THE EFFECT OF TEAMS GAMES TOURNAMENT IN SUBSTANCE TRANSPORTATION ACROSS MEMBRANE SUBTOPIC FOR STUDENTS GRADE XI OF MAN 3 MEDAN ACADEMIC YEAR 2015/2016 ON THEIR MOTIVATION AND LEARNING OUTCOME.
THE EFFECT OF TEAMS GAMES TOURNAMENT IN SUBSTANCE
TRANSPORTATION ACROSS MEMBRANE SUBTOPIC FOR
STUDENTS GRADE XI OF MAN 3 MEDAN ACADEMIC
YEAR 2015/2016 ON THEIR MOTIVATION
AND LEARNING OUTCOME
By:
Lina Sukma Hayati
4113342010
Biology Bilingual Education
A THESIS
Submitted to Fulfill The Requirement for Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2016
BIOGRAPHY
Lina Sukma Hayati was born in Medan on November, 30th 1993. She is
the daughter of Darwin Matondang and Dra.Ainun Mardiah and she is also the
youngest child of six children in her family. She started her education in TK/RA
Bidayatul Hidayah in 1999. Then, she joined the elementary school in SD
Alwashliyah 11 Medan in 2000 and continued her study to lower secondary
school in Madrasah Tsanawiyah Negeri 2 (MTsN 2) Medan in 2005. In 2008, she
became one of the students in Madrasah Aliyah Negeri 1 (MAN 1) Medan. In
2011, she registered herself as one of the students in Biology Bilingual Education
Program, Biology Department, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences,
State University of Medan (UNIMED). During her education journey, she got
some achievements; she was a finalist in youth exchange program held by PCMI
and Dispora Sumut in 2013 and 2015, a finalist of national scientific paper
competition of UNDIP Science Fair in 2013, the first winner of english speech
competition in FMIPA of UNIMED in 2013, the first winner of national scientific
paper of LKTI FKM UNAND in 2014, and the second winner of Mahasiswa
Berprestasi in FMIPA UNIMED academic year 2014. During her study in
UNIMED, she was a laboratory assistant of Experiment of Lower Animal
Taxonomy, Experiment of Biochemistry, and Experiment of Higher Animal
Taxonomy.
THE EFFECT OF TEAMS GAMES TOURNAMENT IN SUBSTANCE
TRANSPORTATION ACROSS MEMBRANE SUBTOPIC FOR
STUDENTS GRADE XI OF MAN 3 MEDAN ACADEMIC
YEAR 2015/2016 ON THEIR MOTIVATION
AND LEARNING OUTCOME
Lina Sukma Hayati (4113342010)
ABSTRACT
The aimed of this study were to investigate the effect of Team Games
Tournament and sex on Student’s (1) motivation; and (2) learning outcome for
substance transportation across membrane material. This research was conducted
in Madrasah Aliyah Negeri 3 Medan, academic year 2015/2016. The method used
in this research was quasi-experimental method. Samples were students of class
XI Science 2 as an experimental class, taught by Teams Games Tournament
Model, while the students of class XI science 3 as a control class was tught by
conventional learning model. Student’s motivation was measured by using
questionnaire instrument based on Keller’s ARCS, while learning outcome was
measured by multiple choice test and essay test. The data were analyzed with
Quade Non-Parametric ANCOVA by using SYSTAT v.13.1 software packages.
The results showed that TGT was not significantly affect student’s in (1)
motivation (F = 0.74 ; P = 0.39 ); but significantly affect the students’ (2)
learning outcome (F = 23.42 ; P = 0.00 ) in experimental class taught by TGT
model compared to the students in control class which taught using conventional
learning model. The interaction between the models and sex (female and male
students) to the motivation was not significantly different (F = 3.41 ; P = 0.08), so
was the learning outcome ( F= 0.14 ; P = 0.70). Thus, the Team Games
Tournament model has significant effect on students’ learning outcome, but does
not have significant different on students’ motivation.
Keywords:Teams Games Tournamentl, motivation, learning outcome
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, the writer would like to express a deep grattitude to Allah
SWT who has given health, strength, and opportunity for the writer to complete
this thesis.
A thousand of thank and appreciation are also delivered to her thesis
supervisor, Syarifuddin, M.Sc., Ph.D who has guided her during the time of the
thesis writing process. Without his suggestion, motivation, and contribution, this
thesis would never be completed well.
A deep grattitude is also delivered to the thesis examiners, Prof. Dr.
Herbert Sipahutar, M.S., M.Sc., Dr. Mufti Sudibyo, M.Si., and Dra. Martina
Restuati, M.Si. who have patiently given many suggestions and corrections to the
writer. Besides that, the support from the academic supervisor was also the most
important thing to the writer, so a deepest grattitude is delivered to Dra. Martina
A. Napitupulu, M.Sc. who has given the writer a spirit to complete the thesis
patiently.
Then, a special thank is delivered to Dean of Mathematics and Science
Faculty, Prof. Drs. Motlan, M.Sc., Vice of Dean of Mathematics and Science
Faculty, Prof. Dr. Herbert Sipahutar, M.S., M.Sc., Coordinator of Bilingual
program, Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Binari Manurung, M.Si., secretary of Bilingual
program, Dr. Iis Siti Jahro, M.Si, and also the Head of Biology Department,
Zulkifli Simatupang, M.Pd., who always try to give the best support for the writer.
The writer would like to thank to the principle of MAN 3 Medan, Mr.
Muhammad Asrul, S.Ag., M.Pd., who has allowed the writer to conduct the
research in that school that lead the writer to meet extraordinary students,
especially students in XI IPA 2 and XI IPA 3.
The writer owes her deepest grattitude to her parents, Darwin Matondang
and Dra. Ainun Mardiah and her brothers; M. Arsad Matondang, Guntur
Syahputra Matondang, Khairil Anwar Matondang, M. Zakaria Matondang, and
Ali Ahmad Hakim Matondang who always give her the best support to complete
this thesis. Without their endless prayer, this thesis would never be completed in a
precise time.
Thank you very much for my friends in Bilingual Biology Education 2011
for the support and motivation given to me, especially to Desy Amelia Giawa,
Zelfani Ayuza, Sonya Sandra Dewi, Aisyah Safitri, Hairunisa Novita, Indra Jaya
Purba and the others who can not be mentioned one by one. And last, the deepest
grattitude is also delivered to my friend, Sofa Khalida, Rilo Fambudi, and
Sugiharto.
