PREFACE
First and foremost, praise and thank to Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed the writer with His loyal love, so that she has been through able to accomplish her thesis. The writer realize that she is nothing without God.
The writer hardly knows where to start expressing her gratitude but for sure the gratitude goes to all those who have assisted her in the process of completing this thesis. It would be impossible to list all names but several people deserve her sincere and special thanks.
Grateful acknowledgement is addressed to her thesis supervisor, Drs. Eidi Sihombing, M.S., who has generously given the time, guidance and suggestion until this thesis comes to its present form. The writer realize although her thesis supervisor have the same family name with her, it doesn’t mean there is a collusion. Sir Eidi teach how become a fair educator to her, it’s such a more lucky and blessing of the writer to have him as her thesis supervisor.
Her enormous appreciation is also addressed to Alkhafi Maas Siregar, M. Si., the head of Physics Department, Prof. Dr. rer. Nat. Binari Manurung, M.Si., the coordinator of Bilingual Program. She wishes to acknowledgment Prof. Dr. M. Bangun Harahap, M.S., Dr. Ridwan A. Sani, M.Si., Drs. Pintor Simamora, M.Si., as her examiners, for the valuable suggestions on this thesis. She also thanks to the validators of the research instrument and all lectures of Physics Education Bilingual Program who has become her inspiration during the academic years and this thesis completion.
Special thanks are extended to …. The headmaster of SMA Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi, Physics teacher of grade ten, …… and students of X MIA 4 and X MIA 5 academic year 2014/2015 for the cooperation and attention during the research.
She knows that a friend is the present of God in the earth. She give sweet thanks to Yohana Glorya Tobing for wiping her tears while she was had the heart falls on this thesis starting point, helping her in bad situation and raising up her spirit. She thanks to Nancy Alretni Mendrofa, Afriany Vitaloka Siburian, Elmina Sari Panjaitan, Theresa Margaretta Sirait and guided sister Lastama Sinaga and Oripa Sitohang for all sweet moments in Que Sera Sera a small group. Her deepest thanks go to all of her friends in Sunday School GKPI Sriwijaya Church, especially to Donda Hutauruk, Yohana Hutagalung, Artha Hutagaol, Fransisca Harahap, Elsa Siagian, Fitri Marpaung and Yolanda Hutauruk thanks for laughter, spirit, mercy and pray in our togetherness. Her deepest thanks also go to all great friends in Physics Bilingual Program Year 2011 for their warm friendship, especially to Iis Siswati Siregar, Vini Vidi Vici Batubara, Evi Mariani Mungkur and Yenni Manurung thanks to give me such a relaxation during completion this thesis.
It would be difficult to find adequate words to convey how much she owes the people. Lots of thank to all of you. May God always bless us.
July 2015 The Writer
iii
THE EFFECT OF PROBLEM BASED LEARNING MODEL AND MOTIVATION TO LEARN PHYSICS ON STUDENT’S LEARNING
OUTCOMES OF HEAT AND TEMPERATURE TOPIC IN CLASS X SMA NEGERI 1 TEBING TINGGI
ACADEMIC YEAR 2014/2015
AGNES MAWAR YUNITA SIHOMBING ( 4113121004 )
ABSTRACT
The objectives of this research are: (1) To know difference of Problem based Learning model and Direct Instruction model to students learning outcomes in Heat and Temperature in SMA N 1 Tebing Tinggi class X Academic Year 2014/2015. (2) To determine the differences of student’s that have high motivation and low motivation in the subject matter Heat and Temperature using Problem based Learning Model and Direct Instruction in Class X SMA N 1 Tebing Tinggi, Academic Year 2014/2015 (3) To know the interaction between Problem based Learning model and motivation to learn physics.
The type of research was quasi experiment with the population all of student in class X of Science Program even semester in SMA N 1 Tebing Tinggi which consist of 7 classes. Sample of this research was obtained by technique cluster random sampling. The sample is X IPA 4 as the experiment class and X IPA 5 as the control class. Experiment class taught by Problem Based Learning model and control class taught by direct instruction. The research instrument has 5 questions in essay test, the instrument tested validated. The hypothesis testing uses ANOVA 2x2 and Correlation test with SPSS 17.0 software.
