EFFECT OF CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING (CPS) LEARNING MODEL TO INCREASE THE STUDENT’S LEARNING OUTCOMES ON THE STATIC FLUID TOPIC OF CLASS X SMA NEGERI 3 MEDAN ACADEMIC YEAR 2015/2016.

EFFECT OF CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING (CPS) LEARNING MODEL TO INCREASE THE STUDENT’S LEARNING

OUTCOMES ON THE STATIC FLUID TOPIC OF CLASS X SMA NEGERI 3 MEDAN

ACADEMIC YEAR 2015/2016

By:

Ribka M Tambunan ID. 409322026

Bilingual Physics Education Program

THESIS

Submitted to Acquires Eligible Sarjana Pendidikan

FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

MEDAN 2016

iii

EFFECT OF CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING (CPS) LEARNING MODEL TO INCREASE THE STUDENT’S LEARNING

OUTCOMES ON THE STATIC FLUID TOPIC OF CLASS X SMA NEGERI 3 MEDAN

ACADEMIC YEAR 2015/2016

Ribka M Tambunan (Reg. Number : 4093322026) ABSTRACT

The objectives of this research are: (1) To know the student’s learning outcomes after taught by Creative Problem Solving (CPS) learning model. (2) To know the student’s learning outcomes after taught by Conventional Learning. (3) To know the effect of Creative Problem Solving (CPS) learning model to increase the student’s learning outcomes on Static Fluid Topic of Class X SMAN 3 Medan Academic Year 2015/2016. The research method was quasi experimental. The populations were all of students in class X MIA semester II SMA Negeri 3 Medan that consist of 14 classes. The samples of this research was taken by cluster random sampling technique, class X MIA-9 was experimental class used Creative Problem Solving (CPS) learning model that consist of 47 students, and class X MIA-13 as control class used conventional learning, consist of 43 students. Instruments that used in this research were multiple choice test instrument and psychomotor and affective observation sheet.

The data was got from the test was analyzed by statistical analysis t-test. Based on observation result by using affective and psychomotor observation sheet of students shown that there was significant increasing on experimental class. So, can be conclude that the effect of Creative Problem Solving (CPS) learning model can be increasing the student’s learning outcomes than using the conventional learning on Static Fluid Topic of Class X SMA Negeri 3 Medan academic year 2015/2016. Based on observation that done by observers with using observation sheet of student activity, in experimental class have enough category. So, can be concluded that activity of students in experiment class more active than control class.

Key word: Creative Problem Solving (CPS) learning model, student’s learning outcomes, and student activity.

iv

PREFACE

All praise and give thanks to the presence of the Almighty God Jesus Christ who has give for all the abuntdant mercy and grace that provide health and wisdom to the author that this study can be completed properly in accordance with the planned time.

Thesis entitled "Effectivity of Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Learning Model to Increase the Student Competency in Physics Problem Solving on the Static Fluid Topic of Class X SMA Negeri 3 Medan Academic Year 2015/2016", prepared to obtain a Bachelor's degree of Physics Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science in State University of Medan.

On this occasion the authors like to give thank to Dr. Ridwan A. Sani, M.Si as Thesis Advisor who has provided guidance and suggestions to the author since the beginning of the study until the completion of this thesis writing. Thanks also to Prof. Drs. Motlan Sirait, M.Sc., Ph.D, Dr. Eidi Sihombing, M.S, Dr. Derlina, M.Si, who have provided input and suggestions from the research plan to complete the preparation of this thesis. Thanks also presented to Prof. Dr. Nurdin Bukit, M.Si., as the Academic Supervisor and also the entire Lecturer and Staff in Physics Department FMIPA UNIMED who have helped the author. Appreciation were also presented to Headmaster Drs. Sahlan Daulay, M.Pd, Mrs. Titin Simanjorang, S.Pd., M.Si and all teacher in SMA Negeri 3 Medan who have helped during this research. I would like to thank especially to my father Olo Manaek Tambunan and my mother Tirani br Sihombing and also my sisters, Wisda Wati Tambunan, Dip.Th, Dina Lamtiar Tambunan, Esra Betty Tambunan and my brother Josua Tambunan, and especially to my funny niece Maria Christiani Panjaitan and my funny nephew David Panjaitan and Joy Ferdinant Sinaga and also for all family who have helped and gave me love, faith, pray, encouragement, inspiration, patience and funding to complete the study in Unimed. Especially thanks to all my friends in Bilingual Physics Class 2009, Adek Muhammad R, Astrid Pasadena Hrp, Agnes M, Damanik, S.Pd, Carolina Nainggolan, S.Pd, Dewi Situmorang, Debora B. Sitanggang, S.Pd, Evi V Silalahi,

