The Implementation of Problem Solving Methods in Increasing The Creative Thinking Ability
III. RESULT AND DISCUSSION Description of Implementation Learning Model
This research was conducted in SMA PGII 1 Bandung class 10th Grade Semester 2 Academic Year 2013-2014, by using two classes which consisted of 1 experiment class and 1 control class. For the experiment class, the first class was given problem solving method, while the control class was given conventional learning method.
On the first class which got problem solving treatment, students were given pre test in the first meeting.
Furthermore, the problem solving method was given in second meeting until the fourth meeting. Post test was given in the fifth meeting. Students were divided into groups.
Each group consisted of 7 students. Furthermore, each group was given a worksheets that had to be discussed guide by the teacher. After the discussion had finished, students were given a chance to present theri discussion result. This was intended to improve students’ creative thinking skills in the learning process and make them brave to present their discussion result in front of the class. To motivate them in the learning process, teacher gave an appreciation to the best group. Meanwhile the control class was given a treatment in conventional method (lecturing).
Students’ involvement in learning process can improve their creative thinking skills to the material given. Moreover, it can help students to achieve learning competence. Hence, the appropriate learning method is needed.
Description Student Response To Using Method
From the research result, each students from the experiment group ware asked to to give their response to the learning method done in the class room.
Problem solving method is a learning method used by teachers in this research. This learning method is seen as the learning method which is not boring rather than conventional method. Because, in this method, teacher teaches by help of interesting media or teaching aids.
Students become more motivated to get involved directly, because in problem solving method teacher gives the problems that have to be solved by the students so they become more challenged to find alternatives in solving that problems. In the learning process, students are not only writing and listening but also getting invloved actively.
Hence they can understand and comprehend the materials.
Table 4 shows the students’ response to teh problem solving method.
TABLE IV
STUDENT RESPONSE OF PROBLEM SOLVING METHODS Respon
Siswa Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
1 2 3 4 5
No 10 28,6 8 22,9 5 14,3 9 25,7 17 48,6
Yes 25 71,4 27 77,1 30 85,7 26 74,3 18 51,4
Total 35 100 35 100 35 100 35 100 35 100
6 7 8 9 10
No 7 20 5 14,3 13 37,1 11 31,4 5 14,3
Yes 28 80 30 85,7 22 62,9 24 68,6 30 85,7
Total 35 100 35 100 35 100 35 100 35 100
11 12 13 14 15
No 10 28,6 3 8,6 12 34,3 20 57,1
Yes 35 100 25 71,4 32 91,4 23 65,7 15 42,9
Total 35 100 35 100 35 100 35 100 35 100
(Source: Student Questionnaire Response, Data processed)
In Table 4., the whole response given is positive. It is proven by many students answering “Yes” to each of the question. However, their response to item 5 and 15 shows negative response that they mostly answer “No”.
Item 5 is about their response to the method used by teacher wheteher it is boring or not and 48,6% students say it is boring. It is because they are still hard to identify the problem and question given by teacher.
About students’ interest in learning economics after the learning process (response no.15), it shows lower percentage that is 42,9% for interested students and 57,1% for those who are not interested in economics subject. The students’ uninterest to economics subject is because they see economics as the hard subject even though their teacher has gave them motivation during the learning process.
The Results Pretest and Posttest on the experiment class which use Problem Solving Method and Control Class Which Use Conventional Teaching Method
Table 5 shows the value pretest and posttest for the basic competencies tested in experiment class which using solving problems method. It show the average score from 19.69 into 40.46. Whereas, the average score’s improvement from pretest to posttest value is 0.25778. It means that the improvement is categoriez low.
TABLE 5
RESULTS OF PRETEST AND POSTTEST IN EXPERIMENTS THAT USE CLASS LEARNING METHOD PROBLEM SOLVING AND CLASS
CONTROLS The Number
of Student
Average Values
Pretest Posttest N-Gain
35 19,69 40,46 0,25778
37 19,84 23,22 0,03638
The data in Table 5 shows the average value of pretest and posttest for the basic competencies tested in control classes using conventional method showed an increase of 19.84 into 23.22. However, increase in the value pretest and posttest only for 0.03638. That is, increasing the value of the low category.
Normality Test
In this research, normality test was done to know whether pre test result and post test result is distributed normal or not. Normality test was done by Kolmogorov- Sminov test which is analyzed with SPSS 21. The testing criteria is if significance score is (sig) > 0,05 then the data is distributed normal and if significance score is (sig) < 0,05, then data is not distributed normal.
