THE COMPARISON OF STUDENTS’ LEARNING OUTCOMES ON THE TOPIC OF LINEAR EQUATION IN ONE VARIABLE BY USING PROBLEM – BASED LEARNING (PBL) MODEL AND STUDENT TEAMS ACHIEVEMENT DIVISION (STAD) IN GRADE VII SMP NEGERI 28 MEDAN.
THE COMPARISON OF STUDENTS’ LEARNING OUTCOMES ON THE TOPIC
OF LINEAR EQUATION IN ONE VARIABLE BY USING PROBLEM – BASED
LEARNING(PBL)MODELANDSTUDENTTEAMSACHIEVEMENT
DIVISION(STAD)INGRADEVIISMPNEGERI28MEDAN
By:
Widia Shopa
ID. 409312014
Bilingual Mathematics Education
A THESIS
Submitted to Qualify for Academic Title of
Sarjana Pendidikan
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2016
i
iii
THE COMPARISON OF STUDENTS’ LEARNING OUTCOMES ON THE TOPIC
OF LINEAR EQUATION IN ONE VARIABLE BY USING PROBLEM – BASED
LEARNING (PBL) MODEL AND STUDENT TEAMS ACHIEVEMENT
DIVISION (STAD) IN GRADE VII SMP NEGERI 28 MEDAN
Widia Shopa (ID 409312014)
ABSTRACT
This research is quasi-experiment. The purpose of this research is to
know whether students’ mathematics learning outcomes which taught by using
problem – based learning model higher than mathematics learning outcomes of
students which taught by using student teams achievement division in grade VII
SMP Negeri 28 Medan.
The population of this research is students of SMP Negeri 28 Medan,
whereas the sample consists of 2 classes, namely, VII - 1 as Experiment Class I
consists of 32 students and VII - 2 as Experiment Class II consists of 31 students.
Experiment class I used Problem Based Learning (PBL) and Experiment Class II
used Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD). Collecting data technique of
this research is students’ learning outcomes test given in the end of learning either
in Experiment Class I or Experiment Class II. The type of this test is objective
test.
Before doing hypothesis test, the normality and the homogeneity test
should be done. The result of those tests, sample was taken from normal
distributed and homogeneous population. The data analysis of experimental
classby using t-test with significance level α = 0.05, it was obtained that tcalculation>
ttable then H0 is rejected and Ha is accepted.
It can be concluded that students’ mathematics learning outcomes which
taught by using problem – based learning model higher than mathematics learning
outcomes of students which taught by using student teams achievement division
in grade VII SMP Negeri 28 Medan.
The research that has been done, researcher suggested that Problem based
learning can be as consideration to teachers in enhancing senior high school
students’ mathematical representation ability.Teacher intends to use problem
based learning, needed preparation and used time effectively in its
iii
implementation. The result and instrument of this research can be used as
consideration to implement problem based learning in a different class grades and
subjects for the future researchers.
iv
PREFACE
Praise and great thanks to Allah SWT that gives the amazing grace, love,
strength and health so that writer can finish this thesis. The title of this thesis is “The
Comparison Of Students' Learning Outcomes on The Topic of Linear Equation in One
Variable by Using Problem Based Learning (PBL) Model and Student Teams Achiement
Diviasion (STAD) in Grade VII SMP Negeri 28 Medan ”. This thesis was arranged to
satisfy the requirement to obtain the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan from Faculty
Mathematics and Natural Science in State University of Medan.
In the completion of this thesis, the writer received support from various parties,
therefore it was appropriate writer big thanks to Mr.Drs.Yasifati Hia, M.Si as my thesis
supervisor who has provided guidance, direction, and advice to the perfection of this
thesis. Thanks are also due to Mr.Prof. Dr. Pargaulan Siagian, M.Pd , Mr.Drs. Zul Amry,
M.Si, P.hD and Mr.Dr. Edy Surya, M.Si as author’s examiners who have provided input
and suggestion from the planning to the completion of the preparation of the research of
this thesis. Thanks are also extended to Mr.Dr. Edy Surya, M.Si as academic supervisor
and then thank you so much for all author’s lecturer in FMIPA Unimed.
My thanks are extended to Mr.Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Si as rector of
Unimed, Mr.Dr. Asrin Lubis, M.Pd as Dean of Mathematics and Natural Sciences
Faculty and to coordinator of bilingual Mrs. Dr. Iis Siti Jahro, M.Si, Mr.Dr. Edy Surya,
M.Si as Chief of Mathematics Department, Mr.Drs. Zul Amry, M.Si, Ph.D as Chief of
Mathematics Education Study Program, Mr.Drs. Yasifati Hia, M.Si as Secretary of
Mathematics Education, and all of employee staff who have helped the author.
Thanks to Mr. Horas Pohan, S.Pd as principle of SMP Negeri 28 Medan, Mrs.
T.Sinaga, S.Pd as mathematics teacher and all teacher, staffs and also the students in
grade VII-1 and VII-2 SMP Negeri 28 Medan who have helped writer conducting the
research.
Especially I would like to express my gratitude to my dear father Edy Supriadi
and my dear mother Mrs. Radiah Djambak, S.Pd continues to provide motivation and
prayers for the success of me completed this thesis. Special big thanks to my beloved
sister Oliviana, A.md and Also my brother Achmad Mustofa for giving support even
moril or material and all my family for all pray, motivation, and support until the end of
my study.
v
I also thanks to my lovely best friends which always help me and support in
every condition without any exception. Especially for Endah Khairin,S.E, Chairani
Siregar, A.Md, Beby Eka Jaya, Fisky F.S, Kiki Youlanda, S.E, for all of the suggestion
and incredible advice. Thank you very much for Debby Masteriana, S.Pd and Widi Aulia
Widakdo, S.Pd for every helping you’ve given as my sisters in this university. I love you
and thanks for every spirit my little family Bilingual Mathematics Education 2009.
At last, the author has finished this thesis in maximum level but author realized
there are some imperfections. For that, the author asks for building comments and
suggestions in order to reach the perfection of this thesis. The author wishes that this
thesis would be useful to improve the knowledge should give a big effort to prepare this
thesis, and the writer know that this thesis have so many weakness. So that, the author
needs some suggestions to make it this be better. And big wishes, it can be improve our
knowledge, understanding and enrich the science education.
Medan, February 2016
Author,
Widia Shopa
ID. 409312014
vi
vi
CONTENTS
Pages
Ratification Sheet
i
Biography
ii
Abstract
iii
Preface
iv
Contents
vi
List of Figure
ix
List of Table
x
List of Appendix
xi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
1
1.2. Problem Identification
4
1.3. Problem Limitation
1.4. Problem Formulation
4
5
1.5. Research Objectives
5
1.6. Research Benefit
5
1.7. Operational Definition
CHAPTER II
2.1.