Based on result and data analyze, the conclusion are: 1. There is different of Problem based Learning model and Direct Instruction model to students learning outcomes. 2. There is different of student’s that have high motivation and low motivation in Problem based Learning Model and Direct Instruction. 3 There is interaction between Problem based Learning model and motivation to learn physics.
vi
1.2 The Problem Identification 3
1.3 The Problem Limitation 4
1.4 The Problem Formulation 4
1.5 The Objective of Research 5
1.6 The Benefit of Research 5
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Theoretical Framework 6
2.1.1 Learning Definition 6
2.1.2 Learning Activities 7
2.1.3 Learning Outcomes 7
2.2 Learning Model 9
2.2.1 Problem Based Learning Model 9 2.2.1.1 The understanding and characteristics of PBL 9 2.2.1.2 Theoretical and Empirical Support 11
vi
2.2.3.3 Self Efficacy 18
2.3 Learning Material 19
2.4 Conceptual Framework 21
2.5 Hypothesis 22
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
3.1 Location and Time Research 23 3.2 Population and Sample of Research 23 3.2.1 Population of Research 23
3.2.2 Sample of Research 23
3.3 Research Variable 23
3.4 Kind and Design of Research 24
3.5 The Research Procedure 24
3.6 Research Instrument
3.6.1 Instrument of Learning Outcomes 27 3.6.2 Learning Motivation Instrument 27 3.7 Technique of Data Collection 28 3.8 Technique of Data Analysis 28
3.8.1 Normality Test 28
3.8.2 Homogeneity Test 28
3.8.3 Analysis Varians (ANAVA) Two Ways 29
3.8.4 Correlation Test 30
3.9 Hypothesis Testing 31
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH RESULT AND DISCUSSION 4.1Research result
4.1.1 Pre-test Score of Student in Experiment and Control Class 32 4.1.2 Post-test Score of Student in Experiment and Control Class 33
4.2 Data Analysis 34
4.2.1 Normality Test 34
4.2.2 Homogeneity Test 34
4.2.3 Hypothesis Test 35
4.2.3.1 The first Hypothesis testing 35 4.2.3.2 The second Hypothesis testing 36 4.2.3.3 The third Hypothesis testing 36
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion 42
5.2 Suggestion 42
REFERENCES 43
x
LIST OF TABLE
Table 2.1 The syntax of PBL model 12
Table 2.2 The research with PBL model 13
Table 2.3 The syntax of direct instruction model 15
Table 3.1 Class group pretest-posttest design 24
Table 3.2 Motivation Instrument 28
Table 3.3 Anova Two Ways 29
Table 4.1 Pre-Test and Post test Score in Experiment & Control Class 32
Table 4.2 Normality test of experimental and Control Class 34
Table 4.3 Homogeneity Test of Pre-Test data 34
Table 4.4 Output of Anova factorial 2x2 35
ix
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 2.1 The revised taxonomy in cognitive domain 8
Figure 3.1 The overview of research planning. 26
xi
LIST OF APPENDIX
Appendix 1 Lesson Plan for Experiment Class 44
Appendix 2 Lesson Plan for Control Class 53
Appendix 3 Lesson Plan for Control Class 61
Appendix 4 Lesson Plan for Control Class 71
Appendix 5 Specification Table Of Learning Pre Test 77
Appendix 6 Learning Pre Test 79
Appendix 7 Specification Table Of Learning Outcomes Test 80
Appendix 8 Learning Outcomes Test 86
Appendix 9 Science Motivation Questionnaire Components 89
Appendix10 Science Motivation Questionnaire Test 90
Appendix 11 Pre-Test and Post test of Experimental Class 91
Appendix 12 Pre-Test and Post test of Control Class 92
Appendix 13 Pre-Test Result of Experimental Class 93
Appendix 14 Pre-Test Result of Control Class 94
Appendix 15 Post Test Result of Experimental Class 95
Appendix 16 Post Test Result of Control Class 96
Appendix 17 Result of Physics Motivation Questionnaire of Exp Class 97
Appendix 18 Result of Physics Motivation Questionnaire of Cont Class 98
Appendix 19 Normality Test of Pre-Test in Experimental Class 99
Appendix 20 Normality Test of Post-Test in Experimental Class 100
Appendix 21 Normality Test of Pre-Test in Control Class 101
Appendix 22 Normality Test of Post-Test in Control Class 102
Appendix 23 Homogeneity Test 103
Appendix 24 Hypothesis Test in Anova factorial 2x2 104
Appendix 25 Hypothesis Test in Correlation Test 105
Appendix 26 Documentation 106
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research Background
Education is one of the factors to support the progress of a country. Therefore, to improve the quality of education in Indonesia has issued in BSNP (Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan). Based on this condition, perhaps that the students have a good learning outcomes. But the fact, it isn’t same with the expectation. As the research observation result at SMAN 1 Tebing Tinggi, the learning outcomes especially in Physics is not maximum yet. It can be seen from the results of daily exams with the Kriteria ketuntasan Minimum (KKM) value of physics is 75, while the students that are able to achieve only about 30%.
