THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENTS’ PROBLEM SOLVING ABILITY THAT TAUGHT USING COOPERATIVE TYPE THINK – PAIR – SHARE (TPS) AND STUDENT TEAMS – ACHIEVEMENT DIVISIONS (STAD) IN GRADE XI SMA NEGERI 5 MEDAN A.Y 2016/ 2017.
THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENTS’ PROBLEM SOLVING ABILITY THAT TAUGHT USING COOPERATIVE TYPE
THINK – PAIR – SHARE (TPS) AND STUDENT TEAMS – ACHIEVEMENT DIVISIONS
(STAD) IN GRADE XI SMA NEGERI 5 MEDAN A.Y 2016/ 2017
By:
Mutiara Apriliani Naibaho IDN 4123111050
Bilingual Mathematics Education Study Program
SKRIPSI
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirement for The Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2016
(2)
(3)
ii
BIOGRAPHY
Mutiara Apriliani Naibaho was born in Pematangsiantar on April 20th, 1994. Her
father’s name is Royanlin Naibaho and her mother’s name is Masriani Purba. She is the second
child from 5 children. She has 3 brothers and 1 sister. In 2000, she started her study in SD Negeri 125543 in Pematangsiantar and graduated in 2006. In 2006, she continued her study in SMP Negeri 3 Pematangsiantar and graduated in 2009. In 2009, she continued her study in SMA Negeri 1 Pematangsiantar in North Sumatera and graduated in 2012. After graduated from senior high school, she continued her study in State University of Medan as student in Bilingual Mathematics Education Program, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences in 2012. Finally, the author completed her study of under-graduated (S-1) from State University of Medan in 2016.
(4)
iii
THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENTS’ PROBLEM SOLVING ABILITY THAT TAUGHT USING COOPERATIVE TYPE
THINK – PAIR – SHARE (TPS) AND STUDENT TEAMS – ACHIEVEMENT DIVISIONS
(STAD) IN GRADE XI SMA NEGERI 5 MEDAN A.Y 2016/ 2017
Mutiara Apriliani Naibaho (ID. 4123111050)
ABSTRACT
The aim of this research is to know whether there is difference of student’s Mathematics Problem Solving Ability taught by using Cooperative Learning model TPS and Cooperative Learning model STAD type for Grade XI in SMA N 5 Medan. The population is all students of grade XI in SMA N 5 Medan Academic Year. 2016/2017. Sampling Techniques that is used in this research is random sampling. There are two samples in this research namely, Experiment Class I is XI MIPA 1 taught by cooperative learning model TPS and Class B is XI MIPA 4 taught by cooperative learning model STAD. Each of class consist of 40 students. Technique of analyzing data is consisted of normality, homogeneity, and hypothesis test. Based on normality and homogeneity test, the data was taken from normal distribution and homogeneous population. . Hypothesis test is done by using analysis of T-test. The result of T-test show that tcalculated = 0.100 and t(0.5)(78) = 1.99. Consequently tcalculate < ttable, then H0 is accepted. The result of research is different with the research hypothesis where in the research hypothesis is said there is no difference of Cooperative model type Think – pair – Share (TPS) and Student Teams –Achievement Division (STAD) towards students’ problem solving ability but in the research result there is difference of Cooperative model type Think – pair – Share (TPS) and Student Teams – Achievement Division (STAD) towards students’ problem solving ability. It is because even though both of the classroom accept different treatment where class Experiment I taught using TPS which make them work alone and then get in pair and Class Experiment II taught using STAD which make them work in group but because the research done in almost the same time and also because in learning model TPS and STAD, the learning process is almost same and both of the class have the same initial capabilities which can be seen in the result of Pre – test so that once this model is applied there is no significant difference in problem solving ability. So, we can conclude that there is no difference of students’ mathematics problem solving ability taught by using cooperative learning model TPS type and cooperative learning model STAD type. Keyword : problem solving, cooperative learning, TPS, STAD
(5)
iv
PREFACE
Praise and thanks to Almighty God Who has give for all the graces and blessings that provide health and wisdom to the author such that the author could finish this thesis well. This thesis which entitled “The Difference of Students’ Problem Solving Ability that Taught Using Cooperative Type Think – Pair – Share (TPS) and Student Teams - Achievement Divisions (STAD) in Grade XI SMA Negeri 5 Medan A.Y 2016/ 2017” is submitted in order to get the academic title of Sarjana Pendidikan from Mathematics Department, FMIPA Unimed.