TABLE VI
RESULTS NORMALITY TEST VALUE PRETEST AND POSTTEST
Group Kolmogorov - Smirnova Shapiro - Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Pre PS 1 ,173 17 ,185 ,915 17 ,122
2 ,179 17 ,153 ,925 17 ,177
Post PS 1 ,171 17 ,198 ,933 17 ,242
2 ,124 17 ,200* ,945 17 ,379
Pre control 1 ,164 17 ,200* ,925 17 ,177
2 ,145 17 ,200* ,940 17 ,319
Post control 1 ,207 17 ,052 ,911 17 ,104
2 ,153 17 ,200* ,901 17 ,071
In this research, normality test was done to know whether pre test result and post test result is distributed normal or not. Normality test was done by Kolmogorov- Sminov test which is analyzed with SPSS 21. The testing criteria is if significance score is (sig) > 0,05 then the data is distributed normal and if significance score is (sig) < 0,05, then data is not distributed normal.
Homogeneity test
Homogeneity test is done to check whether the scores have homogeny variety or not. The testing criteria is i(sig)>
0.05, then the data is homogen.
Based on the homogeneity test, for pretest and posttest experiment class and control class, it show that the significance is (sig) > 0.05. Which means that the data is homogen.
TABLE VII
TEST OF HOMOGENEITY OF VARIANCES Levene
Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
Pre PS ,517 1 33 ,477
Post PS 1,102 1 33 ,301
Pre control 1,406 1 33 ,244
Post control ,006 1 33 ,937
Result of Hypothesis Test
The first hypothesis is about the improvement found in students’ creative thinking skills using problem solving method after the treatment. Data analysis was done by SPSS 21 program. The summary can be seen from Table 8.
TABLE VIII FIRST HYPOTHESIS The
Number of Student
Average Correlation t P- value Pre
PS 35 19,6857
0, ,419 -17,758 0,000 Post
PS 35 40,4571
In Table 8., it appears that an increase in the average value of pretest to posttest average value that is equal to 40.4571 19.6857 become. Such increase shows that the use of problem solving methods can enchance students' ability to think creatively. This is supported by the data shown in Table 8 that the gauge of the correlation value of 0.419 and gauge t arithmetic is -17.758 with P-value less than 0.05. That is, the first hypothesis can be accepted that there
is an increase in creative thinking abilities of student problem solving methods after treatment.
The second hypothesis is that there are differences increase creative thinking abilities of student problem solving methods and conventional teaching methods after treatment. Data processing was performed using SPSS 21.0.
Summary of the processing results can be seen in Table 9.
TABLE IX SECOND HYPOTHESIS The
Numbers Of Student
Average t
Eta Squared
P- value
(2- tailed)
N-Gain PS 35 0,2578
10,421 0,606 0,000 N-Gain
Conventional 37 0,0364
In Table 9 The average value of N-Gain for method problem solving is greater than the average value of N-Gain control classes are 0.2578 and 0.0364. These results suggest that the ability of creative thinking of students who studied with the problem solving methods is significantly higher than students who are taught using conventional teaching method. This supported by the data in Table 9. Gauge t value to the value of 10.421 to the value of significance test (2- tailed) 0.000. That is, H0, the test results significantly.
Improving the ability of creative thinking of students studying teaching methods problem solving higher than the control classes are taught using conventional teaching method. The second research hypothesis is accepted.
The gauge of the effect of the use problem solving methods to improve students’ ability to think creatively in economic subjects indicated by Eta Square value of 0.606.
That is an increase in creative thinking abilities of students in economic subject by 60.6%.
Discussion of Research Result (the qualitative value of the use of problem solving and data were added)
The Comparison of Students’ Creative Thinking Abilities Before and After Using Problem Solving Methods
From the research there are difference increase creative thinking abilities of students using problem solving method before and after treatment. This is evidenced by the results of the posttest experiment class problem solving method at 40.45 from pretest results that only amounted to 19.68.
While the control class that uses the conventional method results of a pretest posttest at 23.21 at 19.83. This situation
shows that there are a significant increase of the experiment class as expected.
Based on the results of data processing using SPSS 21, the effect of the use of problem solving methods to improve students' ability to think creatively of 60.6%, these figures suggest there is a significant improvement in the ability of creative thinking of students by using problem solving method.
Because of using problem solving methods, students not only listen to the explanation of the teacher alone, but are required to be able to identify and formulate problems and find alternative solutions, so as to conclude an alternative to solve the problems that it faces. Students gain a variety of experience in solving a problem, which requires students to be able to construct or generate ideas and concepts in economics lesson. As revealed by Sanjaya (2010: 220) that:
Problem solving can help students to develop new knowledge and responsibly in the learning they do. In addition, that solution can also be pushed to perform well against its own evaluation results and the learning process.
