Application of Active Learning Model Using Go_Drill Method to Increase Student Achievement

(1)

8 3 (1) (2020) 8-15

Journal of Curriculum Indonesia

http://hipkinjateng.org/jurnal/index.php/jci

Application of Active Learning Model using Go_Drill Method as An Efforts to Increase Student Achievement

Neni Kusuma Nugraheni^

SMP Negeri 5 Karanganyar, Indonesia

Info Articles

____________________

History Articles:

Submitted 28 November 2019 Revised 11 January 2020 Accepted 1 February 2020

____________________

Keywords:

active learning model, go_drill method, increase student achievement

_________________________

Abstract

________________________________________________________________

The purpose of this study was to determine the application of the active learning model with the Go_Drill method as an effort to improve student achievement in class VII students of Informatics subject matter in computational thinking in SMP Negeri 5 Karanganyar and to improve student learning outcomes in class VII in Informatics subject matter Computational thinking in SMP Negeri 5 Karanganyar.

The research used in this research is the term classroom action research in English is Classroom Action Research. Classroom action research is research conducted by teachers in their classrooms through self-reflection in order to improve their performance so that students' learning outcomes improve. This class action research is an examination of learning activities in the form of an action, which is deliberately raised and occurs in a class together. This study concluded that the application of active learning using the Go_Drill method (exercise) in completing computational thinking material making brochures with Microsoft word applications in accordance with the learning steps using the Go_Drill method (exercise) that has been applied in the learning scenario. by using the Go_Drill (exercise) method in active learning in informatics learning it turns out that it can improve the learning outcomes of grade VII students of SMP Negeri 5 Karanganyar. This is indicated in the increase in the final results of the activity of students in each cycle, namely the percentage of percentage of 58.75%, with an average of 47.06 learning outcomes. In the first cycle, the percentage of students' activeness was 75%, the average learning outcome was 70.59. In cycle II the percentage of students' activeness was 81.25%, the average learning outcome was 85.29.

 Address correspondence:

Email: [email protected] e-ISSN 2549-0338

(2)

Neni Kusuma Nugraheni et al. / Journal of Curriculum Indonesia 3 (1) (2020)

9 INTRODUCTION

Learning activities are the core of overall educational activities. In the process, this activity involves the interaction of individuals namely teachers on the one hand and students on the other. Both interact in a process called teaching and learning as well. In order for an effective and efficient learning process to occur, the behavior involved in the process should be dynamically well-informed. Teachers (teachers) should be able to realize teaching behavior appropriately in order to be able to produce learners' learning behavior through effective teaching and learning interactions in conducive teaching and learning situations.

Informatics content is an important component of modern education in many countries. Because there are 10 important skills needed in industry 4. 0 that must be mastered in the Informatics. The 10 skills are: Complex problem solving, Critical Thinking, Creativity, People Management, Coordinating with others, Emotional Intelligence, Judgment and decision making, Service orientation, Negotiation, Cognitive Flexibility. The way to implement Computational Thinking is to understand the problem, gather all the data, then start looking for solutions according to the problem. In Computational Thinking, there is something called decomposition, which is we break down a complex problem into small problems to be solved.

The 2019/2020 learning year is the first year in which Informatics subjects will be structured to be taught to students. As an initial

step, in accordance with the mandate of the Ministry of Education and Culture No. 35 of 2018, Informatics at the junior secondary level will be implemented as an optional subject, namely "Craft and / or Informatics". If you look at the birth experience of ICT subjects as MANDATORY subjects in 2006 (KTSP 2006) which were preceded by the presence of ICT / Computer subjects in 2004 (KBK 2004) in some piloting schools or limited implementation of the KBK. So the Informatics blueprint was designed to be carried out structurally as a compulsory subject starting in 2021 at all levels, whereas for the beginning this was still an elective subject. This is done to welcome the Industrial 4.0 era and to familiarize students with computational thinking as the 4th basic skill that must be mastered by students in addition to reading, writing and arithmetic. As a comparison, India, which has a population of 5 times that of Indonesia in grades 11 and 12, also teaches ICT as an elective subject for preparation for university entry. In grades 11 and 12 students are introduced to and taught Computer Science to students majoring in Natural Sciences while to students majoring in Social Sciences and Humanists or Languages are introduced and taught Informatics with a number of face-to-face hours reaching 8 × 40 minutes per week. Whereas for elementary school level grades 3 to 5 (2 × 40 minutes per week) and grades 6 to 10 (5 × 40 minutes per week) students are introduced to Computer Science and Informatics as subjects MANDATORY as a basis for students to be easier to accept material in grades 11 and 12.