In this part, the author would like to thank for all supports which gained for completion of this thesis. Special thanks to Dr. Syafari, M.Pd as thesis supervisor who has provided guidance, direction and advice from the beginning until the finishing part of this thesis. Great thanks are also due to Dr. Asrin Lubis, M.Pd, Drs. Zul Amry, M.Si, Ph.D and also Dr. M. Panjaitan, M.Pd as thesis examiners who have provided builded suggestion and revision in the completion of this thesis. Thanks also extended for Mulyono, S.Si, M.Si as academic supervisor and also for all lecturers in FMIPA Unimed.
The author also expressed sincerely thanks for Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Si as Rector of Unimed, Dr. Asrin Lubis, M.Pd as Dean of Mathematics and Natural Sciences Faculty, Dr. Iis Siti Jahro, M.Si as Coordinator of Bilingual Program, Dr. Edy Surya, M.Si as Head of Mathematics Department, Drs. Yasifati Hia, M.Si as Secretary of Mathematics Education, and all staff employess which supported in helping author.
Appreciation also present to Drs. Harris H. Simamora, M.Si as Headmaster in SMA N 5 Medan and L. Pakpahan, M.Pd as Mathematics teacher who has provide guidance when the research was held and all teachers and staff employees who helped author conduct the research well. Another thanks expressed by the author to all of students in SMA N 5 Medan for the cooperation and helping when the research.
(6)
v
This thesis can’t be compiled well without the everlasting love, pray and support from author’s beloved parents, Mr. R. Naibaho and Mrs. M. Purba, author’s siblings Leo Naibaho, Yosua Naibaho, Corry Naibaho, and Yeremia Naibaho. auntie and his lovely hubby, and author biggest supporter the one and only grandfather, and also uncle and last but not least all family who have supported, material, prayed, and gave the author encouragement and funding to complete the study in Mathematics Department.
This thesis was compiled from the strength, spirit, and endless friendship ever given by author’s squad members Aisyah Tohar, Aida Syahfitri, Erika A. Simbolon, Febby Faudina Nestia, Rahima Azzakiya, Shinta Bella G.S and Windy Erlisa who have made author life happy, enjoyable and memorable. For author roommate and partner in crime Fretty Simanjuntak, thank you for the accompanion. Also big thanks for BilMath 2012: Adi, Desy, Friska Elvita, Friska Simbolon, Bowo, Rudi, Dillah, Rani, and Totok for all support, sadness, happiness and togetherness during first semester until eight semester. For all the tenants in the author’s boarding house, Kobe 104 thanks you for the support that author received during the hard time, especially for Bobby, Jones, Rikardo, Julianita, Esra, Rani, Lini, and Wendy. For all partner of PPLT Unimed 2015 of SMA Negeri 1 Tebingtinggi , for author senior and junior in mathematics department, all author students when author was doing practice thanks for the support and motivation to finish author study.