Medan, September 2015
Writer
Lina Sukma Hayati
ID. 4113342010
TABLE OF CONTENT
Page
APPROVAL SHEET................................................................................................i
BIOGRAPHY..........................................................................................................ii
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT......................................................................................iv
TABLE OF CONTENT..........................................................................................vi
LIST OF TABLE....................................................................................................ix
LIST OF FIGURE...................................................................................................x
LIST OF APPENDIX.............................................................................................xi
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................1
1.1 Background.......................................................................................................1
1.2 Problem Identification......................................................................................2
1.3 Problem Scope..................................................................................................3
1.4 Research Question............................................................................................3
1.5 Research Objective...........................................................................................3
1.6 Research Benefit...............................................................................................4
1.7 Operational Definition......................................................................................4
CHAPTER II. THEORETICAL REVIEW.............................................................6
2.1 Theoretical Framework......................................................................................6
2.1.1 Learning Motivation................................................................................6
2.1.2 Learning Outcome...................................................................................8
2.1.3 Conventional Learning Model...............................................................10
2.1.4 Teams Games Tournament....................................................................10
2.2 Conceptual Framework....................................................................................12
2.3 Research Hypothesis........................................................................................14
2.3.1 Statistical Hypothesis.............................................................................14
2.3.2 Descriptive Hypothesis..........................................................................15
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHOD...............................................................17
3.1 Location and Time...........................................................................................17
3.2 Population and Sample.....................................................................................17
3.3 Research Variable............................................................................................17
3.4 Research Design..............................................................................................18
3.5 Research Instrument........................................................................................18
3.5.1 Quantitative Data...................................................................................18
3.5.2 Instrument Testing.................................................................................21
3.5.2.1 Validity Test..............................................................................21
3.5.2.2 Reliability Test..........................................................................22
3.5.2.3 Item Difficulty Test...................................................................23
3.5.2.4 Item Discriminant Test..............................................................24
3.6 Research Procedure.........................................................................................25
3.6.1 Control Class.........................................................................................25
3.6.2 Experimental Class................................................................................26
3.7 Data Analysis Technique.................................................................................28
3.7.1 Learning Outcome.................................................................................28
3.7.2 Motivation..............................................................................................28
3.8 Prerequisite Test Analysis................................................................................29
3.8.1 Normality...............................................................................................29
3.8.2 Homogenity............................................................................................29
CHAPTER IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION....................................................30
4.1 Result................................................................................................................30
4.1.1 Motivation..............................................................................................30
4.1.1.1 Pre- Motivation.........................................................................30
4.1.1.2 Post- Motivation........................................................................30
4.1.2 Learning Outcome.................................................................................30
4.1.2.1 Pretest........................................................................................30
4.1.2.2 Posttest......................................................................................31
4.2 Discussion........................................................................................................32
4.2.1 Students’ Motivation.............................................................................32
4.2.2 Students’ Learning Outcome.................................................................33
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION.........................................35
5.1 Conclusion.......................................................................................................35
5.2 Suggestion.......................................................................................................35
REFERENCE........................................................................................................36
LIST OF TABLE
Page
Table 3.1
Number of XI Science Students of MAN 3 Medan Academic Year
2015/2016 ......................................................................................17
Table 3.2
Research Design.............................................................................18
Table 3.3
Table of Grating Test of Students Conceptual Knowledge in
Substance
across
Membrane
Material
(KTSP
2006)..............................................................................................19
Table 3.4
Students Motivation Questionnaire (Keller,2004).........................20
Table 3.5
The Percentage of Validity Test....................................................22
Table 3.6
The Percentage of Reliability Test.................................................23
Table 3.7
The Percentage of Difficulty Level................................................24
Table 3.8
The Percentage of Discriminant Test.............................................25
Table 3.9
The Alternative Score for Motivation (Sugiyono, 2011)...............28
LIST OF FIGURE
Page
Figure 2.1
Edgar Dale’s Cone of Learning......................................................9
Figure 2.2
Conceptual Framework..................................................................12
Figure 3.1
Research Procedure........................................................................27
Figure 4.1
Students’ post-test in conventional learning model
and
Teams Games Tournament after before treatment in MAN 3
Medan Academic Year2015/2016 ................................................31
LIST OF APPENDIX
Page
Appendix 1
Syllabus.........................................................................................40
Appendix 2
Lesson Plan....................................................................................41
Appendix 3
Worksheet......................................................................................53
Appendix 4
Question.........................................................................................57
Appendix 5
Answer Key...................................................................................62
Appendix 6
Questionnaire.................................................................................63
Appendix 7
Validity Test...................................................................................68
Appendix 8
Reliability Test...............................................................................70
Appendix 9
Difficulty Test................................................................................71
Appendix 10 Discriminant Index Test................................................................73
Appendix 11 Calculation of SPSS and SYSTAT................................................75
Appendix 12 Research Documentation..............................................................77
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1. 1. Background
Biology is categorized as a difficult material for students. According to the
research done by Cimer (2012) the main reasons of students’ difficulty are too
much abstract concepts and various biological events that can not be seen by
naked eye. Furthermore, a popular study conducted by Johnston and Mahmoud
(1980) showed water transport through diffusion and osmosis to be one of the
most difficult topics faced by secondary school and even university students. That
research was also supported by Carl-Johan Rundgren, et al. (2010) that the result
was limited number of students understand the mechanism of osmosis and
diffusion. Teacher’s style, method, and technique in teaching may also be the
factors that affect students in learning biology material. If the students do not
enjoy and not happy to the way the teachers taught biology, they may show
disinterest and negative attitudes towards biology and also its teaching.
According to P.L. Nandi, et al. (2000), the conventional learning that used
by the teacher nowadays is a tutor-centered that comprises large group lectures,
tutorials, structured laboratory experience and periodic test achievement. It causes
students learn passively in absorbing the information rather than actively
acquiring a meaningful knowledge. The effect of this is students will show a less
enthusiastic attitude toward the lesson. The phenomenon of less motivation of
students that taught by conventional learning was conducted by Tanjung (2013).
The research revealed that the class taught by conventional method cannot retain
the information given because most of the method used by teacher was only
speech in front of the class.
Based on the observation done in MAN 3 Medan, the teacher performed a
conventional learning model by only lecturing the topic in front of the class, thus
students do not show their enthusiasm shown by their passive interaction in class
to learn the topic. The observation was done by observing the teaching process;
the researcher sat at the corner of the class and observed the learning process
inside the class. Students only listened to the teacher’s explanation and write on
their book (teacher-centered).