(3)

10

Figure 1. Jam TIK Dunia Learning must be changed into individual

learning, but an alternative learning is needed that allows the fulfillment of individual student needs. Said Hamid Hasan (1996: 8) says that the reality shown in society proves that each individual is involved in collaboration with other individuals in a system. Competition that occurs between individuals is only limited to the system, while success in the system provides more opportunities and guarantees for the success of individuals and their members.

Johnson and Smith (Lie, 2010: 5) suggest that education is a personal interaction between students and interactions between teachers and students. The purpose of the statement is that educational activities are a social process that cannot occur without personal interaction.

Learning is a personal process, but also a social process that occurs when each person relates to the other establishes communication and builds shared knowledge. And the purpose of this research is to find out the application of active learning models and to improve the achievement of students' learning outcomes in grade VII subjects of Informatics subject matter in computational thinking in SMP Negeri 5 Karanganyar. So the researchers took the method that is being viral among the current education about Go, with structured writing features, memory security, and concurrent and

sequential programming. And Drill is a process of teaching skills by practices, each teacher must know the nature of the skills themselves, such as: skills as a refinement of a meaning and not as a result of mere mechanical processes.

METHODS

This study uses classroom action research (CAR), which is action research conducted in class with the aim of improving or improving the quality of learning practices.

This research is a term class action research in English is Classroom Action Research. Classroom action research is research conducted by teachers in their own classes through self-reflection in order to improve performance so that student learning outcomes increase. This class action research is an examination of learning activities in the form of an action, which is deliberately raised and occurs in a class together. The action is given by the teacher or with direction from the teacher conducted by students.

This class action research was selected using a spiral model from Kemmis and Taggart cited by Suharsimi Arikunto consisting of several cycles of action in learning, based on their reflection on the results of the actions in the previous cycle. In each cycle consists of four

(4)

11 important elements, namely planning, implementation, observation, and reflection.

This class action research procedure consists of 4 stages, in detail as follows:

a. Planning

1) Prepare a learning implementation plan and indicators of research success.

2) Preparing supporting facilities and facilities needed in class.

3) Prepare instruments to record and analyze the process and results of actions.

b. Implementation

The activity carried out in this stage is to implement the action of learning application by using the Drill method (exercise) in solving the problem of fraction operations in increasing the activeness and learning outcomes of students who have been planned.

c. Observation

In this stage an observation is carried out on the implementation of the action.

Researchers prepare observation sheets that have been prepared to determine the condition of the class, especially the learning activities of students that affect the learning outcomes of students in solving fraction operation problems.

In addition, researchers also carry out safeguards against teacher actions in learning.

d. Reflection

The data obtained through observation are collected, analyzed and discussed with collaborators namely mathematics teachers and sought solutions to problems of learning that have taken place. Based on the results of observations teachers can reflect on the application of learning by using the Drill method (exercise) in solving the problem of the fraction value of a number that can increase the activeness of student learning in order to affect the learning outcomes of students in solving the fractional value of a number. The implementation of this research with Kurt Lewis where the components of action and observation are made as one unit.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Before carrying out the next cycle there are several things that can be identified to carry out the actions in cycle 1, namely: a. The implementation of learning is still on one-way communication that is teacher lectures and students only listen; b. Learning in the computer lab space related to learning resources still depends on the lack of experience of children who have not been able to source in books or browse the internet to enrich understanding of concepts; c. The lack of practice time related to the material assignment given to students; d.

The application of one method, namely lectures, makes students bored and students' attention is not focused on one problem.

From the above reflection, there are several solutions to the problems of teaching and learning process in the computer lab room related to student learning outcomes. The problem is then discussed with the partner teacher or collaborator to find the solution or discuss about the learning method that will be applied, namely the Drill method (Exercise).

The solution or the results of the discussion will be applied into an action for the next stage, which is cycle 1.

Cycle I

Implementation in the first cycle has not shown the expected results of using the G0_Drill (exercise) method in computational thinking making brochures using Microsoft word applications. This can be seen from the percentage of students who are active in learning by only 60% (Appendix), while the rest still do not pay attention to what is done by the teacher. They are still chatting, joking with friends next to him and not paying attention to the teacher's explanation. After being given the training material there are still students who do not do the exercise, there are also students who only do a small portion of the exercises given by the teacher and there is still a lot of free space on the worksheet on the monitor screen and many of the students who still ask how to work with their friends so the atmosphere of the computer lab room is still noisy.