Finally, the author realize that there are also many weakness and insufficiency in this thesis, for that the author hopes suggestion and critic in making this thesis to be better. Author also hopes this thesis will give advantage for reader and the world of education
Medan, August 2016 Author,
Mutiara Apriliani Naibaho ID. 4123111050
(7)
vi
CONTENTS
Ratification Sheet i
Biography ii
Abstract iii
Preface iv
Table of Contents vi
List of Figures ix
List of Tables x
List of Appendices xi
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Background of Study 1
1.2. Problem Identification 7
1.3. Problem Limitation 7
1.4. Problem Formulation 8
1.5. Objectives of Study 8
1.6. Benefits of Research 8
1.7. Operational Definition 8
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW 10
2.1. Theoretical Framework 10
2.1.1. Definition of Learning 10
2.1.2. Vygotsky’ Learning Theory 10
2.1.3. Problem Solving Ability 13
2.1.4. Cooperative Learning Model 18
2.1.4.1. Cooperative Learning 18
2.1.4.2. Characteristic of Cooperative Learning 20 2.1.4.3. Steps of Cooperative Learning Model 20 2.1.4.4. Cooperative Learning Type of TPS 21 2.1.4.5. Advantages and Disadvantages of TPS 24
(8)
vii
2.1.4.6. Cooperative Learning Type of STAD 24
2.1.4.7. Steps of STAD 26
2.1.4.8. Advantages and Disadvantages of STAD 27 2.1.5. The comparison between Cooperative Learning TPS and STAD 29
2.2. Relevant Study 29
2.3. Conceptual Framework 30
2.4. Research Hypothesis 32
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METODOLOGY 33
3.1. Type of Research 33
3.2. Place and Time of Research 33
3.3. Population and Sample of Research 33
3.3.1. Population of Research 33
3.3.2. Sample of Research 33
3.4. Variable and Instrument of Research 34
3.4.1. Variable of Research 34
3.4.2. Instruments of Research 34
3.5. Design of Research 37
3.6. Procedure of Research 37
3.6.1. Preparation Phase 37
3.6.2. Implementation Phase 38
3.6.3. Closing Phase 38
3.7. Technique of Analyzing Data 39
3.7.1. Normality Test 39
3.7.2. Homogeneity Test 40
3.8. Test of Hypothesis 41
3.9. Description of Differences of Learning Model of TPS and STAD towards Students Problem Solving Ability Qualitatively 43
(9)
viii
CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION 44
4.1. The Result of Students’ Mathematics Problem Solving Ability 44
4.2. Analysis of Data 46
4.2.1 Hypothesis Test 46
4.3. Research Discussion 48
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 52
5.1. Conclusion 52
5.2. Suggestion 52
REFFERENCES 53
(10)
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1. Learner Knowledge and Zone of proximal Development 13 Figure 2.2. Design of Problem Solving Steps by Polya 17 Figure 3.1. The Scheme of Research Procedure 39
Figure 3.2. Two Tailed Test 42
(11)
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. Syntax of Cooperative Learning Model 21 Table 2.2. Implementation Steps of Cooperative Learning TPS Type 23 Table 2.3. Implementation Steps of Cooperative Learning STAD Type 27 Table 2.4. Comparison between TPS and STAD 29 Table 3.1. Rubric Scoring of Problem Solving Ability 34 Table 3.2. Criterion of Student’s Problem Solving Ability 35 Table 3.3. The Criterion of Reliability 37
Table 3.4. The Research Planning 37
Table 4.1. Difference Data Pre-test and Posttest of Student Mathematics Problem Solving Ability of Experiment Class I and experiment
Class II 44
Table 4.2. Difference Pre-test and Posttest experiment Class I and
Experiment Class II 46
(12)
xi
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendices 56
Appendix 1. Lesson Plan 1 (Cooperative Learning Type TPS) 57 Appendix 2. Lesson Plan 2 (Cooperative Learning Type TPS) 61 Appendix 3. Lesson Plan 1 (Cooperative Learning Type STAD) 65 Appendix 4. Lesson Plan 2 (Cooperative Learning Type STAD) 69 Appendix 5. Student Activity Sheet (SAS) 1 73 Appendix 6. Student Activity Sheet (SAS) 2 76 Appendix 7. Blue Print of Pre – Test 79 Appendix 8. Instrument Test of Problem Solving Ability: Pre – Test 80 Appendix 9. Answer Sheet of Pre – Test 81 Appendix 10. Alternative Solution of Pre – Test 85 Appendix 11. Blue Print of Post – Test 92 Appendix 12. Instrument Test of Problem Solving Ability: Post – Test 93 Appendix 13 Answer Sheet of Post – Test 95 Appendix 14 Alternative Solution of Post – Test 99 Appendix 15. Validation Sheet of pretest and Post Test 105 Appendix 16. Procedure to Execute Normality Test in SPSS 111 Appendix 17. Procedure to Execute Homogeneity Test in SPSS 114 Appendix 18. Procedure to Execute Hypothesis Test in SPSS 117 Appendix 19. Table of t Distribution 121 Appendix 20. Documentation of Research 122