The problem solving method is seen as the new method for the student’ and is not a boring method, moreover if it is supported by the use of fun media or other teaching aids.
Students will be motivated to better understand and explore the subject matter of economics. The interest of students towards economic subjects will be able to enhance the students' ability to think creatively. As revealed by Momon Sudarma (2013: 48) that the learning model that stimulates students to be able to think critically and creatively one of them is a model based learning problem solving (problem solving based learning).
The result of questionnaire about the implementation about implementation of the method used by teacher during the teaching process and the use of teaching aids or fun media (questionnaire items 3 and 6) shows a quite high result of 85.7% and 80% of 35 students who answered "yes".
It means that teacher is required to be smart in choosing and using in the interesting method for the students so it can reduce students’ boredom during the teaching learning process. The use of interesting teaching aids or media must be done to increase the curiousity, interest, motivation, and especially to improve students; creative thinking skill once they decide an alternative to solve the problem they face.
Data from the questionnaire responses provided by the teacher to the students about the problem set by the teacher to delve curiosity of students to the problems submitted and the guidance of teachers to students while discussions were taking place (questionnaire items 7 and 10) showed similar results, namely 85.7% of 35 students who answered "yes". It means that the problem set by the teacher to the student should be the kind of problems that can dig up the curiosity of students to the problem. Problems must be given to issues relating to daily life that may be experienced by students so that students are required to think more creatively in order to seek to find alternatives and choose the most appropriate alternative and suitable for the problem. Guidance teachers during these discussions are very important in order to explore the ability of students in looking for alternatives and determine the appropriate alternative to solve the problem of
the teacher. Guidance teachers during these discussions will also enhance the pleasure of the subjects submitted by teachers, thus increasing the motivation of students to further explore the curiosity of the material that is being taught.
Data from questionnaire responses provided by the teacher to the students about the opportunities provided by the teacher to the students to ask questions about the material that is poorly understood and back annotation of teachers about the results of group discussions in a way that is easily understood (item 11 and 13) shows the results of 100% and 91, 4% of the 35 students who answered "yes". These results indicate that teachers should provide the opportunity for students to ask questions about things that are poorly understood, so students do not misunderstand the concept and the material being taught teachers. Lack of opportunities given to students to ask the teacher can lead to the achievement of the concept and the material on the students were only partially or not as expected. Explanation returned by the teacher about the results of group discussions in a way that is easily understandable to be able to improve memory students about the material results of discussions, more than the explanation of the result of proper discussion will encourage students to discover and define concepts, theories, nor the correct ideas about the material or problems given and to encourage students to be more active and creative thinking in solving a problem.
IV. CONCLUSION
Generally, from the research result it can be the concluded that the implementation of problem solving methods is a learning method that can be used to in improving the students' creative thinking skills.
Specifically, based on the research question, proposed hypothesis, research result, and explained description, it can be concluded that :
1. The improvement is found in students’ creative thinking skill who use problem solving before and after the treatment. It means that problem solving method can improve the students’ creative thinking skills in economics subject.
2. There are different improvement found in the students’
creative thinking skills who use problem solving and conventional learning method after treatment. It means that students’ creative thinking skills who use problem solving is higher than the students’ creative thinking skills who use conventional learning method.
REFERENCES
[1] S. M. Metev and V. P. Veiko, Laser Assisted Microtechnology, 2nd ed., R. M. Osgood, Jr., Ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1998.
[2] Adji, Wahyu. (2007). Ekonomi Untuk SMA/MA Kelas X. Jakarta:
Erlangga.
[3] Ahmadi, Abu dan Joko Tri Prasetya. (1997). SBM Strategi Belajar Mengajar Untuk Fakultas Tarbiyah Komponen MKDK. Bandung : Pustaka Setia.
[4] Amir, Taufiq. (2010). Inovasi Pendidikan Melalui Problem Based Learning Bagaimana Pendidik Memberdayakan Pemelajar di Era Pengetahuan. Jakarta: Kencana.
[5] Arikunto, Suharsimi. (2010). Prosedur Penelitian Suatu pendekatan dan Praktek. Jakarta : Rineka Cipta.
[6] ---. (2013). Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan Edisi 2. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
[7] Djamarah, Syaiful Bahri dan Aswan Zain (2002). Strategi Belajar Mengajar. Jakarta : Rineka Cipta.