6
LITERATURE REVIEW
Theoretical Framework
7
2.1.1. Learning Outcomes
7
2.1.2. Problem – Based Learning (PBL)
8
2.1.2.1.Steps of Problem – Based Learning (PBL)
2.1.2.2.Adventages and Disadvantages of PBL
2.1.3. Cooperative Learning Model
2.1.3.1. Cooperative Learning Model
11
12
13
13
2.1.3.2. Cooperative Learning Type of Student Teams
Achievement Division (STAD)
15
vii
2.1.3.3. Steps of Student Teams Achievement Division
(STAD)
19
2.1.3.4. Advantages and Disadvantages of Students
Teams Achievement Division (STAD)
20
2.2. Linear Equation in One Variable
21
2.3. Relevant Study
21
2.4. Conceptual Framework
22
2.5. Research Hypothesis
23
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. Type of Research
24
3.2. Place and Time of Research
24
3.3. Population and Sample of Research
24
3.3.1.
Population of Research
24
3.3.2.
Sample of Research
24
3.4. Variable and Instrument of Research
3.4.1. Variable of Research
24
24
3.4.1.1. Independent Variables
25
3.4.1.2. Dependent Variable
25
3.4.2. Instrument of Research
26
3.4.2.1. Validity Test
26
3.4.2.2. Reliability Test
28
3.4.2.3. Difficulty Level Index
28
3.4.2.4. Distinguish Power Index
31
3.5. Design of Research
33
3.6. Prosedure of Research
34
3.7. Data Analysis Techniques
36
3.7.1. Normality Test
36
3.7.2. Homogeneity Test
38
3.7.3. Hypothesis Test
39
viii
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1. Descriptive Summary Data
40
4.2. Analysis of Data
42
4.2.1. Normality Test
42
4.2.2. Homogeneity Test
43
4.2.3. Hypothesis Test
44
4.3. Discussion
CHAPTER V
46
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
49
5.2 Suggestion
49
REFFERENCE
50
ix
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 3.1.
Procedure of Research
35
x
LIST OF TABLE
Table 2.1.
Syntax for Problem-Based Learning
11
Table 2.2.
Score Calculation Developments
18
Table 2.3.
Award level group
18
Table 2.4.
Phases STAD Cooperative Learning Type
19
Table 3.1.
Result of Difficulty Level of Pre-Test
29
Table 3.2.
Result of Difficulty Level of Post-Test
31
Table 3.3.
Result of Distinguish Power of Pre-Test
31
Table 3.4.
Result of Distinguish Power of Post-Test
32
Table 3.5.
Design of Research
33
Table 4.1.
Descriptive Statistics of Pre – Test in Experiment
Class Iand Experiment Class II
Table 4.2.
40
Descriptive Statistics of Post – Test in Experiment
Class I and Experiment Class II
41
Table 4.3.
Result of Normality Test in Pre-Test
42
Table 4.4
Result of Normality Test in Post-Test
42
Table 4.5.
Result of Homogeneity Test of Pre-Test in
Experiment Class I and Experiment Class II
Table 4.6.
Result of Homogeneity Test of Post-Test in
Experiment Class I and Experiment Class II
Table 4.7.
43
44
Result of Hypothesis Test of Students Learning
Outcomes
45
xi
LIST OF APPENDIX
Appendix 1.
Experimental Class I: Problem Based Learning
52
Appendix 2. Experimental Class II: Student Team Achievement
Division (STAD)
71
Appendix 3.
Worksheet Of Solving Equations In One Variable
90
Appendix 4.
Blueprint Of Instrument Post – Test
95
Appendix 5. Instrument Of Pre-Test
97
Appendix 6. Instrument Of Post-Test
102
Appendix 7. Answer Of Pre-Test Instrument
111
Appendix 8.
Answer Of Post-Test Instrument
112
Appendix 9.
Data Of Instrument Test (Pre – Test)
113
Appendix10. Data Of Instrument Test (Post – Test)
115
Appendix11. Result Of Validity: Pre – Test
118
Appendix12. Result Of Validity: Post – Test
127
Appendix 13. Result Of Reliability: Pre – Test
133
Appendix 14. Result Of Reliability: Post – Test
134
Appendix 15. Discrimination Power Analysis And Difficulty
Level Index Of Pre – Test
135
Appendix 16. Discrimination Power Analysis And Difficulty Level
Index Of Post – Test
140
xii
Appendix 17. Result Of Students’ Mathematics Achievement
(Pre – Test)
146
Appendix 18. The Result Of Students’ Mathematics Achievement
(Post – Test)
148
Appendix 19. Data of Pre-test and Post-test
150
Appendix 20. Result Of Normality Test
151
Appendix 21. Result Of Homogeneity Test
153
Appendix 22. Result Of Hypothesis Test
156
Appendix 23. Documentation
157
Appendix 24. T-Table Value Of T-Distribution
163
1
CAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1.
Background
The key of national development in Indonesia is clearly related with
education.The development of sciences and technology nowadays also contributes
to the quality of human resources and education itself. Education is a long process
and need time to produce effect or result according to what we suppose to have.
But,we have to face the same problem of education in Indonesia. In the most of
teaching and learning process, students are failed to develop their thinking ability.
One of the subject which is needed to be attented is mathematics.
Mathematics is one of the most important subjects that provide several vital
skills to the learners. Whole of the skills that produced from mathematics
including the ability to identify and analyze patterns, logic and critical thinking
skills, ability to see relationships and also problem solving skills. All of these
skills were contributed well to the learning outcomes of the learners. This is the
reason why mathematics has a structure and a strong and clear linkage between
concepts as to enable a student has skill to think rationally and is one of the
principal subjects taught begin elementary until university (Depdiknas, 2005).
Two international researches conducted to demonstrate the ability of
mastery in mathematics learning showed that Indonesian student capability still in
the low level. Based on data of UNESCO datashows Indonesia ranked
mathematics36 out of 49 countries in Trends International Mathematics and
Science Study (TIMSS) in 2007 (IBE, 2011: 25). Meanwhile in test of
PISA(Programme for International Student Assessments) in 2012, 15-year old
Indonesian students score poorly in PISA tests and are ranked at the second
bottom for mathematics, that ranked 65 out of 66 countries (OECD, 2013). This
suggests that the improvement of mathematics education in schools need to be
considered by various parties, including government, education observers and by
teachers as the perpetrator of education itself.
2
Based on the observationof researcher at SMP Negeri 28 Medan, student’s
interest in learning mathematics is relatively less. There’s still the difficulty of
teachers for explaining the abstract of mathematics which result in the student
learning activities are less enjoyable. Most teachers still rely on the lecture method
that students are easily bored, less active and less excited.The learning process
mostly happened in conventional way. Teacher directly deliver the matters and
dominate the class rather than students. These way of teacher to teach is still not
appropriate to students’ interest and needs. As a result, students were bored to
study, inactive and theirresult of math test scores is still low.
It is clearly seen from the average result of students’ mid odd semester
examination in class VII is 63 which is still under KKM (minimum criteria) that is
75. And almost 84% students got score under 75 in mathematics score. It needs to
be concerned well according to better quality of education and make better
national development comes true since mathematics is one of very important and
crucial to life according to the previous explanation. Because it cannot deny that
students’ learning outcomes in a school also contributes to the mainwhole
summary of quality education in Indonesia too.
According to the objectives of mathematics education, then a teacher should
design and implement various learning strategy which suitable to students’
interest and skill also level of students’ development to take benefits from many
sources and learning media such that effectivity of learning process is arised.