v

Fetriana Simanihuruk, S.Pd, Gita R. Anugrah, S.Pd, Henriko Hutabarat, Janiar S. Gultom, S.Pd, Jefri S. Wruwu, S.pd, Lucius Marbun, S.Pd, Pretty Ambarita, S.Pd, Rika Yulia, S.Pd, Rita Situmorang, S.Pd, Rani S.N. Damanik, S.Pd, Tionar M. Malau, S.Pd who have helped, prayed and gave supported to author. The author also thanks to members of GKII Pusat Medan (The Church of Victory Faith of Indonesia) especially to the Sector 16 th Medan Barat, Mr. J. Siringo-ringo, Mrs. Silalahi, Mr. Siregar, Mrs. Dina Purba, Miss. Erna Hutagalung, Bro. Valentino Hutagalung, Miss. Rosita Nainggolan, Bro. Yusuf Sembiring, Bro. Ferry Hutabarat, Mrs. Situmorang, Mrs. Sibarani, Miss. Pintauli Sihotang, Fitria R Siringo-ringo, Rini Farida Hutagalung, Elisabeth Lombu, Angel Perangin-angin, who have encouragement and gave love, faith, pray and support to author. And the last but not least, thanks to my unforgettable brother Andreanto Sunarno who has helped, gave supported and gave funding to complete the study in Unimed.

The author has endeavored to as much as possible in completing this thesis, but the author is aware there are many drawbacks in terms of both content and grammar, then the authors welcome any suggestions and constructive criticism from readers for this thesis perfectly. The author hopes the contents of this paper would be useful in enriching the repertoire of knowledge.

Medan, August 2016 Author,

vi

LIST OF CONTENT

Page

Agreement Sheet i

Biography ii

Abstract iii

Preface iv

List of Contents vi

List of Figure ix

List of Table x

List of Appendix xi

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1 Research Background 1

1.2 Problem Identification 6

1.3 Limitation Problem 6

1.4 Problems Formulation 7

1.5 Research Objectives 7

1.6 Research Benefits 7

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Learning Definition 9

2.2 Definition of Learning Model 10

2.3 Learning Purpose 10

2.4 Learning Activities 11

2.5 Learning Outcomes 12

2.6 Definition of Science 13

2.6.1 Importance of Science Teaching 14

2.6.2 Approaching to Science Teaching 15

2.6.3 Process of Science 16

2.7 Conventional Learning Model 17

2.7.1 Step of Conventional Learning 17

2.7.2 The Advantage and Disadvantage of Conventional Learning 18

2.8 Problem Solving Competency 19

2.8.1 Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Learning Model 20

2.8.2 Families of Model of Teaching 22

2.8.2.1 The Imformation Processing Model 23

2.8.2.2 Personal Model 24

2.8.2.3 The Social Interaction Models 24

2.8.2.4 Behavior Modification as a Source 25

vii

2.9 Teaching Material 29

2.9.1 Density 29

2.9.2 Hydrostatic Pressure 29

2.9.3 Pascal’s Law 32

2.9.4 Archimedes Principle 33

2.10 Thinking Frame ork 36

2.11 Action Hypothesis 36

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD

3.1 Research Location and Research Time 37 3.2 Population and Sample of the Research 37

3.2.1 Population of Research 37

3.3.2 Sample of Research 37

3.3 Research ariable 37

3.3.1 Independent ariable 38

3.3.2 Dependent ariable 38

3.4 Type and Research Design 38

3.4.1 Type of Research 38

3.4.2 Design of Research 38

3.5 Research Instrument 39

3.5.1 alidity Test 40

3.6 Research Procedure 40

3.6.1 Observation 42

3.8 Data Analysis Techniques 45

3.8.1 Determine Average alue 45

3.8.2 Determine Standard Deviation 45

3.8.3 Determine ariants 46

3.8.4 Normality 46

3.8.5 Homogenity 47

3.8.6 Hypothesis Test 47

3.9 Indicators of Success 51

CHAPTER IV RESULT OF RESEARCH AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Result of Research 52

4.1.1 Pre-test Score of Student in Experiment and Control Class 53

4.1.2 Data Analysis of Pre-Test 54

4.1.2.1 Normality Test of Pre-Test Data 54 4.1.2.2 Homogeneity test of Pre-test Data 55 4.1.2.3 Hypothesis Test of Pre-test Data 55 4.1.3 Post-Test Score of Students in Experiment Class and Control Class 56

viii

4.1.3.1 Data Analysis of Post-Test 57

4.1.3.2 Normality Test of Post-Test Data 57 4.1.3.3 Homogeneity test of Post-test Data 58 4.1.3.4 Hypothesis Test of Post-test Data 58