In order to overcome the phenomenon of low motivation that also will
result in low learning outcome and retention, a model known as “Team Games
Tournament” has been being developed in order to motivate students in learning.
Susan Boyle (2011) stated some roles of games in learning process, are : 1)
creative ice breakers and agents of innovation, 2) help students retain salient
points in teaching, 3) aid with dips in concentration levels, 4) an easy means to
incorporate peer learning, 5) encourage collaborative problem solving, 6) appeal
to different learning styles, 7) engage students, and 8) induce creative divergent
thinking among students.
According to Sabrina Symon and Najinder Gill (2008), the students that
taught by using Teams Games Tournament show a higher score test than the
students taught by conventional learning. Furthermore, their previous research
indicated that male students showed higher motivation than the female students
did. Considering the ability of games to cover the cognitive, psychomotoric, and
affective aspects of students, it is Team Games Tournament offered as a good way
to increase the motivation of students to study. Besides, the problem provided in
the games will trigger the students to have higher problem solving skill in order
to get a good learning outcome. The games that will be conducted will be played
in group in order to collaborate the high and low ability students. The team games
tournament used in delivering the learning material will motivate students to
participate in the learning process.
Teams games tournament need to be applied in order to encourage
students motivation and learning outcome of learning the substance transportation
across membrane material. Because if the conventional learning model is still
applied, it is really worried that teachers can not motivate the students to learn.
1. 2. Problem Identification
There are some phenomena related to the motivation and learning outcome
of students in learning process.
The learning model used by the teacher is
relatively monotonous by lecturing
in front of the class that create less
participation of the students in learning process. Lack of teacher’s skill to
implement the effective learning model lower students motivation, enthusisasm,
and involvement in learning biology and then the learning outcomes of the
students are still low.
1. 3. Problem Scope
This research focused on the use of Team Games Tournament model that
aims to motivate students of MAN 3 Medan academic year 2015/2016 in learning
the substance transportation across membrane. The aspects measured include the
students’ motivation and learning outcome.
1. 4. Research Questions
Related to the background explained above, there are some problems
formulated. They are :
1. Is there any significant difference of Teams Games Tournament model on
students’ motivation in substance transportation across membrane material
in class XI Grade Science of MAN 3 Medan?
2. Is there any significant difference of Teams Games Tournament model on
students’ learning outcome in substance transportation across membrane
material in class XI Grade Science of MAN 3 Medan?
3. Is there any significant difference in students’ motivation taught by TGT
between the female and male students in substance transportation across
membrane material for students in class XI Grade Science of MAN 3
Medan?
4. Is there any significant difference in students’ learning outcome taught by
TGT between the female and male students in substance transportation
across membrane material for students in class XI Grade Science of MAN
3 Medan?
1. 5. ResearchObjective
Based on the formulation of the problems described above, the
objectives of this research are :
1. To find out the effect of Team Games Tournament model on students’
motivation in substance transportation across membrane subtopic for
students in XI Science Class of MAN 3 Medan academic year 2015/2016.
2. To find out the effect of Team Games Tournament model on students’
learning outcome in substance transportation across membrane subtopic
for students in XI Science Class of MAN 3 Medan academic year
2015/2016.
3. To find out the effect of Team Games Tournament model on male and
female students’ motivation outcome in substance transportation across
membrane subtopic for students in XI Science Class of MAN 3 Medan
academic year 2015/2016.
4. To find out the effect of Team Games Tournament model on male and
female students’ learning outcome outcome in substance transportation
across membrane subtopic for students in XI Science Class of MAN 3
Medan academic year 2015/2016.
1. 6. Research Benefit
This research is expected to be beneficial for the other researchers as
reference to develop the Teams Games Tournament model. For the teachers, this
model hopefully can be a reference to implement the appropriate learning model
when teaching biology material in school. For students, this research is expected
to trigger students’ motivation and learning outcome in learning biology, and also
will develop team work, and social skill since students work in group. For the
school, as a reference and as an input in improving students’ motivation and
learning outcome in the school.
1. 7. Operational Definition
There are some definitions in this proposal that need to be explained
specifically, they are :
a. Motivation is the force that energizes someone to do something towards a
goal. It can be said that motivation is the reasons underlying behavior. The
factors that affect the motivation are : 1)Intrinsic Goal Orientation, 2)
Extrinsic Goal Orientation, 3) Task Value, 4) Control of Learning Beliefs,
and 5) Self Efficacy for Learning Performance.
b. Learning Outcome is defined as the goal that describe the difference
gained by the students after having a learning experience. In this research,
learning outcome is specified to be an action by the students which is
measurable by the evidence of the test result.
c. Conventional model is a learning model dominated by lecturing from the
teacher. Teacher explains the learning material while the students listen to
the explanation, that’s the reason why this learning model is categorized as
teacher-centered model. This learning model doesn’t perform an active
learning process.
d. Team Games Tournament model is a learning model covering games and
tournament in one package. Teacher acts as a designer and supervisor
during the learning process, while the students will actively run the
activity in class. Teacher divides the stucents into some heterogeneous
groups composed of 4-5 persons. Then, the groups will discuss the
learning topic given by the teacher in one meeting. The next meeting will
be covered with tournament activity, so every group will compete each
other to reach the score. At the end of the tournament, the total score will
be announced and the winning group will be given a reward.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Conclusion
1. There was significant difference of Team Games Tournament on students’
learning outcome in substance transportation across cell membrane
material for students in Grade XI Science of MAN 3 Medan Academic
Year 2015/2016, so Ho1 was rejected.
2. There was no significant difference of Team Games Tournament on
female and male students’ motivation in substance transportation across
cell membrane material for students in Grade XI Science of MAN 3
Medan Academic Year 2015/2016, so Ho2 was accepted.
3. There was no significant difference of Team Games Tournament on
female and male students’ learning outcome in substance transportation
across cell membrane material for students in Grade XI Science of MAN
3 Medan Academic Year 2015/2016, so Ho3 was accepted.
5.2 Recommendation
1. The teacher is suggested to apply the Team Games Tournament model for
the biological learning in school in order to enhance the students’
motivation and learning outcome.
2. Teachers are expected to be able to create systemic educational reform by
increasing instructional effectiveness, engaging in reflective practice and
professional development, developing strong teacher commitment, and
providing opportunities to foster student engagement by applying Teams
Games Tournament in learning process.
REFERENCE
Astin, Alexander W., ﴾1984), Student Involvement : A Developmental Theory for
Higher, Journal of College Student Development, University of California,
Los Angeles.