Learning model is clearly one of the most important thing to teacher teach in class
professionally and brings the objectives of learning mathematics (mathematics
education) to the reality. According to Cooper (in Trianto, 2009: 14), a teacher is
person charged with the responsibility of helping others to learn and to behave in
new different ways. It means teacher’s ability to create interesting learning
process which related to learning model which used is very crucial to be had.
From many learning models, problem–based learning (PBL) is one learning
model that often used. Problem-based learning model is a very precise method to
improve problem-solving abilities in students. One alternative learning model
which enable develop of students' thinking skills (reasoning, communication, and
3
connections) in problem solving is problem-based learning. Supported by the
statement Ratumanan (in Trianto, 2009: 92):
“Problem-based learning is an effective approach to teaching higher-order
thinking processes. This learning helps students to process information that
is already finished in his head and compose their own knowledge about the
social world and its surroundings. Learning is suitable to develop basic
knowledge and complex.”
In the application of PBL, students are learning in group to solve problems
and tell their argumentation about problems in learning mathematics. It requires
teacher to motivate and guide the lesson activity by using students’ activity sheet
and other medias. Meanwhile student teams achievement division (STAD) as
cooperative learning is appeared with the similar form of learning in group which
PBL has too. According to Slavin (in Trianto,2011:68).
“STAD cooperative learning model is a learning model that uses small
groups consisting of 4 or 5 members in heterogeneous groups, both
gender, race, ethnicity, or ability in one group, students use academic
worksheet, and then helping students to master each lesson through
questioning or discussion antarsesama group members.”
It means in STAD, students are given an opportunity to work in
heterogene and small team to solve a problem together. STAD expected students
to rise up ideas and activity in class. The objectives in this learning model is solve
the problems together in group and increase students’ activity in class. To get the
objectives of learning, interesting learning media is needed when execute this
model. Students’ activity sheet and power point media are used to rise students’
activity and brave to deliver their ideas, variation, motivation and interest in
learning mathematics.
From outer seen that STAD seems like similar in PBL, since both of them
have type of learning in group and student centered learning. Clearly, it brings
question which one give the better effect to learning outcomes, whether PBL or
STAD. Even more, is there any possibility that both of learning model, in this
case PBL and STAD, will produces same result to students’ learning outcomes
because of the form. This becomes a confusion to researcher.
4
Based on those descriptions above, researcher comes with any doubts
whether both of learning models in this case are: PBL and cooperative learning
type of STAD, give different result toward students’ learning outcomes. Based on
the general description above, then the researcher has interested to do research
entitled “The Comparison of Students’ Learning Outcomes on The Topic of
Linear Equation in One Variable by Using Problem – Based Learning (PBL)
Model and Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD) in Grade VII SMP
Negeri 28 Medan.”
1.2.
Problem Identification
Based on the background above can be identified the problem as follows:
1. The conventional way is often used in SMP Negeri 28 Medan such that
students were bored to study mathematics.
2. Most of learning process is dominated by teacher and students are less active
when studying mathematics in class.
3. The average of students’ mid odd semester examination of mathematics in
SMP Negeri 28 Medan for class VII is 63, it means the score is under KKM.
4. Learning model is still not appropriate to students’ interest and needs so that
students’ learning outcomes is still in low level.
5. Problem – based learning model and cooperative type of STAD has similar
form of learning in group gives confusion whether it produces different result.
1.3.
Problem Limitation
Based on the limitation scope of research location, research time and the
research variable causes this study is limited in the scope as follows:
1. Students’ learning outcomeson the topic of linear system in one variablefor
Class VII in SMP Negeri 28 Medan forOdd Semester 2015/2016.
2. The learning activitiesfor this study aregivenby using problem – based learning
and student teams achievement division.
5
1.4.
Problem Formulation
Based on the background above, the problems are formulated as:
“Is students’ mathematics learning outcomes which taught by using problem –
based learning model higher than mathematics learning outcomes of students
which taught by using student teams achievement division in grade VII SMP
Negeri 28 Medan?”
1.5.
Research Objectives
The objectives of the research are as follows:
1. To compare the differences of students’ mathematics learning outcomes which
taught by using problem – based learning model and student teams
achievement division in grade VII SMP Negeri 28 Medan.
2. To determine whether students’ mathematics learning outcomes which taught
by using problem – based learning model is higher than mathematics learning
outcomes of students which taught by using student teams achievement
division in grade VII SMP Negeri 28 Medan.
1.6.
Research Benefits
This research is expected will give the benefits as follows:
1. For students, helping them to increase their learning outcomes of mathematics
and interest to learn mathematics.
2. For teachers, opening their insight and variety about developing teaching well
especially in using learning model in class.
3. For school, increasing the quality of school caused by the increasing of
students’ learning outcomes and teacher activities.
4. For researcher or advanced researcher, improving their insight, ability,
information and experience in increasing the competency as teacher student.
6
1.7.
Operational Definitions
In order to avoid the differences of clarity meaning about important terms
contained in this research, the operational definitions will be noted as following :
1. Learning outcomes are the statements of what a learner is expected to know,
understand or able to do at the end of a module and of how that learning will
be demonstrated.
2.
PBL is one of model that make active learning is occurred. PBL is a student
centered approach that organizes curriculum and instruction around carefully
crafted “ill-structured” and real-world problems situations. Learning is active
rather than passive, integrated rather than fragmented, and connected rather
than disjointed.
3.
Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD) is such Cooperation Learning
teaching method which provides a cooperative learning environment which
fosters learner activity, joint acquisition of content and mutual explaining.
49
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1.
Conclusion
Based on the result and discussion of research in the previous chapter, can
be concluded that: Students’ mathematics learning outcomes which taught by
using problem–based learning model higher than mathematics learning outcomes
of students which taught by using student teams achievement division in grade
VII SMP Negeri 28 Medan. It can be happened because in the process of problembased learning, students are studying to analyze the contextual problems such that
they are more ready to finish variated kind of question rather than student teams
achievement division.
5.2.
Suggestion
Based on the conclusion and relevant study of this research, there are some
suggestions as follows:
1. For mathematics teacher, Problem – Based Learning (PBL) Model or
Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD) Model can be alternative
learning model to improve the students’ mathematics achievement. These
model can produce the higher mathematics achievement rather than use
conventional learning which not involved student actively.
2. For mathematics teacher which provide student activity sheet, it will be
better if the problems given have any clue or scaffolding. Student activity
sheet of PBL and STAD class should be appropriate and proportional so
that students could solve the problem although the composition of group
members of PBL and STAD are different.
3. For mathematics teacher who want to use PBL or STAD as model in
learning process should be attended at class and time management.
50
REFFERENCE
Anonymous, (2015), Levene’s Test. http://changingminds.org/explanations/
research/analysis/levenes_test.htm, accessed on 9th, March of 2015 at
12.36 a.m.
Arends, R. I., (2008), Learning To Teach, New York: Mc Grew Hill.
Arends, R. I., (2012), Learning To Teach, New York: Mc Grew Hill.