4.1.4 Distribution of Bloom’s Taxonomy 59

4.1.5 Observation of student’s learning activities 61

4.2 Discussion 61

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1 Conclusion 69

5.2 Suggestion 70

ix

LIST OF FIGURE

Page

Figure 2.1 Mindset 26

Figure 2.2 Thinking Plot of CPS Learning Models 27 Figure 2.3 U-shaped tube of Hydrostatic Pressure 31

Figure 2.4 Floating Body 33

Figure 2.5 Suspending Body 34

Figure 2.6 Sinking Body 35

Figure 3.1 The Overview of Research Planning 41 Figure 4.1 Column Diagram Pre-test score data in Experiment and

Control Class 54

Figure 4.2 Column Diagram Post-test score data in Experiment and

Control Class 57

Figure 4.3 Diagram of students cognitive ability pre-test 59 Figure 4.4 Diagram of students cognitive ability post-test 60 Figure 4.5 Chart of category values pre-test, post-test and activity 62 Figure 4.6 Graph of Value of the Pre-test to the Value of the

Student’s Activity in experiment class 66 Figure 4.7 Graph of Value of the Post-test to the Value of the

x

LIST OF TABLE

Page Table 2.1 Syntax Problem Based Learning style CPS 21 Table 2.2 The Information Processing Model 23

Table 2.3 Personal Model 24

Table 2.4 The Social Interaction Models 25

Table 2.5 Behavior Modification as a Source 25

Table 3.1 The Design of the Research 38

Table 3.2 The Specification Learning Outcomes Test 39 Table 3.3 Guidelines for scoring observation aspects of student

learning activities in Experimental Class 42 Table 3.4 Student Activity Sheet Observation in Experimental Class 43 Table 3.5 Criteria Assesment of Student’s Activity 43 Table 3.6 Guidelines for Scoring Observation Aspects of Student

Learning Activities in Control Class 44 Table 3.7 Student Activity Sheet Observation in Control Class 44 Table 3.8 Criteria Assessment of Student’s Activity 45 Table 3.9 Determine the Pretest Ability and Posttest Ability 51 Table 4.1 Pretest Score and Post Test Score in Experiment Class and

Control Class 52

Table 4.2 Pre test Data in Experiment Class and Control Class 53 Table 4.3 Normality Test of Pre-test Data in Experiment and Control

Class 54

Table.4.4 Homogeneity Test of Pre-Test Data 55 Table.4.5 Hypothesis Test of Pre-Test Data 55 Table 4.6 Post-Test Data in Experiment Class and Control Class 56 Table 4.7 Normality Test of Post-Test Data in Experiment and

Control Class 57

Table 4.8 Homogeneity Test of Post Test Data 58 Table.4.9 Hypothesis Test of Post-Test Data 58 Table 4.10 Cognitive Abilities of the Students on the Pre-test 59 Table 4.11 Cognitive Abilities of the Students on the Post-test 60 Table 4.12 Recapitulation of Students’ Learning Activities

Observation 63

Table 4.13 Pre-test Value, Student’s Activity Value and Post-test

xi

LIST OF APPENDIX

Page

Appendix 1 Lesson Plan 1 73

Appendix 2 Lesson Plan 2 84

Appendix 3 Lesson Plan 3 95

Appendix 4 Student’s Worksheet I 108

Appendix 5 Student’s Worksheet II 113

Appendix 6 Student’s Worksheet III 117

Appendix 7 Lattice of Research Instrument 123

Appendix 8 Cognitive Research Instrument 130

Appendix 9 Key Answer of Test 134

Appendix 10 Observation of Student Learning Activity Experiment

Class 135

Appendix 11 Observation of Student Learning Activity Control Class 137 Appendix 12 Observation of Student’s Activity in Experiment Class 139 Appendix 13 Observation of Student’s Activity in Control Class 151 Appendix 14 Pretest and Posttest Data in Experimental Class 162 Appendix 15 Pretest and Posttest Data in Control Class 164 Appendix 16 Calculation of Average Score and Deviation Standard in

Experiment Class 166

Appendix 17 Calculation of Average Score and Deviation Standard in

Control Class 168

Appendix 18 Normality Test 170

Appendix 19 Homogeneity Test 175

Appendix 20 Hypothesis Test 178

Appendix 21 Research Documentation 182

Appendix 22 List of Critical Value for Liliefors 187 Appendix 23 List of Area Under Normal Curve 0 to z 188 Appendix 24 List of Percentile Value for Distribution t 189

