METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH 3.1. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1.

LIST OF TABLES Pages Table 2.1 Taxonomy Bloom’s Levels 10 Table 2.2 Cooperative Learning Model Consists of Six Phases 16 Table 2.3 The Phases of Direct Instruction 20 Table 3.1. Grating Test Students Learning Outcomes in The Human Sensory System 36 Table 3.2. Difficulty Level 39 Table 3.3. Research Design 39 Table 4.1. Data Recapitulation of Pretest Study 46 Table 4.2. Data Recapitulation of Postest Study 49 Table 4.3. Percentage of Students Learning Activity Observations 56 Table 4.4. Summary of Data Normality Test with Liliefors Test 57 Table 4.5. Summary of Variance Homogenity Test 58 Table 4.6. Summary of Hypothesis Test Calculation 59 Table 4.7. Summary of 1st Meeting Hypothesis Test Calculation 59 Table 4.8. Summary of 2nd Meeting Hypothesis Test Calculation 59 LIST OF FIGURES Pages Figure 2.1. Sense of Sight Eyes 21 Figure 2.2 Auditory Ear 26 Figure 2.3. Sense of Touch Skin 29 Figure 2.4. Sense of Taste Tongue 30 Figure 2.5. Sense of Smell 31 Figure 3.1. Research Procedures 42 Figure 4.1. Stem Diagram of Experimental and Control Class Pretest Comparison 47 Figure 4.2. Pie Chart Percentage of Pretest Experimental Class C1 until C6 47 Figure 4.3. Pie Chart Percentage of Experimental Class Pretest Correct Answer 48 Figure 4.4. Pie Chart Percentage of Pretest Control Class C1 until C6 48 Figure 4.5. Pie Chart Percentage of Experimental Class Pretest Correct Answer 49 Figure 4.6. Stem Diagram of Experimental and Control Class Postest Comparison 50 Figure 4.7. Pie Chart Percentage of Postest Experimental Class C1 until C6 51 Figure 4.8. Pie Chart Percentage of Experimental Class Pretest Correct Answer 51 Figure 4.9. Pie Chart Percentage of Postest Control Class C1 until C6 52 Figure 4.10. Pie Chart Percentage of Control Class Postest Correct Answer 52 Figure 4.11. Stem Diagram of Experimental Class Pretest and Postest Comparison 53 Figure 4.12. Stem Diagram of Control Class Pretest and Postest Comparison 54 Figure 4.13. Stem Diagram Both Eksperimental and Control Class Pretest and Postest Comparison 53 Figure 4.14. Pie Chart Percentage of experiment class students activities at first meeting 54 Figure 4.15. Pie Chart Percentage of control class students activities at first meeting 55 Figure 4.16. Pie Chart Percentage of experiment class students activities at second meeting 55 Figure 4.17. Pie Chart Percentage of control class students a activities at second meeting 56 Figure 4.18. Stem Diagram of Experimental and Control Class 57 Figure 4.19. Result of Pre-test between Students who were taught with ‘Direct Instruction DI’ learning model and those who were taught with ‘Number Head Together NHT’ learning model t =0,196; P =0,845. 60 Figure 4.20. Result of Post-test between Students who were taught with ‘Direct Instruction DI’ learning model and those who were taught with ‘Number Head Together NHT’ learning model t =6,306; P =0,000. 60 Figure 4.21. Result of first meeting activities between Students who were taught with Direct Instruction DI’ learning model and those who were taught with ‘Number Head Together NHT’ learning model t =5,694; P = 0,000. 61 Figure 4.22. Result of second meeting activities between Students who were taught with Direct Instruction DI’ learning model and those who were taught with ‘Number Head Together NHT’ learning model t =5,694; P = 0,000. 61 LIST OF APPENDICES Pages Appendix 1. Sillaby 70 Appendix 2. Lesson Plan in Experimental Class 71 Appendix 3. Lesson Plan in Control Class 79 Appendix 4. Lattice of The Research Instrument 85 Appendix 5. Research Instrument 87 Appendix 6. Keys 97 Appendix 7. Answer Sheet 98 Appendix 8. Worksheet 99 Appendix 9. Observation Sheet of Student Learning Activities 100 Appendix 10. Observation Letter 103 Appendix 11. Letter From School 104 Appendix 12. Construct Validity 105 Appendix 13. Validity,Reliability, and Difficulty Level Calculation 106 Appendix 14. Discrimination Index Calculation and Questions Criteria 112 Appendix 15. Validity by Validators 115 Appendix 16. Research Letter From Faculty 123 Appendix 17. Research Letter From DINAS PENDIDIKAN 124 Appendix 18. Research Letter From School 125 Appendix 19. Pretest , Postest And Activities Result 126 Appendix 20. Analysis data 129 Appendix 21. Documentation 150

