TABLES LIST
Table 2.1 Syntax of the training model
17 Table 2.2
Application of Learning Model and Media 34
Table 3.1 Research Treatment Two classes, Pretest, and Post test
44 Table 3.2
Instrument Specification 46
Table 4.1 Difficulty Level and Discrimination Index of each Valid
Item 56
Table 4.2 Average Score and Standard Deviation of Pretest,
Posttest, and Gain Data 57
Table 4.3 Result of Normality Test by using SPSS-16
59 Table 4.4
Result of Normality Test by using Chi-Square 59
Table 4.5 Result of Homogeneity Test by using SPSS-16
60 Table 4.6
Group statistic of Hypothesis Test by Using SPSS-16 61
Table 4.7 Independent Sample t-Test of Hypothesis Test by using
SPSS-16 61
FIGURES LIST
Figure 3.1 Scheme of Research Design
43 Figure 4.1
The Comparison of Learning Outcomes Percentage in Control and Experiment Class
65 Figure 4.2
The Comparison of Cognitive Aspects in Control and Experiment Class
66
APPENDIX LIST
Appendix 1 Syllabus
73 Appendix 2
Lesson Plan Experimental Class 74
Appendix 2a Motivations and Apperceptions of Lesson Plan 95
Appendix 2b The Experiment Direction about The kinds of Solution based on Substance’s Solubility of LP
100 Appendix 2c The Pretest and Posttest Questions in Lesson Plan
102 Appendix 3
Lesson Plan Control Class 106
Appendix 4 Test Categories of Solubility and Solubility Product
before Validated 122
Appendix 5 Calculation of Validity Test
133 Appendix 6
Table of Validity Test 138
Appendix 7 Calculation of Reliability Test
139 Appendix 8
Table of Reliability Test 141
Appendix 9 Calculation of Difficulty Level Test
142 Appendix 10 Table of Difficulty Level Test
144 Appendix 11 Calculation of Different Index Test
145 Appendix 12 Table of Different Index Test
147
Appendix 13 Test Categories of Solubility and Solubility Product
after Validated 148
Appendix 14 Instrument Test 155
Appendix 15 Data Result of students in Control and Experiment Class 158
Appendix 16 Calculation of Normality Test 164
Appendix 17 Calculation of Homogeneity Test 171
Appendix 18 Calculation of Hypothesis Testing 173
Appendix 19 Percentage of Improved Learning Outcomes 206
Appendix 20 Calculation of Cognitive Aspect 181
Appendix 21 Average Gain from Each Level of Cognitive Aspect 188
Appendix 22 Question Analysis 190
Appendix 23 Research Documentation 194
Appendix 24 Chi-square Distribution Table 198
Appendix 25 Values Table of r-Product Moment 199
Appendix 26 values Table of t-Distribution t-Table 200
Appendix 27 Table of Critical Value for F Distribution 201
Appendix 28 Draft of Active Files 204
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1.Research Background
The success of learning process is the main thing that is expected to carry out education in schools. Major Components in teaching and learning
activities is students and teachers, in this case students who become subject of learning, not to be the object of learning. To present the material becomes
more attractive teachers must have the ability to develop methods of learning and exploiting such instructional media so that the objectives can be achieved
correctly. Chemistry learning materials in senior high school contain many
difficult concepts to be understood by students, because it involves chemical reactions and calculations as well as concerning the concepts that are abstract
and considered by students is a relatively new material and have never gained while in SMA sunyono, 2009. The low achievement of students in learning
chemistry can be seen in the average of UAS scores of students to the area of North Sumatra, namely: academic year 20042005 on chemical subjects is
4.01, the academic year 20052006 was 6.75, the academic year 20062007 is 6.50,
and the
school year
20082009 was
6.25 http:www.waspada.co.idindex.php20.10. This showed that the students
had difficulties in understanding the subject matter of chemistry. The proof is the final UAS scores are 6.25 which are still relatively not optimal.
Based on the experience of researcher at PPLT UNIMED at SMAN 1 Sidikalang 2013, particularly in class XI Science, student learning outcomes in
chemistry subjects were still relatively low because of the lack of students’
motivation in learning chemistry. There was no great willingness of the students to learn and understand the lesson so they ignored this subject.
Consequently the teaching-learning process was not running optimally due to the students could not achieved the settled standard score. The low student
achievement in learning chemistry can be interpreted as a lack of effective
teaching and learning process, it could be seen in the average score of odd semester examination of the school year 20122013 in class XI Science i.e.
31.25 passed and 68.9 failed. From the data it could be concluded that the percentage of students learning outcomes were still low at only 31.25
which fulfill the Completeness Minimum Criteria KKM i.e. 75. Lack of student
s’ motivation encourages teachers to use appropriate model and media in learning process to makes student
s’ motivated in studying chemistry. The learning process is still Teachers Centered Learning with verbal
instruction, authoritarian teaching and the lack of variety in teaching and learning chemistry, plus the excessive emphasis on individual achievement.
Furthermore, in learning chemistry students seem passive and boring because students just accept what is given by the teachers, students and even fear or
phobia of chemistry lessons Bayanto, 2009. Based on observation at SMAN 1 Sidikalang PPLT 2013, information obtained by interview with some
students in class XI Science, they said that the chemistry teaching and learning process in SMA Negeri 1 Sidikalang was still using direct instruction model
where the teacher is the center of teaching and learning activities. Students generally only listened, read and memorized the obtained information, so the
concept was not embedded deeply in students. On this issue, teachers are required to be able to choose the interesting
model that can increase students’ motivation to make student achievement better.
Based on observation at SMA Negeri 2 Karanganyar that conducted in February 2012, in particular some students of XI science and interviews the
chemistry teachers, it could be seen that the most of students still has difficulties in learning of solubility and solubility product particularly in
calculation concept. From the data obtained showed that the averages scores of class XI Science year 20102011 has reached the completeness minimum
criteria KKM, but there were still some students who have not completed is 44.74 in solubility and Solubility product subject matter .This was caused
by the inappropriate model which is used by teacher so the students became inactive and less creative to followed the lessons. In solubility and solubility