1

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

Efforts to improve the quality of human resources (HR) are now being promoted by the government. The most important step is done, is by education. Because of education is one of the objectives of the development program in Indonesia that must be taken by all levels of society. In the 1945 law stated that “each citizen is having an authority for teaching”. Education is an integral part of development and progress of a nation. Launching of the nine-year compulsory education is one of the government's efforts to promote the Indonesian nation is far behind the other nations. In Regulation of Constitution No. 20 year 2003 on National Education System, which read is: “Educations is a conscious and deliberate effort to create an atmosphere of learning and the learning process so that learners are actively developing the potential for him to have the spiritual strength of religious, self-control, personality, intelligence, noble character, and skills needed him, society, nation and state”. (Diknas, 2003: 1)

Physics is a universal science that underlie the development of modern technology as well as having an important role in a variety of disciplines and advance the human intellect. Physics is a subjects not only the theories and formulas to memorize, but physics is the understanding and the understanding of the concept of emphasis on the creation of knowledge through a process of discovery and presentation of the data. Physics education emphases to “understand” and “do” thus can help the student to mastery the physics concept and then effecting to student’s learning outcomes.

Problems often occur in learning physics is the weak learning process in class. In general, students tend to be passive so as to make students less thinking develop skills and abilities, and student’s learning outcomes still low. Based on the learning theory proposed by Gagne in Nasution (2003:136), that

2

the high level of intellectual skill competencies can be developed through problem solving. Problem solving is the highest type of the eight types of learning, ie learning signal, stimulus-response learning, chaining, verbal association, discrimination learning, concept learning, rule learning and problem solving. Based on this, it is necessary to develop an appropriate model of physics learning with the learning needs of students and the view on the curriculum, the learning model of Creative Problem Solving (CPS). Creative Problem Solving (CPS) is a model of learning which is centered on problem-solving competency, followed by creativity reinforcement (Pepkin, 2004: 1). The student will facing the situation of questions at the moment, then student should be perform problem-solving competency to select and develop a response competency. Not only by rote without a second thought, the ability of the problem extend students' thinking processes. By using creativity stages to solve the problem, students are expected not only to become a better problem solver, but also will mastery the other skills than students who are directed to perform the exercises alone.

Interaction patterns in one direction from the teacher to the learners results in low student activity and creativity in solving problems in the weak learners. Low mastery of lesson delivery method poses difficulties learners in understanding mathematics instruction so that the resulting reluctance to learn physics (Hudoyo, 1990: ). The paradigm shift is needed to improve the learning process is to change the pattern of Teacher-Centered Approach to Student-Centered Approach (Turmudi, 200 : ) by providing ample opportunities for learners to learn independently and engage learners optimally participation in learning.

The low of student’s learning outcomes in problem solving is requiring attention of teachers in choosing learning model. According to the Isasken, et al (2005:2-4) the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) learning model is a model to help solve the problems and manage change creatively comprising the steps of understanding the problem, generate ideas and prepare action. Creative Problem Solving (CPS) model can be selected to increase the student’s

3

learning outcomes in problem solving. The steps in Creative Problem Solving (CPS) allow teachers studying learners to think creatively and encourage learner’s competency to present and explain their ideas. Students involvement in active learning as well the external motivation is expect the teacher’s creativity in problem solving can be increased. By using Creative Problem Solving (CPS) model in the management of physics learning to give attention to the affective side of the learner is expected to increase the cognitive side and student competency is student learning achievement.

In teaching and learning activities there is interaction or reciprocal relationship between students and teachers, where students receive material taught by teachers. Teachers teach to stimulate, guide the students and directing student, studying teaching materials in accordance with the objectives. The purpose of teaching in general is that the learning materials are delivered fully mastered by all students. In case, mastery of learning outcomes or student learning achievement is obtained. The goal of learning is whether it is strongly influenced by the teaching methods employed by teachers. Teachers as educators should always choose the rigorous of learning method, which is considered more effective than other methods so that the skills and knowledge provided by the teacher that really belong to the students. Appropriate method is expected to more effective the expected achievement of learning objectives. According Hudoyo (1990:1) learning is an activity for everyone. Knowledge skills, habits, and attitudes a person penchant formed, modified and evolved due to learning. Because of person is learning, if it can be assumed in others it becomes a process of events that result in a change in behavior. Activities and efforts to achieve the behavioral changes is moderate learning process itself changes behavior is the result of learning.