Arikunto, S., ﴾2006), Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktek, Penerbit
Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
Arikunto, S. ﴾2007). Prosedur Penelitian Edisi Revisi, Penerbit Rineka Cipta,
Jakarta.
Baron, R.A., (1995), Psychology 3rd Edition, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
Belenky, M.F., B.M Clinchy, N.R Goldberger, and J.M Tarule, (1986). Women’s
Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind. Basic
Books, New York.
Boekaerts, Monique., ﴾2002), Motivation to Learn, International Academy of
Education, University of Illinoist, Chicago
Boyle, Susan., (2011), An Introduction to Games Based Learning, UCD Teaching
and Learning, Dublin.
Cimer, Atilla., ﴾2012), What Makes Biology Learning Difficult: Students’ Views,
Educational Research and Reviews, 7 (3) : 61-71.
Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) CHEA Institute for
Research and Study of Accreditation and Quality Assurance, ﴾2003),
Statement Of Mutual Responsibilities for Student Learning
Outcomes: Accreditation, Institutions, and Programs, CHEA, USA :
http://www.chea.org/pdf/StmntStudentLearningOutcomes9-03.pdf,
accessed on February 10th 2015
DW, Johnson, and Johnson RT, (1990). Social skills for successful group work.
Educational Leadership, 47(4): 29-33.
Flannery, D. D, (2000), Connection. In E. Hayes & D. D. Flannery (Eds.), Women
as Learners: The Significance of Gender in Adult Learning (pp.111-137),
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Garcia, T., W.J. McKeachie, P.R. Pintrich, and D.A. Smith, (1991), A Manual for
the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
(Tech.Rep.No.91-b-004), Ann Arbor, MI, School of Education, The
University of Michigan.
Guay, F., J. Chanal, C.F. Ratelle, H.W. Marsh, S. Larose, and M. Boivin, (2010),
Intrinsic, Identified, and Controlled Types of Motivation for School
Subjects in Young Elementary School Children. British journal of
Educational Psychology, 80(4) : 711-735.
Harvey, L., ﴾2004), Analytic Quality Glossary. Quality Research International.
http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/learningoutcomes.h
tm , accessed on February 10th 2015
Howey, S. C., ﴾2008), Factors in Student Motivation, NACADA Clearinghouse
of
Academic
Advising
Resources
:
http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/ViewArticles/Motivation.aspx , accessed on February 9th 2015
International Center for Educator’s Learning Styles, ﴾2014), Robert Gagne’s Five
Categories of Learning Outcomes and the Nine Events of Instruction.
http://www.icels-educators-forlearning.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54&Itemid
=73, accessed on January 27th 2015
Johnstone, AH and Mahmoud NA, (1980), Isolating Topic of High Perceived
Difficulty in School Biology, Journal of Biological Education, 14, 163166.
Kenny, Natasha, ﴾2011), Program- Level Learnig Outcome, Teaching Support
Services, USA.
Krause, Kerri-Lee, Sandra Bochner , and Sue Duchesne, (2003), Educational
Psychology for Learning and Teaching, Thomson, Australia.
Liu, Min, ﴾2014), Motivating Students to Learn Using A Games-Based Learning
Approach : Gaming and education Issue, 2 (1) : 117-128,
Austin,University of Texas.
Logue, A, (2001), Girl Gangs, Training & Development, 55(1), 24-28.
Maley, Fran O., ﴾2006), Teams-Games-Tournament : Cooperative Learning
Strategy, Delaware Social Studies Education Project, University of
Delaware : http://www.udel.edu/dssep/teaching_strategies/tgt_coop.htm,
accessed on February 16th 2015.
Nandi, P.L., JNF Chan, CPK Chan, P Chan, LPK Chan, ﴾2000), Undergraduate
Medical Education : Comparison of Problem-Based Teaching and
Conventional Learning. HKMJ Vol 6 No 3 September 2000
Nutt, Charlie L., ﴾2003), Academic advising and students retention and
persistence, NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources :
http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/ViewArticles/Advising-and-Student-Retention-article.aspx,
accessed
on
th
February 5 2015
Olson, ViAnn Asther, (2002), Gender Differences and The Effect of Cooperative
Learning in College Level Mathematics, Curtin, Curtin University of
Technology.
Osters, Sandi and F.Simone Tiu, ﴾2014), Writing Measurable Learning Outcome.
3rd Annual Texas A&M Conference page 3-10, Texas.
Rundgren, Carl-Johan, Shu-Nu Chang Rundgren, Konrad J.Schonborn, (2010),
Students’ Conceptions of Water Transport, Journal of Biological
Education, 44 (3) : 129-135.
Ryan, Richard M. and Edward L. Deci, ﴾2000), Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation
: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Educational Psychology 25, 5467.
Slameto, ﴾2003), Belajar dan Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya, Penerbit
Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
Slavin, RE, (1990), Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice,
Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Sudjana, ﴾2005), Metode Statistika, Penerbit Tarsito, Bandung.
Sugiyono, ﴾2011), Statistika Untuk Penelitian, Penerbit Alfabeta, Bandung.
Sukmadinata, Nana Syaodih, ﴾2012), Metode Penelitian Pendidikan, PT. Remaja
Rosdakarya, Bandung.
Suskie, Linda, ﴾2009), Assessing Student Learning : A Commone Sense Guide,
CA : Jossey-Bass, San Fransisco.
Symons, Sabrina., and Najinder Gill, (2008), Improving Student Engagement
and Achievement through the Use of Teams-Games-Tournament, Frank
Hurt Secondary School Action Research Tema : An Initiative to Surrey
School Academy
Tanjung, Dewi Sahfitri, ﴾2013), The Effect of Edutainment on Students Learning
Outcome, Motivation, and Retention on Human Regulatory System Grade
XI-IA of SMAN 1 Tebing Tinggi Academic Year 2012/2013, Thesis,
FMIPA, Universitas Negeri Medan, Medan.
Tan O.S., R.D. Parsons, S.L. Hinson, and D. Sardo-Brown, (2003), Educational
Psychology : A Practitioner-Researcher Approach, Thomson Australia.
Teed, Rebecca, ﴾2014), Game Based Learning, Carleton College, USA ::
http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/games/index.html, accessed on January
13th 2015
The Peak Performance Center, ﴾2014), Learning Pyramid, The Peak Performance
Center,
Ohio : http://thepeakperformancecenter.com/educationallearning/learning/principles-of-learning/learning-pyramid/, accessed on
February 9th 2015
Tinto, Vincent, ﴾2005), Student Retention : What Next?, Pell Institute for the
Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, Syracuse University
Trianto, ﴾2011), Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif-Progresif, Penerbit
Kencana, Jakarta.