Arikunto, (2007). Dasar-dasar Evaluasi Pendidika. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara
Asmin., (2012), Pengukuran dan Penilaian Hasil Belajar dengan Analisis Klasik
dan Modern, LARISPA, Medan.
Baş, G., (2011), Investigating The Effects Of Project-Based Learning On
Students’ Academic Achievement And Attitudes Towards English Lesson,
The Online Journal Of New Horizons In Education, 1: 2.
Bell, S., (2010), Project Based Learning for the 21st Century: Skills for the Future.
Journal of Routledge Taylor and France Group 83: 39-43.
Cockcroft, W.H. (Ed.)., (1982), Mathematics Counts: Report of the Committee of
Inquiry into the Teaching of Mathematics in Schools, Her Majesty's
Stationery Office, London.
Connery, Cathrene M., (2010), Vygotsky and Creativity, Lang Publishing, Inc.,
New York.
Cuoco, A. A., and Curcio, F, R., (2001), The Roles of Representation in School
Mathematics, NTCM.
Damanik, R. S. I., (2013), Pengaruh Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah
Terhadap
Kemampuan
Representasi
dan
Minat
Belajar
Matematika Siswa SMK Negeri 11 Medan, Skripsi, FMIPA,
Unimed, Medan.
Debrenti, E., (2013), Representations in Primary Mathematics Teaching, Patrium
Christian University Oradea, Romania,6: 3.
Dixon, W. J., and Massey, F. J., (1983), Introduction to statistical Analysis, USA:
McGraw-Hill.
51
Fadillah, S., 2011. Penerapan Pembelajaran Matematika Dengan Strategi React
Untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan Koneksi dan Representasi Matematik
Siswa Sekolah, Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 8: 104-110
Goldin, G. A. (2002). Representation in mathematical learning and problem
solving. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in
mathematics education (pp. 197-218). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
Goldin, G. A., & Shteingold, N. (2001). Systems of representations and the
development of mathematical concepts. In A. A. Cuoco & F. R. Curcio
(Eds.), The roles of representation in school mathematics (pp. 1-23).
Reston, VA: NCTM.
Harahap, Tua Halomoan, (2013), Penerapan Contextual Teaching and Learning
(CTL) untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan Koneksi dan Representasi
Matematika Siswa Kelas VII-2 SMP Nurhasanah Medan Tahun Pelajaran
2012/2013, Thesis, FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.
Hidayat,
Anwar,
(3013),
Rumus
Kolmogorov
Smirnor.
http://www.statistikian.com/2013/01/rumus-kolmogorov-smirnov.html,
accessed on 9th, March of 2015 at 12:21 a.m.
Harries, T., and Barmby, P., (2006), Representing Multiplication, Procceedings of
the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 26: 3.
Howell, David C., (2012), Statistical Methods for Psychology, PWS Publisher,
USA.
Kartini, (2009), Peranan Representasi Dalam Pembelajaran Matematika, 361-372
Kent
State
University,
(2014),
Independent
Sample
t
Test,
http://libguides.library.kent.edu/SPSS/IndependentTTest , accessed on on
9th, March of 2015 at 12:03 a.m.)
Leonard, David C., (2002), Learning Theories A to Z, Greendwood Publishing
Group, USA.
Mahanal, S. and Wibowo, A,L., (2009), Penerapan Pembelajaran Lingkungan
Hidup Berbasis Proyek untuk Memberdayakan Kemampuan Berpikir
52
Kritis,Penguasaan Konsep, dan Sikap Siswa (Studi di SMAN 9 Malang),
Prosiding Juni 2015.
Mihardi, dkk., (2013), The Effect of Project Based Learning
with KWL
Worksheet on Student Creative Thinking Process in PhysicsProblem,
Journal of Education and Practice, 4:.25.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and Standards
for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Newmann, F. M., (1996), Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for
intellectual quality, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ngalimun, (2014), Strategi dan Model Pembelajaran, Yogyakarta: Aswaja
Pressindo.
Noor, J., (2011), Metode Penelitian Skripsi, Tesis, Disertasi, dan Karya Ilmiah,
Kencana Prenada Media Group: Jakarta.
Orton, Anthony, (2004), Learning Mathematics 3 rd Edition, MPG Books Ltd,
Bodmin, Cornwall,Great Britain.
Pound, Linda and Trisha L., (2011), Teaching Mathematics Creatively, Taylor &
Francis e-Library, New York.
Prasad, D. R., (2008), The School, Teacher-Student Relations and Values, New
Delhi: APH Publishing.
Putriari, M. D., (2013), Keefektifan Project based learning pada pencapaian
kemampuan pemecahan masalah peserta didik kelas X SMK Materi
Program Linear, Thesis, FMIPA, Universitas Negeri Semarang,
Semarang.
Sani, R. A., (2014), Pembelajaran Saintifik untuk Implementasi Kurikulum 2013,
Jakarta: Bumi Pustaka.
Salkind, G. M., 2007, Mathematical Representation, George Mason University.
Sajadi, M., Amiripor, P. and Malkhalifeh, M. R., (2013),
Mathematical
Representation
Word
Problems
Solving
Aspect, International
Consulting Services, 2013:2
Ability
Scientific
The Examining
under
Efficient
Publication
and
53
Seameo,
(2015),
Indonesia.
http://www.seameo.org/index.php?option=com_
content&view=article&id=109&Itemid=526, (accessed on 1st of April,
2015).
Sedghi, A., Amett, G. and Chalabi, M., (2013), Pisa 2012 results: which country
does
best
at
reading,
maths
and
science?,
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/dec/03/pisa-resultscountry-best-reading-maths-science, (accessed on 7th of April, 2015).
Silver, Cindy E.Hmelo, (2004), Problem Based Learning: What and How Do
Students Learn?, Educational Psychology Review, 16 :235-266.
Stalheim, A. and Smith, (1998), Focusing on Active, Meaningful Learning, Idea
Center of Kansas State University, 34: 1.
Sudjana, (2009), Metode Statistika, Tarsito, Bandung.
Syahputra, E., (2013), The Difference of Students’ Mathematical
Representation Ability by Using Instruction of Problem
Based Learning and Direct Instruction in Grade X, Skripsi,
FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.
Tambunan, Abdul, (2013), The Effect of Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL)
Approach to Students’ Mathematics Achievement and Learning Style in
Class X SMA Kalam Kudus Medan, Skripsi, FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.
Tamim, S. R., and Grant, M. M.,( 2013), Definitions and Uses: Case Study of
Teachers Implementing Project-based Learning, the Interdisciplinary
Journal of Problem Based Learning 7: 73.
Taylor and Francis, (2001),
The Role of Representation(s) in Developing
Mathematical Understanding, Theory Into Practice, 40(2): 118-127.
Treagust, D. F., and Mills, J. E., (2003), Engineering Education-is Problem Based
or Project Based Learning the Answer?, Australasian Association for
Engineering Education Inc, Australia.
Unesco,
(2011),
Fakta
Pendidikan,
http://indonesiaberkibar.org/id/fakta-
pendidikan (accessed on January 27th 2015).
54
Wahyuningsih, E. S., (2012), Perbedaan peningkatan kemampuan penalaran dan
representasi matematis siswa sekolah dasar dengan menggunakan
pembelajaran kooperatif tipe CIRC, Skripsi, FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.