The human being can not be separated from the process of learning until whenever and wherever they are learning as well as being a growing need from year to year in accordance with the development of science and technology. Therefore, we need the provision of science and knowledge in the field of Physics with various abilities to obtain, analyze and process

4

information carefully and accurately as well as the ability to solve problems. According to the Suyitno (2001:31) solving the problem is a type of learning that the highest level and complex. In solving the problems is unusual in the life of every human being and everyday ten and twenty times he solved the problem. According to Nasution (200 :139) requires problem solving and connecting ideas using a variety of rules that we have known in different combinations. In solving a problem is often often go through various steps such as knowing every element in the problem, look for the rules relating to the issue and in every step he needed to think. In learning process is often encountered the tendencies of students who do not want to ask though actually do not understand the material being taught by the teacher. Beside that, the student are not involved in problem solving activity during teaching and learning process. The strategy is must be used by teachers to enable students that engage students to active during teaching and learning process. In choosing learning strategies required some consideration, among others, is a state student, the state school, learning environment that supports the advancement of science and technology and social progress in the community, as well as the learning objectives to be achieved.

Experienced researchers when implementing the Integrated Field Experience Program (PPLT) many students who say that physics is a difficult subject to understand because teachers often use conventional learning models and less actively engage students during the teaching and learning activities as such activities and interactions of students are less well thus causing saturation students during teaching takes place, students can only count but do not understand the concept of real physics and lead to results that are less optimal learning outcomes.

Based on observations of physics when Integrated Field Experience Program (PPLT) by distributing questionnaires to 32 students, 54.54% said that it was normal physics lessons, like physics 40.90% 4.54% said they did not like physics. The results of the interviews conducted for teachers of Physics in field experience obtained information that the physical value of the

5

average of all students in grade , as much as 50% of students has not reached the KKM. This is due to the learning of teachers only know the conventional model of learning, where learning is a sequence of conventional lectures, discussion and assignment and Problem Solving engages students in self-selected investigation that enable them to solving and explain real-world phenomena and to construct their own understanding about these phenomena.

In the process of learning involves a variety of activities to do, especially if you want optimal results. One way that can be used in order to obtain optimal results as desired is to put pressure in the learning process. This can be done by choosing one learning model appropriate for the selection of appropriate learning model is essentially an effort to optimize student learning outcomes. One of learning models that allow students to improve thinking skills in solving physics problems instructional model is Creative Problem Solving (CPS), which is an effort to foster creativity and thinking ability of students in solving physics problems.

hat has been explained above, it is reasonable if researchers interested in conducting research with the title "E c o Cr a v Prob So v ng CPS L arn ng Mod o Incr a S ud n ’ L arn ng Ou co on S a c F u d Top c o C a SMA N g r M dan Acad c ar 1 1 ."

6

1. . Prob Id n ca on

Based on the above background, some problems can be identified as follows:

1. Students do not like physics.

2. Students think physics is a difficult subject and less attractive. 3. Student is not fully involve in learning.

4. There are many students that can not solve problems appropriately in learning physics.

5. Low of student’s learning outcomes in learning physics.

6. Student are not involved in problem solving activity during teaching and learning process.

. Physics student learning outcomes are unsatisfactory.

. The results of studying physics under the low minimum completeness criteria.

1. . L a on Prob

Based on the background and the identification of problems, so that needs to be given the limitation of the problem so that it becomes more focused research as the following:

1. Students that observe are high school students grade in SMA Negeri 3 Medan Academic ear 2015/2016.

2. Using Creative Problem Solving (CPS) learning model in the experimental class and conventional learning in the control class on Static Fluid Topic of Class SMAN 3 Medan Academic ear 2015/2016.

3. Conducted to determine the effect of Creative Problem Solving (CPS) learning model on student’s learning outcomes.

1. . Prob For u a on

Based on the background of the problem and the extent of the problem above, the research questions in this study were:

1. How the student’s learning outcomes after taught by Creative Problem Solving (CPS) learning model?

2. How the student’s learning outcomes after taught by Conventional Learning?

3. How does the effect of Creative Problem Solving (CPS) learning model to the student’s learning outcomes on Static Fluid Topic of Class SMAN 3 Medan Academic ear 2015/2016.

1. . R arc Ob c v This study aims to:

1. To know the student’s learning outcomes after taught by Creative Problem Solving (CPS) learning model.

2. To know the student’s learning outcomes after taught by Conventional Learning.

3. To know the effect of Creative Problem Solving (CPS) learning model to the student’s learning outcomes on Static Fluid Topic of Class SMAN 3 Medan Academic ear 2015/2016.

1. . R arc B n

1. For Schools

 Contribute positively to the school in order to improve teaching

program.