Trybus, Jessica, ﴾2014), Game- Based Learning: What it is, Why it Works, and
Where it’s Going, New Media Institute, USA.
TRANSPORTATION ACROSS MEMBRANE SUBTOPIC FOR
STUDENTS GRADE XI OF MAN 3 MEDAN ACADEMIC
YEAR 2015/2016 ON THEIR MOTIVATION
AND LEARNING OUTCOME
By:
Lina Sukma Hayati
4113342010
Biology Bilingual Education
A THESIS
Submitted to Fulfill The Requirement for Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2016
BIOGRAPHY
Lina Sukma Hayati was born in Medan on November, 30th 1993. She is
the daughter of Darwin Matondang and Dra.Ainun Mardiah and she is also the
youngest child of six children in her family. She started her education in TK/RA
Bidayatul Hidayah in 1999. Then, she joined the elementary school in SD
Alwashliyah 11 Medan in 2000 and continued her study to lower secondary
school in Madrasah Tsanawiyah Negeri 2 (MTsN 2) Medan in 2005. In 2008, she
became one of the students in Madrasah Aliyah Negeri 1 (MAN 1) Medan. In
2011, she registered herself as one of the students in Biology Bilingual Education
Program, Biology Department, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences,
State University of Medan (UNIMED). During her education journey, she got
some achievements; she was a finalist in youth exchange program held by PCMI
and Dispora Sumut in 2013 and 2015, a finalist of national scientific paper
competition of UNDIP Science Fair in 2013, the first winner of english speech
competition in FMIPA of UNIMED in 2013, the first winner of national scientific
paper of LKTI FKM UNAND in 2014, and the second winner of Mahasiswa
Berprestasi in FMIPA UNIMED academic year 2014. During her study in
UNIMED, she was a laboratory assistant of Experiment of Lower Animal
Taxonomy, Experiment of Biochemistry, and Experiment of Higher Animal
Taxonomy.
THE EFFECT OF TEAMS GAMES TOURNAMENT IN SUBSTANCE
TRANSPORTATION ACROSS MEMBRANE SUBTOPIC FOR
STUDENTS GRADE XI OF MAN 3 MEDAN ACADEMIC
YEAR 2015/2016 ON THEIR MOTIVATION
AND LEARNING OUTCOME
Lina Sukma Hayati (4113342010)
ABSTRACT
The aimed of this study were to investigate the effect of Team Games
Tournament and sex on Student’s (1) motivation; and (2) learning outcome for
substance transportation across membrane material. This research was conducted
in Madrasah Aliyah Negeri 3 Medan, academic year 2015/2016. The method used
in this research was quasi-experimental method. Samples were students of class
XI Science 2 as an experimental class, taught by Teams Games Tournament
Model, while the students of class XI science 3 as a control class was tught by
conventional learning model. Student’s motivation was measured by using
questionnaire instrument based on Keller’s ARCS, while learning outcome was
measured by multiple choice test and essay test. The data were analyzed with
Quade Non-Parametric ANCOVA by using SYSTAT v.13.1 software packages.
The results showed that TGT was not significantly affect student’s in (1)
motivation (F = 0.74 ; P = 0.39 ); but significantly affect the students’ (2)
learning outcome (F = 23.42 ; P = 0.00 ) in experimental class taught by TGT
model compared to the students in control class which taught using conventional
learning model. The interaction between the models and sex (female and male
students) to the motivation was not significantly different (F = 3.41 ; P = 0.08), so
was the learning outcome ( F= 0.14 ; P = 0.70). Thus, the Team Games
Tournament model has significant effect on students’ learning outcome, but does
not have significant different on students’ motivation.
Keywords:Teams Games Tournamentl, motivation, learning outcome
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, the writer would like to express a deep grattitude to Allah
SWT who has given health, strength, and opportunity for the writer to complete
this thesis.
A thousand of thank and appreciation are also delivered to her thesis
supervisor, Syarifuddin, M.Sc., Ph.D who has guided her during the time of the
thesis writing process. Without his suggestion, motivation, and contribution, this
thesis would never be completed well.
A deep grattitude is also delivered to the thesis examiners, Prof. Dr.
Herbert Sipahutar, M.S., M.Sc., Dr. Mufti Sudibyo, M.Si., and Dra. Martina
Restuati, M.Si. who have patiently given many suggestions and corrections to the
writer. Besides that, the support from the academic supervisor was also the most
important thing to the writer, so a deepest grattitude is delivered to Dra. Martina
A. Napitupulu, M.Sc. who has given the writer a spirit to complete the thesis
patiently.
Then, a special thank is delivered to Dean of Mathematics and Science
Faculty, Prof. Drs. Motlan, M.Sc., Vice of Dean of Mathematics and Science
Faculty, Prof. Dr. Herbert Sipahutar, M.S., M.Sc., Coordinator of Bilingual
program, Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Binari Manurung, M.Si., secretary of Bilingual
program, Dr. Iis Siti Jahro, M.Si, and also the Head of Biology Department,
Zulkifli Simatupang, M.Pd., who always try to give the best support for the writer.
The writer would like to thank to the principle of MAN 3 Medan, Mr.
Muhammad Asrul, S.Ag., M.Pd., who has allowed the writer to conduct the
research in that school that lead the writer to meet extraordinary students,
especially students in XI IPA 2 and XI IPA 3.
The writer owes her deepest grattitude to her parents, Darwin Matondang
and Dra. Ainun Mardiah and her brothers; M. Arsad Matondang, Guntur
Syahputra Matondang, Khairil Anwar Matondang, M. Zakaria Matondang, and
Ali Ahmad Hakim Matondang who always give her the best support to complete
this thesis. Without their endless prayer, this thesis would never be completed in a
precise time.
Thank you very much for my friends in Bilingual Biology Education 2011
for the support and motivation given to me, especially to Desy Amelia Giawa,
Zelfani Ayuza, Sonya Sandra Dewi, Aisyah Safitri, Hairunisa Novita, Indra Jaya
Purba and the others who can not be mentioned one by one. And last, the deepest
grattitude is also delivered to my friend, Sofa Khalida, Rilo Fambudi, and
Sugiharto.