The government is trying to advance education in Indonesia. These efforts can be seen from the 9-years compulsory education by providing BOS (Bantuan Operasional Sekolah) funds and also give teachers more salary by provide certification to professional teachers. In fact, the physics teachers in SMAN 1 Tebing tinggi already teachers certification, but still can’t handle the student outcomes and still use teacher-centered learning or usually called direct instruction model.
Based the results of the survey, students whom value under the KKM must do remedial. The remedial was given only a test without giving the matter of learning. Writer proposed the implementation of remedial not only do repeated tests, but teacher must repeat the subject matter again so the student who doesn’t have understand would be understood. However, the implementation of remedial, of course, will require additional time and made a new problem when the implementation schedule for the semester will end and change with the next semester and teachers are required to immediately resolve an administration preaches it.
2
front of class and student only listening and take a notes, learning just focuses to physics equations and calculations than explain the basic concepts, teacher doesn’t tell the relationship of physics with daily life, and the physics problems in daily life, so that students consider that physics is the hardest lesson and so difficult to understand.
Problems above are need to overcome by develop a learning model that can improve student learning outcomes and seek student become active so in learning student not only receive what the teacher explain but also student can understand the real physics concept and no trouble in resolving the problem. The learning model must also be able to increase the motivation of students in learning. Problem-based learning (PBL) is an example of a student-centered learning environment. It was first developed in the mid-sixties of the last century in medical education with the aim to bridge the gap between what was learned in school and relevance for future professional practice. In PBL, small groups of students work together on meaningful problems under the guidance of a tutor, according to Barrows in Wijnia,L., (2014)
A PBL cycle generally consist of three phases: an initial problem description, discuss study phase, and a reporting phase. During the initial discussion, the problem description is usually describes a phenomenon that can be observed in daily life. Students read and discuss the problem by use of prior knowledge and common sense and eventually formulate learning issues for further self-study, which are questions that guide their self-study activities. Afterward students reporting their result discussion.
PBL intends to help promote students’ intrinsic motivation. Impact of motivation on learning of students in education is important. In education the role of motivation is effective on students learning. Due to motivation students do any task and achieve the goal. Motivation increase speed of work and a person is doing everything to achieve goal. Motivation increases the performance of learning.
3
result the problem solving ability of physics using problem based learning model better than problem solving ability of physics using direct instruction. Further research conducted by Grace (2013) result that the student of high learning motivation was better than those who had the low learning motivation with significant value 0,041<0,05. Research of Matthew (2011) concluded that PBL as a method of teaching and practicing science in advantageous for immersing pre-service teachers in stimulating environments of problem solving where curiosity and desire to understand the world are nurtured and talents, interests and skills are fostered. Research by Sezgin, G (2010) concluded that problem based-learning method not only encouraged the students’ deep approach to based-learning, but also improved interest (a component of attitude) towards the physics course. Becerra,et al.,2010 concluded that students who following the PBL can develop scientific reasoning habits in problem solving kills, and show gains in conceptual learning, attitudes and interest.