 For information to motivate academic staff to adopt creative

and innovative methods in the learning process. 2. For Teachers

 As a motivation to improve teaching skills in a variety of learning systems so as to provide the best service for students.

 Getting appropriate learning strategies while delivering the material being taught.

3. For Students

 Facilitate students in understanding and solving physics problems.

 Improving students' ability to process and link the information to express their ideas in a rational way.

 Improving students' ability to think critically and creatively in problem solving.

 Helping students to be more active in the learning activities. 4. For Researchers

 Getting hands-on experience in the implementation of learning Creative Problem Solving (CPS).

 Can know the effect of Creative Problem Solving (CPS) learning model to the student’s learning outcomes in physics.

69

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 5.1 Conclusion

Based on the research result, data analysis, and discussion can be concluded that:

1. The average value of student’s learning outcomes in cognitive domain using Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Learning Model is increase as big as from 30,63 become 80,7. Minimum competency standard in SMA Negeri 3 Medan for Physics Subject is 75 and the student in experimental class are reach the minimum competency standard. The student’s psychomotor domain as long as using Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Learning Model is incresed, from the first meeting up to the third meeting. The category of student’s psychomotor domain is good. The student’s affective as long as using Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Learning Model is also increased, from the first meeting up to the third meeting. The category student’s affective is good. So, we can conclude that the student’s learning outcomes in experiment class after taught by using Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Learning Model was increase.

2. The average value of student’s learning outcomes in cognitive domain using Conventional Learning increase as big as from 24,8 become 73,17. Minimum competency standard in SMA Negeri 3 Medan for Physics Subject is 75 and the student’s psychomotor domain as long as using Conventional Learning increased, from the first meeting up to the third meeting. The category of student’s psychomotor domain is poor. The student’s affective as long as using Conventional Learning is also increased, from the first meeting up to the third meeting. The category of student’s affective is good. So, we can conclude that the student’s learning outcomes in control class after taught by using Conventional Learning was increase.

70

3. Based on result of data analysis, the processing of hypothesis test using t-test get that tcount ttable (3,644 1,669) so it can be stated that the student’s learning outcomes in Static Fluid Topic by using Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Learning Model is greater than (better than) the Conventional Learning in class X SMA Negeri 3 Medan. So, we can conclude that Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Learning Model has effect to increase the student’s learning outcomes.

5.2 Suggestion

According to the data of student’s learning outcomes and the experience of author when applying the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Learning Model in class, so the author gives suggestion as below:

1. Needed further research to determine the effect of Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Learning Model on student’s learning outcomes in other materials concepts, so that it can measure the extent to which wider this model hass effect in learning physics.

2. For the next researcher who wants to do research using Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Learning Model, its better for teacher to develop creativity in implementing the learning process so that student activity can be further enhanced improved. In addition, teachers can motivate students to be more active so that good communication between students and students and between teachers and students.

3. For the next researcher who wants to do research using Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Learning Model expected to allocate the time as efficient as possible in the learning process so that each stage of learning can be done well.

4. For the teacher can use the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Learning Model to increase the student’s learning outcomes.

71

REFERENCE

Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R., (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching

and Assessing: a Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy. New York.

Longman Publishing.

Arikunto, S. (2006). Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktek. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Averbach, B., & Chein, O., (1980). Problem Solving Through Recreational Mathematics. New York: Dover Publication, Inc.

Bloom B.S., (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.

Bruce, W.C., & Bruce, J.K., (1992). Learning Social Studies Through Discrepant Even Inquiry. Annapolis, Md.: Alpha Press.

D’Angelo, J., (2000). Mathematical Thinking, Problem Solving and Proof 2nd Edition. USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Gagne, R., (1967). Instruction in the conditions of learning. In L. Siegel (Ed.), Instruction: Some contemporary viewpoin4's. New York: Harper & Row.

Goodenough, F.L., (1949). Mental testing: Its history, principles, and applications. New York: Rinehart.

Hewit, P.G., (2006., Conceptual Physics, Tenth Edition. Pearson Addison Wesley, San Fransisco

Isaksen, S.G., Treffinger, D.J., Dorval, K.B., & Noller, R.B., (2000). Creative Approaches to Problem Solving: A Framework for Change (2nd ed.). Isaksen, S.G., Treffinger, D.J., Dorval, K.B., (2005). Creative Problem Solving (CPS

Version 6.1) A Contemporary Framework for Managing Change . Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Isaksen, S.G., Dorval, K.B., & Treffinger, D.J., (1998). Toolbox for creative problem solving: Basic tools and resources. Williamsville, NY: Creative Problem Solving Group Buffalo (Principlally for trainers or educators who work with adults or post-secondary students.)

