tak.Lu lus.Ujian.Matematika)

Furthermore Trianto (2009: 5) states that a major problem in learning on formal education (school) today is the low absorptive capacity of learners where can be seen from the average of the students’ results of study that is still very bad. This outcomes is certainly as the result of the condition where learning still in conventional dimensions and do not touch the realism of learners themselves, namely how to actually learn it (learning to learn) and also caused by the process of learning until today still provide the teacher dominance and does not provide access for students to develop independently through the development and their thought processes.

Based on the above opinion, it is very urgent for educators; especially teachers to understand the characteristics of the materials and learners. In addition, other factors that have an important role in determining the learning objectives of the study is a model of learning. The learning process can be followed very well and attracted students’ attention when teachers use learning models which is suitable for learning material. Therefore, the learning of mathematics must be based upon the characteristics of mathematics itself and the students themselves.

4

of algebra uses symbols not only the number but also the letter forms used in junior high school algebra class VII is a very real need to understand the students and need of special attention.

The beginning Algebraic form of a majority of students is not easy. Students' competency in understanding and preparing the algebra class VII student is a prerequisite for being able or competent in solving verbal problems involving both equality and inequality and development. Because of these basic skills need attention before entering into the equations and inequalities as well as to function in algebra is taught in class VIII and IX (Al krismanto in Diklat instruktur/ pengembangan Matematika SMP jenjang Dasar 2004)

Algebra is one of the subject matter of mathematics lessons taught in school. Algebraic equations that contain some form of variable and constant symbols and tend to be abstract enough make it difficult and foreign for student to resolve any issues in this matter. From interviews given to the researcher mathematics teacher at SMPN 1 Medan that is Elliati Nasution on June, 02nd 2012 obtained the information that students still have difficulty in distinguishing coefficient, variable, constants, operating algebra operation, equations and inequalities form and apply it in solving the equation algebra in daily life examples.

5

Cooperative learning model is still rarely used in the process of learning and teachers have not used cooperative learning type STAD and GI, more frequent use of the learning model of lectures and continued by discussions. As a result, students become less active so that students have difficulty in understanding and solve the algebra problem and also have an impact on learning outcomes based on test scores and dissatisfactory for some students’ score.

Cooperative learning model can be used as an alternative model that is expected to activate students in teaching and learning mathematics, this means that students should be active and interact with others, exchange information and solve problems. Slavin in Sanjaya (2009: 239) suggests two important reasons for using cooperative learning model, namely:

1. Several studies show that the use of cooperative learning can improve student outcomes while increasing the ability of social relationships, fostering acceptance and lack of other people and can improve self-esteem and others self-esteem.

2. Cooperative learning can realize the needs of students in learning to think, to solve problems, and integrate knowledge and skills.

From the above explanation, cooperative learning can improve learning systems so far have weaknesses and lack. Cooperative learning can also improve students' skills in solving math problems, because students are able to explain ideas - ideas that are difficult to each other by translating into a language that teachers use to their own language.

6

making a summary synthesis, hypotheses, conclusions and present the final report so that the students strive for active learning and problem solving are investigated.

Hayu Pertiwi Sesani (2010) state that the succes of one of mathematics instruction is determine by the selection of appropriate learning method. From the models of learning that has been developed, one model of learning that is assumed to support the creation of a dinamic learning situation not saturated and can support creativity and interaction among students and teachers are learning model investigation. Then , in topic algebra itself group investigation learning method can be an alternative for teacher to be applied in the classroom because it can motivate student to be more active and creative among in learning mathematics so that can increase the learning outcomes. (http://eprints.umm.ac.id/id/eprint/2321)

STAD is a study that involves competence between groups; students are grouped in various ways based on ability, gender, race, and ethnicity. First of all, students learn the material together with a group of friends and then they were tested individually through quizzes, quiz grades each member to determine scores obtained by their group. Thus, each member should seek active and involved, supporting one another in mastering both the ability to think, solve problems or to be taught by teachers in order to obtain the maximum value in the quiz if they want to get a high score.

From the description above in order to active and involve students in teaching and learning is very important. Through cooperative learning type GI and STAD, learning of mathematics can be more interesting, fun, and also enable students to improve problem solving skills that can increase student outcomes.

72

**CHAPTER V **

**CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION **
**5.1 Conclusion **

Based on the result of research from data analysis and test of hypothesis then it can be concluded that:

1. There is difference of both cooperative learning models between Group Investigation (GI) and Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) for topics Algebraic Expression namely student’s learning outcomes which GI is better than STAD.