Based on the description above, the writer wants to apply PBL to see the effect in the class, whether good or not. The writer will do the research which the title is: “The Effect of Problem Based Learning Model and Motivation to Learn Physics on Learning Outcomes of Heat and Temperature Topic in Class X SMA Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi Academic Year 2014/ 2015.”
1.2 The Problem Identification
Based on the background issue, the problem identification are : 1. Physical ability in student learning outcomes is relative low.
2. The creative thinking of students in learning physics is relative low. 3. Spend a lot of time to repeat the lesson materials on students who get a
low value (under KKM).
4. Students does not active in the teaching and learning activities.
5. Students are mostly just remember the formula not understanding a lesson.
4
7. The learning process is still centered on the teacher so that teaching and learning are less meaningful.
8. Teachers just give a matter without give student opportunity to ask the question.
9. Lack of teacher's intuition to create a good learning model.
10. Incomplete laboratory facilities and teachers who have not been adept at using the tools in the laboratory.
1.3 The Problem Limitation
The problem limitation in this research are :
1. Physical ability in student learning outcomes is relative low. 2. The creative thinking of students in learning physics is relative low. 3. The learning process is still centered on the teacher so that teaching
and learning are less meaningful.
1.4 The Problem Formulation
To make research brief that can be used as reference, so the problem statement is made as below:
1. Is the student’s outcomes that taught by problem based learning model significant better than the student’s outcomes that taught by direct instruction model?
2. Is the student’s outcomes that taught by high motivation significant better than low motivation?
3. How does the interactive of problem based learning with the learning motivation to student outcomes?
1.5 The Objective of Research
5
1. To determine whether there are significant better of the student’s outcomes that taught by problem based learning model than the student’s outcomes that taught by direct instruction model.
2. To determine whether there are significant better of the student’s outcomes that taught by high motivation than the student’s outcomes that taught by low motivation.
3. To investigate the interactive of problem based learning model with the learning motivation to the student outcomes.
1.6 The Benefit of Research
1. Practical Uses
a. To express the effect of problem based learning model towards student outcomes
b. To inform teachers in senior high school factors to increase learning motivation and student outcomes
c. To inform teacher in SMA N 1 Tebing Tinggi use the Problem Based Learning model to increase learning motivation and student outcomes
2. Theoretical Benefits
43
REFFERENCE
Arends and Ann Kilcher. (2010). Teaching for Student Learning. New York: Routledge.
of Glick, M. & Holyoak, K. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.
of Pintrich, P.R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
Arends, R. (2012). Learning to Teach 9th Edition. New York: Mc Graw-Hill Companies.
of Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
Cecil, D., Ann R (1989). Teaching Students with Learning Problems. America: Merrill Publishing Company
Glynn & Koballa. (2006). Handbook of College Science Teaching. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
of Csikszentmihalyi. “Flow: Beyond boredom and anxiety”. In
Gray & MacBlain. 2011. An Introduction to Learning Theories Ch-01. SAGE eBooks.
Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2008). Models of teaching (8th ed.). Boston: MA: Allyn & Bacon.
ii
BIOGRAPHY
Agnes Mawar Yunita Sihombing was born on June 16th, 1993 in Medan,
Sumatera Utara. Her father’s name is J. Sihombing and her mother’s name is L. Simbolon. She is the first child of the three children in her family. She and family member moved to Langsa, Aceh and started her education in. She graduated from Bhayangkari Kindergarten Langsa, then continuing her primary school in SD N 3 Langsa and graduating in 2005. In the same year, continuing her junior high school from SMP N 1 Langsa. After graduated in 2008, she continuing her study at SMA N 1 Langsa and finished in 2011.
She continued her undergraduate degree at State University of Medan in 2011 after passing through SNMPTN selection on Physics Education Study Program and got selected for Bilingual class at the same year by TOEFL selection, which made her become a part of Physics Education Bilingual Program. During her university year, she attended several activities and joining several organizations as Ikatan Keluarga Besar Kristen Fisika (IKBKF), Unit Kegiatan Mahasiswa Kristen Protestan (UKMKP) FMIPA, she become a part of a few service in GKPI Sriwijaya church, she also become a part of concert The
Story of Buku Ende by Svara Sacra Choir in 2013, and she had been a tentor about