Joyce, B.R., (1975). The models of teaching community: What have we learned? Texas Tech Journal of Education, 22, 95—106.

72

Kopcak, T., (2007). Applying thinking tools to high school seniors' research papers. Creative Learning Today, 15(3), 3.

Krulik, S., & Rudnick, J.A., (1995). Reasoning and Problem Solving a Handbook for Elementary School Teacher. Temple University.

Nasution, S., (2008). Some Approaching in Teaching and Learning Process. Jakarta : Bumi Aksara.

National Education System., (2003). Peraturan Undang-Undang Dasar Pasal 1, Ayat 1, No. 20 Tahun 2003. SisDikNas

Pepkin, K.L., (2004). Creative Problem Solving in Physics:

http://www.uh.edu/hti/cu/2004/v02/04.html (accessed 17 January

2014)

Posamentier, A.S., (1998). Problem Solving Strategies for Efficient and Ellegant Solutions, A Resource for Mathematics Teacher. California: Corwin Press, Inc.

Sridevi, K.V., (2008), Constructivism in Science Education, Discovery Publishing House, New Delhi.

Sudjana., (2005), Metoda Statistika, Tarsito, Bandung.

Sunardi., (2006). Fisika Bilingual Untuk SMA Kelas X. Bandung: Yrama Widya. Syah, M., (2002). Learning Psychology. Bandung: Rajawali.

Tang, W.J., & Chiu, M.H., (1999). The history and application of Creativity Problem Solving. Science Education Monthly, 223, 2-20

Trianto., (2010). Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif-Progesif. Jakarta: Prenada Media.

Turmudi., (2008). Phylosophy Fundamental and Learning Theory (Paradigm, Exploration and Investigation). Jakarta : Lauser Cita Pustaka.

1. . Prob For u a on

Based on the background of the problem and the extent of the problem above, the research questions in this study were:

1. How the student’s learning outcomes after taught by Creative Problem Solving (CPS) learning model?

2. How the student’s learning outcomes after taught by Conventional Learning?

3. How does the effect of Creative Problem Solving (CPS) learning model to the student’s learning outcomes on Static Fluid Topic of Class SMAN 3 Medan Academic ear 2015/2016.

1. . R arc Ob c v This study aims to:

1. To know the student’s learning outcomes after taught by Creative Problem Solving (CPS) learning model.

2. To know the student’s learning outcomes after taught by Conventional Learning.

3. To know the effect of Creative Problem Solving (CPS) learning model to the student’s learning outcomes on Static Fluid Topic of Class SMAN 3 Medan Academic ear 2015/2016.

1. . R arc B n

1. For Schools

 Contribute positively to the school in order to improve teaching program.

 For information to motivate academic staff to adopt creative and innovative methods in the learning process.

2. For Teachers

 As a motivation to improve teaching skills in a variety of learning systems so as to provide the best service for students.

 Getting appropriate learning strategies while delivering the material being taught.

3. For Students

 Facilitate students in understanding and solving physics problems.

 Improving students' ability to process and link the information to express their ideas in a rational way.

 Improving students' ability to think critically and creatively in problem solving.

 Helping students to be more active in the learning activities. 4. For Researchers

 Getting hands-on experience in the implementation of learning Creative Problem Solving (CPS).

 Can know the effect of Creative Problem Solving (CPS) learning model to the student’s learning outcomes in physics.

69

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 5.1 Conclusion

Based on the research result, data analysis, and discussion can be concluded that:

1. The average value of student’s learning outcomes in cognitive domain using Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Learning Model is increase as big as from 30,63 become 80,7. Minimum competency standard in SMA Negeri 3 Medan for Physics Subject is 75 and the student in experimental class are reach the minimum competency standard. The student’s psychomotor domain as long as using Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Learning Model is incresed, from the first meeting up to the third meeting. The category of student’s psychomotor domain is good. The student’s affective as long as using Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Learning Model is also increased, from the first meeting up to the third meeting. The category student’s affective is good. So, we can conclude that the student’s learning outcomes in experiment class after taught by using Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Learning Model was increase.

2. The average value of student’s learning outcomes in cognitive domain using Conventional Learning increase as big as from 24,8 become 73,17. Minimum competency standard in SMA Negeri 3 Medan for Physics Subject is 75 and the student’s psychomotor domain as long as using Conventional Learning increased, from the first meeting up to the third meeting. The category of student’s psychomotor domain is poor. The student’s affective as long as using Conventional Learning is also increased, from the first meeting up to the third meeting. The category of student’s affective is good. So, we can conclude that the student’s learning outcomes in control class after taught by using Conventional Learning was increase.