73

**5.2 Suggestions **

Based on the result of research and conclusion then researcher has some suggestion, namely:

1. For mathematics teacher, in teaching the material of algebraic expression or other appropriate topics can be used learning models namely Group Investigation than Student Team Achievement Division as a way to improve the students’ learning Outcomes but the both models is better than just to use simple discussion like usual that sometimes not involved all of the student in the class

74

**REFERENCE **

Abdurahman,Mulyono. 2003. Pendidikan Bagi Anak Berkesulitan Belajar. Jakarta : Rineka cipta

Arends, Richard I.2009.Learning to Teach, Eight editions. America: McGraw Hill

Companies

Best, John W.1981. Research in Education 4th Edition. United States of America : Prentige-Hall, Inc

Bloom, Benjamin S, George F. Madaus, J. Thomas Hasting. 1981. Evaluating
*to Improve Learning. United States of America : Mc Graw-Hill, Inc. *

Bruce Joy, Marsha Weil.1996. Models of Teaching, Fifth Edition. United States of

America:Needham Height Mass

Daniel Muijs and David Reynolds.2008. Effective Teaching Teori Dan Aplikasi. Yogjakarta: Pustaka belajar

Eggen, Paul D, Donald P Kauchack, Robert J. Harder. 1979. Strategies for Teacher.

United States of America : Prentice Hall, Inc.

Ford, Cedric Culling. 1995. The Effective Teacher. New York : Cassel

Gall, Meredith D,Walter R.Borg,Joyce P.Gall. 1996. Educational Research an
*Introduction 6th Edition. United States of America : Longman Publishers *

Huda, Miftahul.2011.Cooperative Learning Metode Teknik Struktur Dan Model
*Penerapan. Jakarta: Prenada media Group. *

Hudojo,Herman.2003.Pengembangan Kurikulum Dan Pembelajaran Matematika. Malang:FMIPA–Universitas Negeri Malang

Kemp,Jerrold E. 1977.Instructional Design 2nd Edition. United States of America : David S. Lake Publishers

75

Hill International Book

Kohl,Herbert. 1982. Insight the Substances and Rewards of Teaching. United States

of America : Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc.

Kunandar.2009. Guru Profesional Implementasi Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan
*Pendidikan dan Sukses Dalam Sertifikasi Guru. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers *

Lindquist,Mary Montgomery.1980.Selected issues Mathematics Education. United

States of America: Mc Cutchan Publishing Corporation.

Makmun, Abin Syamsudin.2003.Psikologi Kependidikan. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.

Mercer, Cecil D, Ann R. Mercer . 1989. Teaching Students with Learning
*Problem. *

United States of America : Merrill Publishing Company

Nasution, S.2006. Kurikulum dan Pengajaran. Jakarta: Bumi aksara.

Panda, BN. 2003. How to Become a Competent/ Successful Teacher. New Delhi : Discovery Publishing House

Popham, W James. 1981. Modern Educational Measurement. United States of America : Prentice Hall, Inc.

Sagala, Syaiful. 2009.Konsep dan Makna Pembelajaran. Bandung : Alfabeta

Sanjaya,Wina. 2009. Strategi Pembelajaran Berorientasi Standar proses
*Pendidikan. *

Jakarta: Kencana

Sanjaya, Wina. 2009.Perencanaan dan Desain Sistem Pembelajaran. Jakarta: Kencana

Slameto. 2003. Belajar dan Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya. Jakarta : Rineka Cipta

Slavin,Robert E.2005.Cooperative Learning Teori Riset dan Praktik. Bandung: Nusa media

76

Sudjana, 2001. Metoda Statistika. Bandung: Tarsito

Suryabrata, Sumadi. 2008. Psikologi Pendidikan. Jakarta: PT.Raja Grafindo Persada

Stepelman , Alfred S Posamentier.1990.Teaching Secondary School Mathematics:
*Techniques and Enrichments Units. Columbus: Merrill *

Syah,Muhibbin. 2008.Psikologi Pendidikan Dengan Pendekatan Baru. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya Offset

Trianto.2009.Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif Progresif. Jakarta: Prenada

Media Group.

Uno,Hamzah.2003.Model Pembelajaran. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara

http://ipotes.wordpress.com/kelebihandankekuranganmodelpembelajarankooperati

fgrupinvestigasi.html.