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

In general, the process of education and teaching in schools today is still running in the classical style, which means that a teacher in the classroom faces the number of students between 20-40 students in the same time and delivers the same learning materials as well. Teachers often use the same model to the whole students. In this classical teaching, the teachers assume that all students of the class have not different ability, different readiness and different maturity. Actually, each person has different characteristics - different from one to another one. One such individual differences is the ability, so we often found in each class that the students group that has a high, medium and low capability. Nowadays, teachers use the learning model that have not been able to appreciate and accommodate the individual differences of students. In the implementation of the learning process ,the teachers teaching by same service for all the students, whether it is for the high, medium and low ability of student. The students have different learning speeds and they can get the service of learning is depended on each of their abilities. Students who are slower still left behind, while students who are faster get the optimal service learning. This learning process that takes place in the class can not encourage students to progress and develop according to each of their abilities. When I was in my teaching experience program, the results of my interviews with a Biology teacher at SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi, Ms. Florida Ginting, S.Pd., learning process in class is still very less effective. One contributing factor according to her, is that her students less active in the learning process. It can be seen in the learning process, students pay less attention in teaching process, they just listened to the teaching’s lectures, did not ask questions on other class activities. The facts that occurred when the learning process is less enthusiastic following of students in learning activities. When the teacher asked, many students were not able to answer. The students ability to remember newly learned material is very low or they are quickly forget the lesson they just learned. Thus, probably it is why formative test scores of students for human sensory system is still below the Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimum KKM. KKM value in RSBI SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi at XI Science Class is 78, while the students score average was only 53. The results of my interviews with a Biology teacher of SMA Negeri 1 Medan, Ms. Dra. Hamidah when I observed, the direct instruction learning model is still being used in the learning process in the class. For the human sensory system, KKM value in SMA Negeri 1 Medan at XI Science Class is 75, and the teacher said that almost all of the students’ formative test results passed the KKM and also almost all of the students were active in the class. I choosed this school as my research location, to observe the effect of Numbered Head Together as learning model in the learning process. My expectation, all of the students are active in learning process and NHT improves the students learning outcome in Human Sensory System Topic. There are a number of potential approach to improve this learning process and outcome, namely the teacher’s teaching approach, method or model. Out of a number of well teaching model that improve students activities and learning outcomes, i.e NHT Numbered Head Together Cooperative Learning Model. Numbered Head Together or NHT is considered a very good model candidate to be studied since this model will improve students learning outcomes, the activities of students in the teaching, and learning process. This model is also considered suitable for a medium class size 20 up to 40 students. And from my observation result in SMA Negeri 1 Medan, the number of the students in XI IPA 1 as the experiment class is 27 students. It is the medium class size. It is suitable to apply NHT Numbered Head Together Cooperative Learning Model in this class for my research. Thus, it can make the students active in learning process. According to Lie 2004, cooperative learning of NHT type may provide benefits both of the students in high, medium and low capability in learning, the students will work together, accomplish the tasks of learning, high-achieving students will be tutors for students which lower achievements. Cooperative learning models not only provide the material, but also learn cooperative skills.