Yamin, Martinis, (2013), Strategi dan Metode dalam Model Pembelajaran,
Gaung Parsada Group, Jakarta.
OF LINEAR EQUATION IN ONE VARIABLE BY USING PROBLEM – BASED
LEARNING(PBL)MODELANDSTUDENTTEAMSACHIEVEMENT
DIVISION(STAD)INGRADEVIISMPNEGERI28MEDAN
By:
Widia Shopa
ID. 409312014
Bilingual Mathematics Education
A THESIS
Submitted to Qualify for Academic Title of
Sarjana Pendidikan
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2016
i
iii
THE COMPARISON OF STUDENTS’ LEARNING OUTCOMES ON THE TOPIC
OF LINEAR EQUATION IN ONE VARIABLE BY USING PROBLEM – BASED
LEARNING (PBL) MODEL AND STUDENT TEAMS ACHIEVEMENT
DIVISION (STAD) IN GRADE VII SMP NEGERI 28 MEDAN
Widia Shopa (ID 409312014)
ABSTRACT
This research is quasi-experiment. The purpose of this research is to
know whether students’ mathematics learning outcomes which taught by using
problem – based learning model higher than mathematics learning outcomes of
students which taught by using student teams achievement division in grade VII
SMP Negeri 28 Medan.
The population of this research is students of SMP Negeri 28 Medan,
whereas the sample consists of 2 classes, namely, VII - 1 as Experiment Class I
consists of 32 students and VII - 2 as Experiment Class II consists of 31 students.
Experiment class I used Problem Based Learning (PBL) and Experiment Class II
used Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD). Collecting data technique of
this research is students’ learning outcomes test given in the end of learning either
in Experiment Class I or Experiment Class II. The type of this test is objective
test.
Before doing hypothesis test, the normality and the homogeneity test
should be done. The result of those tests, sample was taken from normal
distributed and homogeneous population. The data analysis of experimental
classby using t-test with significance level α = 0.05, it was obtained that tcalculation>
ttable then H0 is rejected and Ha is accepted.
It can be concluded that students’ mathematics learning outcomes which
taught by using problem – based learning model higher than mathematics learning
outcomes of students which taught by using student teams achievement division
in grade VII SMP Negeri 28 Medan.
The research that has been done, researcher suggested that Problem based
learning can be as consideration to teachers in enhancing senior high school
students’ mathematical representation ability.Teacher intends to use problem
based learning, needed preparation and used time effectively in its
iii
implementation. The result and instrument of this research can be used as
consideration to implement problem based learning in a different class grades and
subjects for the future researchers.
iv
PREFACE
Praise and great thanks to Allah SWT that gives the amazing grace, love,
strength and health so that writer can finish this thesis. The title of this thesis is “The
Comparison Of Students' Learning Outcomes on The Topic of Linear Equation in One
Variable by Using Problem Based Learning (PBL) Model and Student Teams Achiement
Diviasion (STAD) in Grade VII SMP Negeri 28 Medan ”. This thesis was arranged to
satisfy the requirement to obtain the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan from Faculty
Mathematics and Natural Science in State University of Medan.
In the completion of this thesis, the writer received support from various parties,
therefore it was appropriate writer big thanks to Mr.Drs.Yasifati Hia, M.Si as my thesis
supervisor who has provided guidance, direction, and advice to the perfection of this
thesis. Thanks are also due to Mr.Prof. Dr. Pargaulan Siagian, M.Pd , Mr.Drs. Zul Amry,
M.Si, P.hD and Mr.Dr. Edy Surya, M.Si as author’s examiners who have provided input
and suggestion from the planning to the completion of the preparation of the research of
this thesis. Thanks are also extended to Mr.Dr. Edy Surya, M.Si as academic supervisor
and then thank you so much for all author’s lecturer in FMIPA Unimed.
My thanks are extended to Mr.Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Si as rector of
Unimed, Mr.Dr. Asrin Lubis, M.Pd as Dean of Mathematics and Natural Sciences
Faculty and to coordinator of bilingual Mrs. Dr. Iis Siti Jahro, M.Si, Mr.Dr. Edy Surya,
M.Si as Chief of Mathematics Department, Mr.Drs. Zul Amry, M.Si, Ph.D as Chief of
Mathematics Education Study Program, Mr.Drs. Yasifati Hia, M.Si as Secretary of
Mathematics Education, and all of employee staff who have helped the author.
Thanks to Mr. Horas Pohan, S.Pd as principle of SMP Negeri 28 Medan, Mrs.
T.Sinaga, S.Pd as mathematics teacher and all teacher, staffs and also the students in
grade VII-1 and VII-2 SMP Negeri 28 Medan who have helped writer conducting the
research.
Especially I would like to express my gratitude to my dear father Edy Supriadi
and my dear mother Mrs. Radiah Djambak, S.Pd continues to provide motivation and
prayers for the success of me completed this thesis. Special big thanks to my beloved
sister Oliviana, A.md and Also my brother Achmad Mustofa for giving support even
moril or material and all my family for all pray, motivation, and support until the end of
my study.
v
I also thanks to my lovely best friends which always help me and support in
every condition without any exception. Especially for Endah Khairin,S.E, Chairani
Siregar, A.Md, Beby Eka Jaya, Fisky F.S, Kiki Youlanda, S.E, for all of the suggestion
and incredible advice. Thank you very much for Debby Masteriana, S.Pd and Widi Aulia
Widakdo, S.Pd for every helping you’ve given as my sisters in this university. I love you
and thanks for every spirit my little family Bilingual Mathematics Education 2009.
At last, the author has finished this thesis in maximum level but author realized
there are some imperfections. For that, the author asks for building comments and
suggestions in order to reach the perfection of this thesis. The author wishes that this
thesis would be useful to improve the knowledge should give a big effort to prepare this
thesis, and the writer know that this thesis have so many weakness. So that, the author
needs some suggestions to make it this be better. And big wishes, it can be improve our
knowledge, understanding and enrich the science education.
Medan, February 2016
Author,
Widia Shopa
ID. 409312014
vi
vi
CONTENTS
Pages
Ratification Sheet
i
Biography
ii
Abstract
iii
Preface
iv
Contents
vi
List of Figure
ix
List of Table
x
List of Appendix
xi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
1
1.2. Problem Identification
4
1.3. Problem Limitation
1.4. Problem Formulation
4
5
1.5. Research Objectives
5
1.6. Research Benefit
5
1.7. Operational Definition
CHAPTER II
2.1.
6
LITERATURE REVIEW
Theoretical Framework
7
2.1.1. Learning Outcomes
7
2.1.2. Problem – Based Learning (PBL)
8
2.1.2.1.Steps of Problem – Based Learning (PBL)
2.1.2.2.Adventages and Disadvantages of PBL
2.1.3. Cooperative Learning Model
2.1.3.1. Cooperative Learning Model
11
12
13
13
2.1.3.2. Cooperative Learning Type of Student Teams
Achievement Division (STAD)
15
vii
2.1.3.3. Steps of Student Teams Achievement Division
(STAD)
19
2.1.3.4. Advantages and Disadvantages of Students
Teams Achievement Division (STAD)
20
2.2. Linear Equation in One Variable
21
2.3. Relevant Study
21
2.4. Conceptual Framework
22
2.5. Research Hypothesis
23
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. Type of Research
24
3.2. Place and Time of Research
24
3.3. Population and Sample of Research
24
3.3.1.