[8] Djarwanto Ps. (1996). Mengenal Beberapa Uji Statistik Dalam Penelitian. Yogyakarta : Liberty.
[9] Filsaime, Dennis K. (2008). Menguak Rahasia Berpikir Kritis dan Kreatif. Jakarta: Prestasi Pustakaraya.
[10] Fisher, Robert and Mary Williams. (2004). Unlocking Creativity.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data.
[11] Gulo, W. (2002). Strategi Belajar Mengajar. Jakarta : Grasindo.
[12] Hamza, & Kimberly G. Griffith. Fostering Problem Solving &
Creative Thinking in the Classroom: Cultivating a Creative Mind!.
Tersedia [Online] : http://www.nationalforum.com/
[13] Helmut R Lang, and David N. Evans. (2006). Models, Strategies, and Methods For Effective Teaching. Pearson Education.
[14] Jack R. Frankel dan Norman E. Wallen. (1993). How To Design And Evaluate Research In Education Second Edition. The McGraw Hills Companies.
[15] Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (November 2012).
Pengembangan Kurikulum 2013. Tersedia [Online] : http://www.kemdikbud.go.id.
[16] KOMPAS ONLINE. Tersedia [Online]: http://www.kompas.com [17] Kusnendi. (2013). Skala Pengukuran dan Teknik Analisis Data
Dalam Penelitian Non Eksperimen dan Eksperimen. Bandung:
Universits Pendidikan Indonesia.
[18] Kyung Hee Kim. The Creativity Crisis: The Decrease in Creative Thinking Scores on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking.
Tersedia [Online] :
http://kkim.wmwikis.net/file/view/Kim_2011_Creativity_crisis.pdf [19] Lorin W. Anderson dan David R. Krathwohl. (2010). Kerangka
landasan Untuk Pembelajaran, Pengajaran, dan Asesmen.
Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
[20] Majid, Abdul. (2013). Strategi Pembelajaran. Bandung: Rosdakarya.
[21] Matt Baker, Rick Rudd, Carol Pomeroy. Relationships Between Critical and Creative Thinking. Tersedia [Online]: Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
[22] Mulyasa, E. (2013). Pengembangan dan Implementasi Kurikulum 2013. Bandung: Rosda Karya.
[23] Noer, Sri Hastuti. Kemampuan Berpikir Kratif Matematis dan Pembelajaran Matematika Berbasis Masalah Open-Ended. Tersedia [Online] : http://www. ejournal.unsri.ac.id
[24] Paul Eggen dan Don Kauchak. (2012). Strategi dan Model Pembelajaran Mengajarkan Konten dan Keterampilan Berpikir Edisi Keenam. Jakarta: PT. Indeks Permata Puri Media.
[25] Richard I. Arends. (2007). Learning To Teach Belajar Untuk Mengajar Edisi Ketujuh. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
[26] Riduwan. (2012). Pengantar Statistika. Bandung : Alfabeta.
[27] Rusman. (2010). Model-Model Pembelajaran Mengembangkan Profesionalisme Guru. Jakarta : RajaGrafindo Persada.
[28] S, Alam. (2006). Ekonomi Untuk SMA dan MA Kelas X. Jakarta : ESIS.
[29] Safari. (2008). Analisis Butir Soal. Jakarta : Asosiasi Pengawas Sekolah Indonesia, Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.
[30] Sanjaya, Wina. (2011). Strategi Pembelajaran Berorientasi Standar Proses Pendidikan. Jakarta: Kencana.
[31] Siregar, Eveline dan Hartini Nara. (2010). Teori Belajar dan Pembelajaran. Bogor: Ghalia Indonesia.
[32] Siswono, Tatag Yuli Eko. Upaya Meningkatkan Kemampuan Berpikir Kreatif Siswa Melalui Pengajuan Masalah. Tersedia [Online]:
http://tatagyes.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/paper05_problemposing.
[33] Sudarma, Momon. (2013). Mengembangkan Keterampilan Berpikir Kreatif. Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo Persada
[34] Sugianto. (2012). Mengolah Data Bisnis Dengan SPSS 20. Jakarta:
Elex Media Komputindo.
[35] Sugiyono. (2012). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta.
[36] Suyono, dan Hariyanto. (2011). Belajar dan Pembelajaran Teori dan Konsep Dasar. Bandung : Rosdakarya.
[37] Torrance, E. Paul. (1995). Why Fly A Philosophy of Creativity.
Ablex Publishing Corporation.
[38] Yamin, Martinis. (2012). Desain Baru Pembelajaran Konstruktivistik. Jakarta: Referensi.