Medan, September 2015
Writer
Lina Sukma Hayati
ID. 4113342010
TABLE OF CONTENT
Page
APPROVAL SHEET................................................................................................i
BIOGRAPHY..........................................................................................................ii
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT......................................................................................iv
TABLE OF CONTENT..........................................................................................vi
LIST OF TABLE....................................................................................................ix
LIST OF FIGURE...................................................................................................x
LIST OF APPENDIX.............................................................................................xi
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................1
1.1 Background.......................................................................................................1
1.2 Problem Identification......................................................................................2
1.3 Problem Scope..................................................................................................3
1.4 Research Question............................................................................................3
1.5 Research Objective...........................................................................................3
1.6 Research Benefit...............................................................................................4
1.7 Operational Definition......................................................................................4
CHAPTER II. THEORETICAL REVIEW.............................................................6
2.1 Theoretical Framework......................................................................................6
2.1.1 Learning Motivation................................................................................6
2.1.2 Learning Outcome...................................................................................8
2.1.3 Conventional Learning Model...............................................................10
2.1.4 Teams Games Tournament....................................................................10
2.2 Conceptual Framework....................................................................................12
2.3 Research Hypothesis........................................................................................14
2.3.1 Statistical Hypothesis.............................................................................14
2.3.2 Descriptive Hypothesis..........................................................................15
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHOD...............................................................17
3.1 Location and Time...........................................................................................17
3.2 Population and Sample.....................................................................................17
3.3 Research Variable............................................................................................17
3.4 Research Design..............................................................................................18
3.5 Research Instrument........................................................................................18
3.5.1 Quantitative Data...................................................................................18
3.5.2 Instrument Testing.................................................................................21
3.5.2.1 Validity Test..............................................................................21
3.5.2.2 Reliability Test..........................................................................22
3.5.2.3 Item Difficulty Test...................................................................23
3.5.2.4 Item Discriminant Test..............................................................24
3.6 Research Procedure.........................................................................................25
3.6.1 Control Class.........................................................................................25
3.6.2 Experimental Class................................................................................26
3.7 Data Analysis Technique.................................................................................28
3.7.1 Learning Outcome.................................................................................28
3.7.2 Motivation..............................................................................................28
3.8 Prerequisite Test Analysis................................................................................29
3.8.1 Normality...............................................................................................29
3.8.2 Homogenity............................................................................................29
CHAPTER IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION....................................................30
4.1 Result................................................................................................................30
4.1.1 Motivation..............................................................................................30
4.1.1.1 Pre- Motivation.........................................................................30
4.1.1.2 Post- Motivation........................................................................30
4.1.2 Learning Outcome.................................................................................30
4.1.2.1 Pretest........................................................................................30
4.1.2.2 Posttest......................................................................................31
4.2 Discussion........................................................................................................32
4.2.1 Students’ Motivation.............................................................................32
4.2.2 Students’ Learning Outcome.................................................................33
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION.........................................35
5.1 Conclusion.......................................................................................................35
5.2 Suggestion.......................................................................................................35
REFERENCE........................................................................................................36
LIST OF TABLE
Page
Table 3.1
Number of XI Science Students of MAN 3 Medan Academic Year
2015/2016 ......................................................................................17
Table 3.2
Research Design.............................................................................18
Table 3.3
Table of Grating Test of Students Conceptual Knowledge in
Substance
across
Membrane
Material
(KTSP
2006)..............................................................................................19
Table 3.4
Students Motivation Questionnaire (Keller,2004).........................20
Table 3.5
The Percentage of Validity Test....................................................22
Table 3.6
The Percentage of Reliability Test.................................................23
Table 3.7
The Percentage of Difficulty Level................................................24
Table 3.8
The Percentage of Discriminant Test.............................................25
Table 3.9
The Alternative Score for Motivation (Sugiyono, 2011)...............28
LIST OF FIGURE
Page
Figure 2.1
Edgar Dale’s Cone of Learning......................................................9
Figure 2.2
Conceptual Framework..................................................................12
Figure 3.1
Research Procedure........................................................................27
Figure 4.1
Students’ post-test in conventional learning model
and
Teams Games Tournament after before treatment in MAN 3
Medan Academic Year2015/2016 ................................................31
LIST OF APPENDIX
Page
Appendix 1
Syllabus.........................................................................................40
Appendix 2
Lesson Plan....................................................................................41
Appendix 3
Worksheet......................................................................................53
Appendix 4
Question.........................................................................................57
Appendix 5
Answer Key...................................................................................62
Appendix 6
Questionnaire.................................................................................63
Appendix 7
Validity Test...................................................................................68
Appendix 8
Reliability Test...............................................................................70
Appendix 9
Difficulty Test................................................................................71
Appendix 10 Discriminant Index Test................................................................73
Appendix 11 Calculation of SPSS and SYSTAT................................................75
Appendix 12 Research Documentation..............................................................77
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1. 1. Background
Biology is categorized as a difficult material for students. According to the
research done by Cimer (2012) the main reasons of students’ difficulty are too
much abstract concepts and various biological events that can not be seen by
naked eye. Furthermore, a popular study conducted by Johnston and Mahmoud
(1980) showed water transport through diffusion and osmosis to be one of the
most difficult topics faced by secondary school and even university students. That
research was also supported by Carl-Johan Rundgren, et al. (2010) that the result
was limited number of students understand the mechanism of osmosis and
diffusion. Teacher’s style, method, and technique in teaching may also be the
factors that affect students in learning biology material. If the students do not
enjoy and not happy to the way the teachers taught biology, they may show
disinterest and negative attitudes towards biology and also its teaching.
According to P.L. Nandi, et al. (2000), the conventional learning that used
by the teacher nowadays is a tutor-centered that comprises large group lectures,
tutorials, structured laboratory experience and periodic test achievement. It causes
students learn passively in absorbing the information rather than actively
acquiring a meaningful knowledge. The effect of this is students will show a less
enthusiastic attitude toward the lesson. The phenomenon of less motivation of
students that taught by conventional learning was conducted by Tanjung (2013).
The research revealed that the class taught by conventional method cannot retain
the information given because most of the method used by teacher was only
speech in front of the class.
Based on the observation done in MAN 3 Medan, the teacher performed a
conventional learning model by only lecturing the topic in front of the class, thus
students do not show their enthusiasm shown by their passive interaction in class
to learn the topic. The observation was done by observing the teaching process;
the researcher sat at the corner of the class and observed the learning process
inside the class. Students only listened to the teacher’s explanation and write on
their book (teacher-centered).
In order to overcome the phenomenon of low motivation that also will
result in low learning outcome and retention, a model known as “Team Games
Tournament” has been being developed in order to motivate students in learning.