Population of Research
24
3.3.2.
Sample of Research
24
3.4. Variable and Instrument of Research
3.4.1. Variable of Research
24
24
3.4.1.1. Independent Variables
25
3.4.1.2. Dependent Variable
25
3.4.2. Instrument of Research
26
3.4.2.1. Validity Test
26
3.4.2.2. Reliability Test
28
3.4.2.3. Difficulty Level Index
28
3.4.2.4. Distinguish Power Index
31
3.5. Design of Research
33
3.6. Prosedure of Research
34
3.7. Data Analysis Techniques
36
3.7.1. Normality Test
36
3.7.2. Homogeneity Test
38
3.7.3. Hypothesis Test
39
viii
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1. Descriptive Summary Data
40
4.2. Analysis of Data
42
4.2.1. Normality Test
42
4.2.2. Homogeneity Test
43
4.2.3. Hypothesis Test
44
4.3. Discussion
CHAPTER V
46
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
49
5.2 Suggestion
49
REFFERENCE
50
ix
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 3.1.
Procedure of Research
35
x
LIST OF TABLE
Table 2.1.
Syntax for Problem-Based Learning
11
Table 2.2.
Score Calculation Developments
18
Table 2.3.
Award level group
18
Table 2.4.
Phases STAD Cooperative Learning Type
19
Table 3.1.
Result of Difficulty Level of Pre-Test
29
Table 3.2.
Result of Difficulty Level of Post-Test
31
Table 3.3.
Result of Distinguish Power of Pre-Test
31
Table 3.4.
Result of Distinguish Power of Post-Test
32
Table 3.5.
Design of Research
33
Table 4.1.
Descriptive Statistics of Pre – Test in Experiment
Class Iand Experiment Class II
Table 4.2.
40
Descriptive Statistics of Post – Test in Experiment
Class I and Experiment Class II
41
Table 4.3.
Result of Normality Test in Pre-Test
42
Table 4.4
Result of Normality Test in Post-Test
42
Table 4.5.
Result of Homogeneity Test of Pre-Test in
Experiment Class I and Experiment Class II
Table 4.6.
Result of Homogeneity Test of Post-Test in
Experiment Class I and Experiment Class II
Table 4.7.
43
44
Result of Hypothesis Test of Students Learning
Outcomes
45
xi
LIST OF APPENDIX
Appendix 1.
Experimental Class I: Problem Based Learning
52
Appendix 2. Experimental Class II: Student Team Achievement
Division (STAD)
71
Appendix 3.
Worksheet Of Solving Equations In One Variable
90
Appendix 4.
Blueprint Of Instrument Post – Test
95
Appendix 5. Instrument Of Pre-Test
97
Appendix 6. Instrument Of Post-Test
102
Appendix 7. Answer Of Pre-Test Instrument
111
Appendix 8.
Answer Of Post-Test Instrument
112
Appendix 9.
Data Of Instrument Test (Pre – Test)
113
Appendix10. Data Of Instrument Test (Post – Test)
115
Appendix11. Result Of Validity: Pre – Test
118
Appendix12. Result Of Validity: Post – Test
127
Appendix 13. Result Of Reliability: Pre – Test
133
Appendix 14. Result Of Reliability: Post – Test
134
Appendix 15. Discrimination Power Analysis And Difficulty
Level Index Of Pre – Test
135
Appendix 16. Discrimination Power Analysis And Difficulty Level
Index Of Post – Test
140
xii
Appendix 17. Result Of Students’ Mathematics Achievement
(Pre – Test)
146
Appendix 18. The Result Of Students’ Mathematics Achievement
(Post – Test)
148
Appendix 19. Data of Pre-test and Post-test
150
Appendix 20. Result Of Normality Test
151
Appendix 21. Result Of Homogeneity Test
153
Appendix 22. Result Of Hypothesis Test
156
Appendix 23. Documentation
157
Appendix 24. T-Table Value Of T-Distribution
163
1
CAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1.
Background
The key of national development in Indonesia is clearly related with
education.The development of sciences and technology nowadays also contributes
to the quality of human resources and education itself. Education is a long process
and need time to produce effect or result according to what we suppose to have.
But,we have to face the same problem of education in Indonesia. In the most of
teaching and learning process, students are failed to develop their thinking ability.
One of the subject which is needed to be attented is mathematics.
Mathematics is one of the most important subjects that provide several vital
skills to the learners. Whole of the skills that produced from mathematics
including the ability to identify and analyze patterns, logic and critical thinking
skills, ability to see relationships and also problem solving skills. All of these
skills were contributed well to the learning outcomes of the learners. This is the
reason why mathematics has a structure and a strong and clear linkage between
concepts as to enable a student has skill to think rationally and is one of the
principal subjects taught begin elementary until university (Depdiknas, 2005).
Two international researches conducted to demonstrate the ability of
mastery in mathematics learning showed that Indonesian student capability still in
the low level. Based on data of UNESCO datashows Indonesia ranked
mathematics36 out of 49 countries in Trends International Mathematics and
Science Study (TIMSS) in 2007 (IBE, 2011: 25). Meanwhile in test of
PISA(Programme for International Student Assessments) in 2012, 15-year old
Indonesian students score poorly in PISA tests and are ranked at the second
bottom for mathematics, that ranked 65 out of 66 countries (OECD, 2013). This
suggests that the improvement of mathematics education in schools need to be
considered by various parties, including government, education observers and by
teachers as the perpetrator of education itself.
2
Based on the observationof researcher at SMP Negeri 28 Medan, student’s
interest in learning mathematics is relatively less. There’s still the difficulty of
teachers for explaining the abstract of mathematics which result in the student
learning activities are less enjoyable. Most teachers still rely on the lecture method
that students are easily bored, less active and less excited.The learning process
mostly happened in conventional way. Teacher directly deliver the matters and
dominate the class rather than students. These way of teacher to teach is still not
appropriate to students’ interest and needs. As a result, students were bored to
study, inactive and theirresult of math test scores is still low.
It is clearly seen from the average result of students’ mid odd semester
examination in class VII is 63 which is still under KKM (minimum criteria) that is
75. And almost 84% students got score under 75 in mathematics score. It needs to
be concerned well according to better quality of education and make better
national development comes true since mathematics is one of very important and
crucial to life according to the previous explanation. Because it cannot deny that
students’ learning outcomes in a school also contributes to the mainwhole
summary of quality education in Indonesia too.
According to the objectives of mathematics education, then a teacher should
design and implement various learning strategy which suitable to students’
interest and skill also level of students’ development to take benefits from many
sources and learning media such that effectivity of learning process is arised.
Learning model is clearly one of the most important thing to teacher teach in class
professionally and brings the objectives of learning mathematics (mathematics
education) to the reality. According to Cooper (in Trianto, 2009: 14), a teacher is
person charged with the responsibility of helping others to learn and to behave in
new different ways. It means teacher’s ability to create interesting learning
process which related to learning model which used is very crucial to be had.