(5)

12 In completing the computational thinking exercise material making brochures using the Microsoft word application with the Go_Drill method, the average value achieved is 75.88 (Appendix) which is above the specified standard which is above 75 then it can be said that in the first cycle with computational thinking material making The brochure uses the Microsoft Word application even though it has reached completeness but wants to be improved so that it is better to achieve classical completeness results in the amount of 75% and this is still below the indicators set at 85%. This means that the results achieved in the first cycle did not meet the expected indicators, it is necessary to have a further cycle and improvement of the reflection of cycle I. The unsuccessful cycle I occurred due to several factors namely the planning done by the teacher in the first cycle was still lacking and appeared immature, besides that the teacher is also too fast in explaining the subject matter and not providing guidance and motivation to students.

From observations made thoroughly by the observer it appears that the learning process is still not smooth. Readiness and activeness of students in the computer room is not optimal when giving questions or training material by the teacher. For this reason, it is necessary to improve the implementation of learning in the computer lab. Then the researchers continued in the second cycle with computational thinking material making brochures using Microsoft word applications. Deficiencies in cycle I must be an important consideration for teachers when preparing cycle II. Because cycle II is a refinement of cycle I. And cycle II must be better than cycle I.

From the results of observations in the first cycle phase it can be concluded that students begin to have an increase in learning readiness and activeness in the learning process.

Student activity is an indicator of learning enthusiasm in the learning process. Increased readiness of learning and activeness in the learning process can be shown from the percentage of the results of the assessment of the activeness of students in participating in

learning that is equal to 60% (Appendix) and has increased from the percentage value of the pre-cycle stage but still below the stipulated provision of 75%.

Table 2. Comparison of Percentage of Active Cycle I

Cycle Implementation Percentage (%)

Pre-cycle 58,75

Cycle 1 75

Table 3. Comparison of Average End of Cycle I Tests

Cycle Implementation Average Pre-cycle 59,71

Cycle 1 61,73

Seen from the table above the comparison of activeness and final test results in the pre- cycle stage which still uses the lecture and assignment method of making brochures using the Microsoft word application and cycle 1 using the Go_Drill (exercise) method shows an increase.

Cycle II

In cycle II the teacher has paid more attention and provided better guidance especially for students who have not yet completed in cycle I. In this cycle II the teacher also gave more varied and detailed practice exercises so that the students' thinking power was more developed as a result students were more motivated and accustomed to doing brochure exercises. Besides that in this second cycle students are more active in learning, namely 81.25% (Appendix), this percentage exceeds the predetermined indicator yaitu75%

and from the training given by the teacher, they answer the theoretical questions related to the use or The function of the application icon in Microsoft Word is complete and many are correct.

From the observations of students the following findings were obtained. There has

(6)

13 been an increase in the second cycle that is all the questions that are all practice questions both practice and theory provided by the teacher are done completely by the students and many have been correct even though there are some answers from students who are not quite right (there are still errors) but basically they can pay attention to the explanation from the teacher so students are more able to answer the tests given by the teacher.

In this second cycle students are more active in learning which is equal to 81.25% all because the teacher gives applause and motivation for the results of the test and assesses every student who answers practical or theoretical exercises even though there are few mistakes, and dare to ask and answer questions from the theme itself.

Students can be more responsible for their answers because of the results of their observations are more independent (do not ask their friends). From observations of teachers obtained the following results. The teacher can provide guidance to students who are shy about asking / passive and can provide motivation so that students are more active in asking questions and more daring and skilled at doing exercises on the computer.

From the results of observations in the second cycle phase it can be concluded that almost all students are actively involved in the learning process. Almost all students are actively involved in asking questions, writing when there is information or new information received from the teacher or from other sources, completing assignments or exercises vigorously and independently in learning Informatics in the computer lab room. So that the learning process does not depend entirely on the teacher and they try to find as much information from the internet or with their friends to be discussed in the computer lab room or the problems they face are ready to be asked to the teacher.

Students' enthusiasm for learning when compared with the pre-cycle stage and cycle 1 has experienced an increase.