Susan Boyle (2011) stated some roles of games in learning process, are : 1)
creative ice breakers and agents of innovation, 2) help students retain salient
points in teaching, 3) aid with dips in concentration levels, 4) an easy means to
incorporate peer learning, 5) encourage collaborative problem solving, 6) appeal
to different learning styles, 7) engage students, and 8) induce creative divergent
thinking among students.
According to Sabrina Symon and Najinder Gill (2008), the students that
taught by using Teams Games Tournament show a higher score test than the
students taught by conventional learning. Furthermore, their previous research
indicated that male students showed higher motivation than the female students
did. Considering the ability of games to cover the cognitive, psychomotoric, and
affective aspects of students, it is Team Games Tournament offered as a good way
to increase the motivation of students to study. Besides, the problem provided in
the games will trigger the students to have higher problem solving skill in order
to get a good learning outcome. The games that will be conducted will be played
in group in order to collaborate the high and low ability students. The team games
tournament used in delivering the learning material will motivate students to
participate in the learning process.
Teams games tournament need to be applied in order to encourage
students motivation and learning outcome of learning the substance transportation
across membrane material. Because if the conventional learning model is still
applied, it is really worried that teachers can not motivate the students to learn.
1. 2. Problem Identification
There are some phenomena related to the motivation and learning outcome
of students in learning process.
The learning model used by the teacher is
relatively monotonous by lecturing
in front of the class that create less
participation of the students in learning process. Lack of teacher’s skill to
implement the effective learning model lower students motivation, enthusisasm,
and involvement in learning biology and then the learning outcomes of the
students are still low.
1. 3. Problem Scope
This research focused on the use of Team Games Tournament model that
aims to motivate students of MAN 3 Medan academic year 2015/2016 in learning
the substance transportation across membrane. The aspects measured include the
students’ motivation and learning outcome.
1. 4. Research Questions
Related to the background explained above, there are some problems
formulated. They are :
1. Is there any significant difference of Teams Games Tournament model on
students’ motivation in substance transportation across membrane material
in class XI Grade Science of MAN 3 Medan?
2. Is there any significant difference of Teams Games Tournament model on
students’ learning outcome in substance transportation across membrane
material in class XI Grade Science of MAN 3 Medan?
3. Is there any significant difference in students’ motivation taught by TGT
between the female and male students in substance transportation across
membrane material for students in class XI Grade Science of MAN 3
Medan?
4. Is there any significant difference in students’ learning outcome taught by
TGT between the female and male students in substance transportation
across membrane material for students in class XI Grade Science of MAN
3 Medan?
1. 5. ResearchObjective
Based on the formulation of the problems described above, the
objectives of this research are :
1. To find out the effect of Team Games Tournament model on students’
motivation in substance transportation across membrane subtopic for
students in XI Science Class of MAN 3 Medan academic year 2015/2016.
2. To find out the effect of Team Games Tournament model on students’
learning outcome in substance transportation across membrane subtopic
for students in XI Science Class of MAN 3 Medan academic year
2015/2016.
3. To find out the effect of Team Games Tournament model on male and
female students’ motivation outcome in substance transportation across
membrane subtopic for students in XI Science Class of MAN 3 Medan
academic year 2015/2016.
4. To find out the effect of Team Games Tournament model on male and
female students’ learning outcome outcome in substance transportation
across membrane subtopic for students in XI Science Class of MAN 3
Medan academic year 2015/2016.
1. 6. Research Benefit
This research is expected to be beneficial for the other researchers as
reference to develop the Teams Games Tournament model. For the teachers, this
model hopefully can be a reference to implement the appropriate learning model
when teaching biology material in school. For students, this research is expected
to trigger students’ motivation and learning outcome in learning biology, and also
will develop team work, and social skill since students work in group. For the
school, as a reference and as an input in improving students’ motivation and
learning outcome in the school.
1. 7. Operational Definition
There are some definitions in this proposal that need to be explained
specifically, they are :
a. Motivation is the force that energizes someone to do something towards a
goal. It can be said that motivation is the reasons underlying behavior. The
factors that affect the motivation are : 1)Intrinsic Goal Orientation, 2)
Extrinsic Goal Orientation, 3) Task Value, 4) Control of Learning Beliefs,
and 5) Self Efficacy for Learning Performance.
b. Learning Outcome is defined as the goal that describe the difference
gained by the students after having a learning experience. In this research,
learning outcome is specified to be an action by the students which is
measurable by the evidence of the test result.
c. Conventional model is a learning model dominated by lecturing from the
teacher. Teacher explains the learning material while the students listen to
the explanation, that’s the reason why this learning model is categorized as
teacher-centered model. This learning model doesn’t perform an active
learning process.
d. Team Games Tournament model is a learning model covering games and
tournament in one package. Teacher acts as a designer and supervisor
during the learning process, while the students will actively run the
activity in class. Teacher divides the stucents into some heterogeneous
groups composed of 4-5 persons. Then, the groups will discuss the
learning topic given by the teacher in one meeting. The next meeting will
be covered with tournament activity, so every group will compete each
other to reach the score. At the end of the tournament, the total score will
be announced and the winning group will be given a reward.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Conclusion
1. There was significant difference of Team Games Tournament on students’
learning outcome in substance transportation across cell membrane
material for students in Grade XI Science of MAN 3 Medan Academic
Year 2015/2016, so Ho1 was rejected.
2. There was no significant difference of Team Games Tournament on
female and male students’ motivation in substance transportation across
cell membrane material for students in Grade XI Science of MAN 3
Medan Academic Year 2015/2016, so Ho2 was accepted.
3. There was no significant difference of Team Games Tournament on
female and male students’ learning outcome in substance transportation
across cell membrane material for students in Grade XI Science of MAN
3 Medan Academic Year 2015/2016, so Ho3 was accepted.
5.2 Recommendation
1. The teacher is suggested to apply the Team Games Tournament model for
the biological learning in school in order to enhance the students’
motivation and learning outcome.
2. Teachers are expected to be able to create systemic educational reform by
increasing instructional effectiveness, engaging in reflective practice and
professional development, developing strong teacher commitment, and
providing opportunities to foster student engagement by applying Teams
Games Tournament in learning process.
REFERENCE
Astin, Alexander W., ﴾1984), Student Involvement : A Developmental Theory for
Higher, Journal of College Student Development, University of California,
Los Angeles.
Arikunto, S., ﴾2006), Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktek, Penerbit
Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
Arikunto, S. ﴾2007). Prosedur Penelitian Edisi Revisi, Penerbit Rineka Cipta,
Jakarta.