From many learning models, problem–based learning (PBL) is one learning
model that often used. Problem-based learning model is a very precise method to
improve problem-solving abilities in students. One alternative learning model
which enable develop of students' thinking skills (reasoning, communication, and
3
connections) in problem solving is problem-based learning. Supported by the
statement Ratumanan (in Trianto, 2009: 92):
“Problem-based learning is an effective approach to teaching higher-order
thinking processes. This learning helps students to process information that
is already finished in his head and compose their own knowledge about the
social world and its surroundings. Learning is suitable to develop basic
knowledge and complex.”
In the application of PBL, students are learning in group to solve problems
and tell their argumentation about problems in learning mathematics. It requires
teacher to motivate and guide the lesson activity by using students’ activity sheet
and other medias. Meanwhile student teams achievement division (STAD) as
cooperative learning is appeared with the similar form of learning in group which
PBL has too. According to Slavin (in Trianto,2011:68).
“STAD cooperative learning model is a learning model that uses small
groups consisting of 4 or 5 members in heterogeneous groups, both
gender, race, ethnicity, or ability in one group, students use academic
worksheet, and then helping students to master each lesson through
questioning or discussion antarsesama group members.”
It means in STAD, students are given an opportunity to work in
heterogene and small team to solve a problem together. STAD expected students
to rise up ideas and activity in class. The objectives in this learning model is solve
the problems together in group and increase students’ activity in class. To get the
objectives of learning, interesting learning media is needed when execute this
model. Students’ activity sheet and power point media are used to rise students’
activity and brave to deliver their ideas, variation, motivation and interest in
learning mathematics.
From outer seen that STAD seems like similar in PBL, since both of them
have type of learning in group and student centered learning. Clearly, it brings
question which one give the better effect to learning outcomes, whether PBL or
STAD. Even more, is there any possibility that both of learning model, in this
case PBL and STAD, will produces same result to students’ learning outcomes
because of the form. This becomes a confusion to researcher.
4
Based on those descriptions above, researcher comes with any doubts
whether both of learning models in this case are: PBL and cooperative learning
type of STAD, give different result toward students’ learning outcomes. Based on
the general description above, then the researcher has interested to do research
entitled “The Comparison of Students’ Learning Outcomes on The Topic of
Linear Equation in One Variable by Using Problem – Based Learning (PBL)
Model and Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD) in Grade VII SMP
Negeri 28 Medan.”
1.2.
Problem Identification
Based on the background above can be identified the problem as follows:
1. The conventional way is often used in SMP Negeri 28 Medan such that
students were bored to study mathematics.
2. Most of learning process is dominated by teacher and students are less active
when studying mathematics in class.
3. The average of students’ mid odd semester examination of mathematics in
SMP Negeri 28 Medan for class VII is 63, it means the score is under KKM.
4. Learning model is still not appropriate to students’ interest and needs so that
students’ learning outcomes is still in low level.
5. Problem – based learning model and cooperative type of STAD has similar
form of learning in group gives confusion whether it produces different result.
1.3.
Problem Limitation
Based on the limitation scope of research location, research time and the
research variable causes this study is limited in the scope as follows:
1. Students’ learning outcomeson the topic of linear system in one variablefor
Class VII in SMP Negeri 28 Medan forOdd Semester 2015/2016.
2. The learning activitiesfor this study aregivenby using problem – based learning
and student teams achievement division.
5
1.4.
Problem Formulation
Based on the background above, the problems are formulated as:
“Is students’ mathematics learning outcomes which taught by using problem –
based learning model higher than mathematics learning outcomes of students
which taught by using student teams achievement division in grade VII SMP
Negeri 28 Medan?”
1.5.
Research Objectives
The objectives of the research are as follows:
1. To compare the differences of students’ mathematics learning outcomes which
taught by using problem – based learning model and student teams
achievement division in grade VII SMP Negeri 28 Medan.
2. To determine whether students’ mathematics learning outcomes which taught
by using problem – based learning model is higher than mathematics learning
outcomes of students which taught by using student teams achievement
division in grade VII SMP Negeri 28 Medan.
1.6.
Research Benefits
This research is expected will give the benefits as follows:
1. For students, helping them to increase their learning outcomes of mathematics
and interest to learn mathematics.
2. For teachers, opening their insight and variety about developing teaching well
especially in using learning model in class.
3. For school, increasing the quality of school caused by the increasing of
students’ learning outcomes and teacher activities.
4. For researcher or advanced researcher, improving their insight, ability,
information and experience in increasing the competency as teacher student.
6
1.7.
Operational Definitions
In order to avoid the differences of clarity meaning about important terms
contained in this research, the operational definitions will be noted as following :
1. Learning outcomes are the statements of what a learner is expected to know,
understand or able to do at the end of a module and of how that learning will
be demonstrated.
2.
PBL is one of model that make active learning is occurred. PBL is a student
centered approach that organizes curriculum and instruction around carefully
crafted “ill-structured” and real-world problems situations. Learning is active
rather than passive, integrated rather than fragmented, and connected rather
than disjointed.
3.
Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD) is such Cooperation Learning
teaching method which provides a cooperative learning environment which
fosters learner activity, joint acquisition of content and mutual explaining.
49
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1.
Conclusion
Based on the result and discussion of research in the previous chapter, can
be concluded that: Students’ mathematics learning outcomes which taught by
using problem–based learning model higher than mathematics learning outcomes
of students which taught by using student teams achievement division in grade
VII SMP Negeri 28 Medan. It can be happened because in the process of problembased learning, students are studying to analyze the contextual problems such that
they are more ready to finish variated kind of question rather than student teams
achievement division.
5.2.
Suggestion
Based on the conclusion and relevant study of this research, there are some
suggestions as follows:
1. For mathematics teacher, Problem – Based Learning (PBL) Model or
Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD) Model can be alternative
learning model to improve the students’ mathematics achievement. These
model can produce the higher mathematics achievement rather than use
conventional learning which not involved student actively.
2. For mathematics teacher which provide student activity sheet, it will be
better if the problems given have any clue or scaffolding. Student activity
sheet of PBL and STAD class should be appropriate and proportional so
that students could solve the problem although the composition of group
members of PBL and STAD are different.
3. For mathematics teacher who want to use PBL or STAD as model in
learning process should be attended at class and time management.
50
REFFERENCE
Anonymous, (2015), Levene’s Test. http://changingminds.org/explanations/
research/analysis/levenes_test.htm, accessed on 9th, March of 2015 at
12.36 a.m.
Arends, R. I., (2008), Learning To Teach, New York: Mc Grew Hill.
Arends, R. I., (2012), Learning To Teach, New York: Mc Grew Hill.
Arikunto, (2007). Dasar-dasar Evaluasi Pendidika. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara
Asmin., (2012), Pengukuran dan Penilaian Hasil Belajar dengan Analisis Klasik
dan Modern, LARISPA, Medan.