Table 4. Comparison of the percentage of active learning cycle II

Cycle implementation Percentage (%)

Pre-cycle 58,75

Cycle I 75

Cycle II 81,25

In connection with the results of the final test conducted at the end of learning in the second cycle it was found that the average test results in the second cycle was 81.25 which was above the specified standard which was above 75. From the data obtained in the first cycle there were 10 students who were not complete.

Different from before, for cycle II there are two students who have not yet finished. Namely, Indra Cahyadi and Yofi Mardiyan, each of which has a score of 62 and 65. However, it is an advantage to these students that they still have the will to go to school and study even though obstacles still always exist both from individual factors and from outside the individual.

Table 5. Comparison of the percentage of active learning cycle II

Cycle implementation Average Pre-cycle 47,06

Cycle 1 70,59 Cycle 2 85,29

Viewed from the table above the comparison of learning enthusiasm and the results of the final test in cycle 1 and cycle II shows an increase in each cycle. After the observation was completed the researcher and the partner teacher as collaborators in Class Action Research in class VII F of SMP Negeri 5 Karanganyar then held a discussion related to the implementation of learning activities using the Go_Drill method (training) in the second cycle phase. The results of the discussion relate to the discussion of the results of actions from the pre-cycle, cycle 1 and cycle II stages,

(7)

14 namely: An increase in students' learning activeness from the pre cycle, cycle I and cycle II stages.

Final test results also show improvement from the pre-cycle, first cycle and second cycle stages.

The Go_Drill method (exercise) turns out to be able to increase the activeness and learning outcomes of students in learning computational thinking material making brochures using Microsoft word applications. In other words, the more varied method of Go_Drill (exercise) can increase the activeness and learning outcomes of students. So it can be said that the steps taken by the teacher in applying the Go_Drill method (exercise) are the right steps.

CONCLUSION

The application of active learning using the Go_Drill method of exercise) in completing computational thinking material making brochures with the Microsoft word application in accordance with the learning steps using the Go_Drill method (exercise) that has been applied in the learning scenario. by using the Go_Drill (exercise) method in active learning in informatics learning it turns out that it can improve the learning outcomes of grade VII students of SMP Negeri 5 Karanganyar. This is indicated in the increase in the final results of the activity of students in each cycle, namely the percentage of percentage of 58.75%, with an average of 47.06 learning outcomes. In the first cycle, the percentage of students' activeness was 75%, the average learning outcome was 70.59.

In cycle II the percentage of students' activeness was 81.25%, the average learning outcome was 85.29

REFERENCES

Ahmad Rohani HM dan Abu Ahmadi. (1995).

Pengelolaan Pengajaran. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta

Anita Lie. (2010). Cooperative Learning (Mempraktikan Cooperatif Learning di Ruang-ruang Kelas). Jakarta: Grasindo.

Artz, A. & Newman, C. (1990) How to Use Cooperative Learning in the Mathematics Class. Reston va: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, (online).

Asri Budiningsih, dkk. (2008). Peningkatan Kemampuan Guru SD dalam Menggunakan Model-Model Pembelajaran Inovatif dan Memanfaatkan Media/Sumber-Sumber Belajar. Naskah Publikasi Hasil Kegiatan PPM. Yogyakarta: FIP-UNY.

Dadan Rosana. (2009). Penelitian Tindakan Kelas. Yogyakarta: PGSD UNY.

Isjoni. (2010). Pembelajaran Kooperatif.

Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Kelvin Seifert. (2008). Manajemen Pembelajaran dan Intstruksi Pendidikan, Jogjakarta:

Ircisod

Magisrahayu, (2019). Berpikir Komputasional.

Direktorat Pembinaan Guru Pendidikan Dasar Direktorat Jenderal Guru dan Tenaga Kependidikan Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan

Nana Sudjana, (2007). Ahmad Rivai, Media Penagajaran, (Bandung: Sinar Baru Algensindo

Oemar Hamalik. (2003). Proses Belajar Mengajar.

Jakarta: Bumi Aksara

Permendikbud No 37 Tahun 2018. Kompetensi Inti Dan Kompetensi Dasar Informatika Smp/Mts.

Slavin, Robert E. (2009). Psikologi Pendidikan Teori dan Praktek. Jakartan: PT Indeks.

Suharsimi Arikunto. (2009). Penelitian Tindakan Kelas.Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.

Zainal Aqib. (2009). Penelitian Tindakan Kelas Untuk Guru. Bandung: Yrama Widya.

(8)

15