Baron, R.A., (1995), Psychology 3rd Edition, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
Belenky, M.F., B.M Clinchy, N.R Goldberger, and J.M Tarule, (1986). Women’s
Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind. Basic
Books, New York.
Boekaerts, Monique., ﴾2002), Motivation to Learn, International Academy of
Education, University of Illinoist, Chicago
Boyle, Susan., (2011), An Introduction to Games Based Learning, UCD Teaching
and Learning, Dublin.
Cimer, Atilla., ﴾2012), What Makes Biology Learning Difficult: Students’ Views,
Educational Research and Reviews, 7 (3) : 61-71.
Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) CHEA Institute for
Research and Study of Accreditation and Quality Assurance, ﴾2003),
Statement Of Mutual Responsibilities for Student Learning
Outcomes: Accreditation, Institutions, and Programs, CHEA, USA :
http://www.chea.org/pdf/StmntStudentLearningOutcomes9-03.pdf,
accessed on February 10th 2015
DW, Johnson, and Johnson RT, (1990). Social skills for successful group work.
Educational Leadership, 47(4): 29-33.
Flannery, D. D, (2000), Connection. In E. Hayes & D. D. Flannery (Eds.), Women
as Learners: The Significance of Gender in Adult Learning (pp.111-137),
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Garcia, T., W.J. McKeachie, P.R. Pintrich, and D.A. Smith, (1991), A Manual for
the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
(Tech.Rep.No.91-b-004), Ann Arbor, MI, School of Education, The
University of Michigan.
Guay, F., J. Chanal, C.F. Ratelle, H.W. Marsh, S. Larose, and M. Boivin, (2010),
Intrinsic, Identified, and Controlled Types of Motivation for School
Subjects in Young Elementary School Children. British journal of
Educational Psychology, 80(4) : 711-735.
Harvey, L., ﴾2004), Analytic Quality Glossary. Quality Research International.
http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/learningoutcomes.h
tm , accessed on February 10th 2015
Howey, S. C., ﴾2008), Factors in Student Motivation, NACADA Clearinghouse
of
Academic
Advising
Resources
:
http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/ViewArticles/Motivation.aspx , accessed on February 9th 2015
International Center for Educator’s Learning Styles, ﴾2014), Robert Gagne’s Five
Categories of Learning Outcomes and the Nine Events of Instruction.
http://www.icels-educators-forlearning.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54&Itemid
=73, accessed on January 27th 2015
Johnstone, AH and Mahmoud NA, (1980), Isolating Topic of High Perceived
Difficulty in School Biology, Journal of Biological Education, 14, 163166.
Kenny, Natasha, ﴾2011), Program- Level Learnig Outcome, Teaching Support
Services, USA.
Krause, Kerri-Lee, Sandra Bochner , and Sue Duchesne, (2003), Educational
Psychology for Learning and Teaching, Thomson, Australia.
Liu, Min, ﴾2014), Motivating Students to Learn Using A Games-Based Learning
Approach : Gaming and education Issue, 2 (1) : 117-128,
Austin,University of Texas.
Logue, A, (2001), Girl Gangs, Training & Development, 55(1), 24-28.
Maley, Fran O., ﴾2006), Teams-Games-Tournament : Cooperative Learning
Strategy, Delaware Social Studies Education Project, University of
Delaware : http://www.udel.edu/dssep/teaching_strategies/tgt_coop.htm,
accessed on February 16th 2015.
Nandi, P.L., JNF Chan, CPK Chan, P Chan, LPK Chan, ﴾2000), Undergraduate
Medical Education : Comparison of Problem-Based Teaching and
Conventional Learning. HKMJ Vol 6 No 3 September 2000
Nutt, Charlie L., ﴾2003), Academic advising and students retention and
persistence, NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources :
http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/ViewArticles/Advising-and-Student-Retention-article.aspx,
accessed
on
th
February 5 2015
Olson, ViAnn Asther, (2002), Gender Differences and The Effect of Cooperative
Learning in College Level Mathematics, Curtin, Curtin University of
Technology.
Osters, Sandi and F.Simone Tiu, ﴾2014), Writing Measurable Learning Outcome.
3rd Annual Texas A&M Conference page 3-10, Texas.
Rundgren, Carl-Johan, Shu-Nu Chang Rundgren, Konrad J.Schonborn, (2010),
Students’ Conceptions of Water Transport, Journal of Biological
Education, 44 (3) : 129-135.
Ryan, Richard M. and Edward L. Deci, ﴾2000), Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation
: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Educational Psychology 25, 5467.
Slameto, ﴾2003), Belajar dan Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya, Penerbit
Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
Slavin, RE, (1990), Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice,
Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Sudjana, ﴾2005), Metode Statistika, Penerbit Tarsito, Bandung.
Sugiyono, ﴾2011), Statistika Untuk Penelitian, Penerbit Alfabeta, Bandung.
Sukmadinata, Nana Syaodih, ﴾2012), Metode Penelitian Pendidikan, PT. Remaja
Rosdakarya, Bandung.
Suskie, Linda, ﴾2009), Assessing Student Learning : A Commone Sense Guide,
CA : Jossey-Bass, San Fransisco.
Symons, Sabrina., and Najinder Gill, (2008), Improving Student Engagement
and Achievement through the Use of Teams-Games-Tournament, Frank
Hurt Secondary School Action Research Tema : An Initiative to Surrey
School Academy
Tanjung, Dewi Sahfitri, ﴾2013), The Effect of Edutainment on Students Learning
Outcome, Motivation, and Retention on Human Regulatory System Grade
XI-IA of SMAN 1 Tebing Tinggi Academic Year 2012/2013, Thesis,
FMIPA, Universitas Negeri Medan, Medan.
Tan O.S., R.D. Parsons, S.L. Hinson, and D. Sardo-Brown, (2003), Educational
Psychology : A Practitioner-Researcher Approach, Thomson Australia.
Teed, Rebecca, ﴾2014), Game Based Learning, Carleton College, USA ::
http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/games/index.html, accessed on January
13th 2015
The Peak Performance Center, ﴾2014), Learning Pyramid, The Peak Performance
Center,
Ohio : http://thepeakperformancecenter.com/educationallearning/learning/principles-of-learning/learning-pyramid/, accessed on
February 9th 2015
Tinto, Vincent, ﴾2005), Student Retention : What Next?, Pell Institute for the
Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, Syracuse University
Trianto, ﴾2011), Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif-Progresif, Penerbit
Kencana, Jakarta.
Trybus, Jessica, ﴾2014), Game- Based Learning: What it is, Why it Works, and
Where it’s Going, New Media Institute, USA.