Baş, G., (2011), Investigating The Effects Of Project-Based Learning On
Students’ Academic Achievement And Attitudes Towards English Lesson,
The Online Journal Of New Horizons In Education, 1: 2.
Bell, S., (2010), Project Based Learning for the 21st Century: Skills for the Future.
Journal of Routledge Taylor and France Group 83: 39-43.
Cockcroft, W.H. (Ed.)., (1982), Mathematics Counts: Report of the Committee of
Inquiry into the Teaching of Mathematics in Schools, Her Majesty's
Stationery Office, London.
Connery, Cathrene M., (2010), Vygotsky and Creativity, Lang Publishing, Inc.,
New York.
Cuoco, A. A., and Curcio, F, R., (2001), The Roles of Representation in School
Mathematics, NTCM.
Damanik, R. S. I., (2013), Pengaruh Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah
Terhadap
Kemampuan
Representasi
dan
Minat
Belajar
Matematika Siswa SMK Negeri 11 Medan, Skripsi, FMIPA,
Unimed, Medan.
Debrenti, E., (2013), Representations in Primary Mathematics Teaching, Patrium
Christian University Oradea, Romania,6: 3.
Dixon, W. J., and Massey, F. J., (1983), Introduction to statistical Analysis, USA:
McGraw-Hill.
51
Fadillah, S., 2011. Penerapan Pembelajaran Matematika Dengan Strategi React
Untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan Koneksi dan Representasi Matematik
Siswa Sekolah, Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 8: 104-110
Goldin, G. A. (2002). Representation in mathematical learning and problem
solving. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in
mathematics education (pp. 197-218). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
Goldin, G. A., & Shteingold, N. (2001). Systems of representations and the
development of mathematical concepts. In A. A. Cuoco & F. R. Curcio
(Eds.), The roles of representation in school mathematics (pp. 1-23).
Reston, VA: NCTM.
Harahap, Tua Halomoan, (2013), Penerapan Contextual Teaching and Learning
(CTL) untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan Koneksi dan Representasi
Matematika Siswa Kelas VII-2 SMP Nurhasanah Medan Tahun Pelajaran
2012/2013, Thesis, FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.
Hidayat,
Anwar,
(3013),
Rumus
Kolmogorov
Smirnor.
http://www.statistikian.com/2013/01/rumus-kolmogorov-smirnov.html,
accessed on 9th, March of 2015 at 12:21 a.m.
Harries, T., and Barmby, P., (2006), Representing Multiplication, Procceedings of
the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 26: 3.
Howell, David C., (2012), Statistical Methods for Psychology, PWS Publisher,
USA.
Kartini, (2009), Peranan Representasi Dalam Pembelajaran Matematika, 361-372
Kent
State
University,
(2014),
Independent
Sample
t
Test,
http://libguides.library.kent.edu/SPSS/IndependentTTest , accessed on on
9th, March of 2015 at 12:03 a.m.)
Leonard, David C., (2002), Learning Theories A to Z, Greendwood Publishing
Group, USA.
Mahanal, S. and Wibowo, A,L., (2009), Penerapan Pembelajaran Lingkungan
Hidup Berbasis Proyek untuk Memberdayakan Kemampuan Berpikir
52
Kritis,Penguasaan Konsep, dan Sikap Siswa (Studi di SMAN 9 Malang),
Prosiding Juni 2015.
Mihardi, dkk., (2013), The Effect of Project Based Learning
with KWL
Worksheet on Student Creative Thinking Process in PhysicsProblem,
Journal of Education and Practice, 4:.25.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and Standards
for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Newmann, F. M., (1996), Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for
intellectual quality, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ngalimun, (2014), Strategi dan Model Pembelajaran, Yogyakarta: Aswaja
Pressindo.
Noor, J., (2011), Metode Penelitian Skripsi, Tesis, Disertasi, dan Karya Ilmiah,
Kencana Prenada Media Group: Jakarta.
Orton, Anthony, (2004), Learning Mathematics 3 rd Edition, MPG Books Ltd,
Bodmin, Cornwall,Great Britain.
Pound, Linda and Trisha L., (2011), Teaching Mathematics Creatively, Taylor &
Francis e-Library, New York.
Prasad, D. R., (2008), The School, Teacher-Student Relations and Values, New
Delhi: APH Publishing.
Putriari, M. D., (2013), Keefektifan Project based learning pada pencapaian
kemampuan pemecahan masalah peserta didik kelas X SMK Materi
Program Linear, Thesis, FMIPA, Universitas Negeri Semarang,
Semarang.
Sani, R. A., (2014), Pembelajaran Saintifik untuk Implementasi Kurikulum 2013,
Jakarta: Bumi Pustaka.
Salkind, G. M., 2007, Mathematical Representation, George Mason University.
Sajadi, M., Amiripor, P. and Malkhalifeh, M. R., (2013),
Mathematical
Representation
Word
Problems
Solving
Aspect, International
Consulting Services, 2013:2
Ability
Scientific
The Examining
under
Efficient
Publication
and
53
Seameo,
(2015),
Indonesia.
http://www.seameo.org/index.php?option=com_
content&view=article&id=109&Itemid=526, (accessed on 1st of April,
2015).
Sedghi, A., Amett, G. and Chalabi, M., (2013), Pisa 2012 results: which country
does
best
at
reading,
maths
and
science?,
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/dec/03/pisa-resultscountry-best-reading-maths-science, (accessed on 7th of April, 2015).
Silver, Cindy E.Hmelo, (2004), Problem Based Learning: What and How Do
Students Learn?, Educational Psychology Review, 16 :235-266.
Stalheim, A. and Smith, (1998), Focusing on Active, Meaningful Learning, Idea
Center of Kansas State University, 34: 1.
Sudjana, (2009), Metode Statistika, Tarsito, Bandung.
Syahputra, E., (2013), The Difference of Students’ Mathematical
Representation Ability by Using Instruction of Problem
Based Learning and Direct Instruction in Grade X, Skripsi,
FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.
Tambunan, Abdul, (2013), The Effect of Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL)
Approach to Students’ Mathematics Achievement and Learning Style in
Class X SMA Kalam Kudus Medan, Skripsi, FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.
Tamim, S. R., and Grant, M. M.,( 2013), Definitions and Uses: Case Study of
Teachers Implementing Project-based Learning, the Interdisciplinary
Journal of Problem Based Learning 7: 73.
Taylor and Francis, (2001),
The Role of Representation(s) in Developing
Mathematical Understanding, Theory Into Practice, 40(2): 118-127.
Treagust, D. F., and Mills, J. E., (2003), Engineering Education-is Problem Based
or Project Based Learning the Answer?, Australasian Association for
Engineering Education Inc, Australia.
Unesco,
(2011),
Fakta
Pendidikan,
http://indonesiaberkibar.org/id/fakta-
pendidikan (accessed on January 27th 2015).
54
Wahyuningsih, E. S., (2012), Perbedaan peningkatan kemampuan penalaran dan
representasi matematis siswa sekolah dasar dengan menggunakan
pembelajaran kooperatif tipe CIRC, Skripsi, FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.
Yamin, Martinis, (2013), Strategi dan Metode dalam Model Pembelajaran,
Gaung Parsada Group, Jakarta.