3. Based on result of data analysis, the processing of hypothesis test using t-test get that tcount ttable (3,644 1,669) so it can be stated that the student’s learning outcomes in Static Fluid Topic by using Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Learning Model is greater than (better than) the Conventional Learning in class X SMA Negeri 3 Medan. So, we can conclude that Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Learning Model has effect to increase the student’s learning outcomes.

5.2 Suggestion

According to the data of student’s learning outcomes and the experience of author when applying the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Learning Model in class, so the author gives suggestion as below:

1. Needed further research to determine the effect of Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Learning Model on student’s learning outcomes in other materials concepts, so that it can measure the extent to which wider this model hass effect in learning physics.

2. For the next researcher who wants to do research using Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Learning Model, its better for teacher to develop creativity in implementing the learning process so that student activity can be further enhanced improved. In addition, teachers can motivate students to be more active so that good communication between students and students and between teachers and students.

3. For the next researcher who wants to do research using Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Learning Model expected to allocate the time as efficient as possible in the learning process so that each stage of learning can be done well.

4. For the teacher can use the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Learning Model to increase the student’s learning outcomes.

71

REFERENCE

Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R., (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching

and Assessing: a Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy. New York.

Longman Publishing.

Arikunto, S. (2006). Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktek. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Averbach, B., & Chein, O., (1980). Problem Solving Through Recreational Mathematics. New York: Dover Publication, Inc.

Bloom B.S., (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The

Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.

Bruce, W.C., & Bruce, J.K., (1992). Learning Social Studies Through Discrepant Even Inquiry. Annapolis, Md.: Alpha Press.

D’Angelo, J., (2000). Mathematical Thinking, Problem Solving and Proof 2nd Edition. USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Gagne, R., (1967). Instruction in the conditions of learning. In L. Siegel (Ed.), Instruction: Some contemporary viewpoin4's. New York: Harper & Row.

Goodenough, F.L., (1949). Mental testing: Its history, principles, and applications. New York: Rinehart.

Hewit, P.G., (2006., Conceptual Physics, Tenth Edition. Pearson Addison Wesley, San Fransisco

Isaksen, S.G., Treffinger, D.J., Dorval, K.B., & Noller, R.B., (2000). Creative Approaches to Problem Solving: A Framework for Change (2nd ed.). Isaksen, S.G., Treffinger, D.J., Dorval, K.B., (2005). Creative Problem Solving (CPS

Version 6.1) A Contemporary Framework for Managing Change . Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Isaksen, S.G., Dorval, K.B., & Treffinger, D.J., (1998). Toolbox for creative problem solving: Basic tools and resources. Williamsville, NY: Creative Problem Solving Group Buffalo (Principlally for trainers or educators who work with adults or post-secondary students.)

Joyce, B.R., (1975). The models of teaching community: What have we learned?

Texas Tech Journal of Education, 22, 95—106.

Kopcak, T., (2007). Applying thinking tools to high school seniors' research papers. Creative Learning Today, 15(3), 3.

Krulik, S., & Rudnick, J.A., (1995). Reasoning and Problem Solving a Handbook for Elementary School Teacher. Temple University.

Nasution, S., (2008). Some Approaching in Teaching and Learning Process.

Jakarta : Bumi Aksara.

National Education System., (2003). Peraturan Undang-Undang Dasar Pasal 1, Ayat 1, No. 20 Tahun 2003. SisDikNas

Pepkin, K.L., (2004). Creative Problem Solving in Physics:

http://www.uh.edu/hti/cu/2004/v02/04.html (accessed 17 January 2014)

Posamentier, A.S., (1998). Problem Solving Strategies for Efficient and Ellegant Solutions, A Resource for Mathematics Teacher. California: Corwin Press, Inc.

Sridevi, K.V., (2008), Constructivism in Science Education, Discovery Publishing House, New Delhi.

Sudjana., (2005), Metoda Statistika, Tarsito, Bandung.

Sunardi., (2006). Fisika Bilingual Untuk SMA Kelas X. Bandung: Yrama Widya.

Syah, M., (2002). Learning Psychology. Bandung: Rajawali.

Tang, W.J., & Chiu, M.H., (1999). The history and application of Creativity Problem Solving. Science Education Monthly, 223, 2-20

Trianto., (2010). Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif-Progesif. Jakarta: Prenada Media.

Turmudi., (2008). Phylosophy Fundamental and Learning Theory (Paradigm, Exploration and Investigation). Jakarta : Lauser Cita Pustaka.