(13)
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of Study
Mathematics is the science that underlies the universal development of science and technology . Therefore, mathematics was made one of the very important basic science is taught at every level of education. In learning mathematics are required to think logically, systematically, thoroughly and critically, to process information, or solve a problem so useful in daily life as well as the language or as a development of science and technology. As has been said Cornelius (in Abdurrahman, 2009:253) that:
Five reason for the need to learn mathematics (1) A means of thinking clear and logical (2) A means to solve problem in daily life, (3) the means to know the relationship patterns and generalization of experience, (4) a means to develop creativity, and (5) a means to increase awareness of cultural development.
In other words, mathematics should be thought for students in order simplify or made it easier to solve problems. Mathematics is not an individual knowledge that cannot be perfect by their self, but it’s there because of mathematics helps people to understand problems and to hold sociality, economics, and worlds. Mathematics makes us smarter, lose less money, have an easier time in college, meet more and more in the future, and increase our career options.
Realizing the importance of mathematics, then learning math should be a necessity and fun activities. But in fact learning math is often considered something scary and boring, this occurs because during this learn math simply tend to calculate the numbers as if there is no meaning and relation to the improvement of the ability of thinking to solve the question. Whereas with learn math we are trained to always think logically and critical in solving problems, and can train the honesty, diligence, and perseverance. According to Woodard (in Zakaria et all, 2013: 1), weaker students feel anxiety toward mathematics, and this anxiety affects their performance
(14)
2
in mathematics. Students who lack mastery in mathematics are less successful, despite being in secondary schools for a long period of time.
Two international researches conducted to demonstrate the ability of mastery in mathematics learning showed that Indonesian student capability still in the low level. EFA (2015 : 126) Global Monitoring Report that released by United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 2012, the Education Development Index (EDI) position of Indonesia was in level 64th from 120 countries in the world. OECD (2014: 5) in the survey of Program for International Study Assesment (PISA) in 2012 showed that from 65 survey countries for mathematics, reading and science skills, Indonesia was in 64thlevel with the mean score of mathematics skill was 375 while the average of OECD (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development) was 494.
EFA (2012: 19) provides the real condition of education in countries respected to six goals of education which was arranged in global meeting in Senegal, 2000. While PISA 2012 in OECD (2014: 6) provides the most comprehensive picture of the mathematics skills developed in schools that has ever been available, looking not just at what students know in the different domains of mathematics, but also at what they can do with what they know. Both of the survey suggest that 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.
Therefore the quality of mathematics education in Indonesia should be improved along with the development of the times. And talk about improving the quality of education cannot be separated from efforts to improve the quality of process and learning outcomes
Poor quality of education especially in the field of mathematics influenced by several factors. Among them, math lessons are presented in a form that is less attractive and hard to impress studied so many students who do not respond to lessons and bored.
Abdurrahman (2009:252) says: "from the various fields of study that has been taught in school, mathematics is a study of the most difficult lesson to students
(15)
3
are not better learning disabilities and learning difficulties”. Difficulty learning mathematics problem-solving ability resulted in students is low. Students tend to memorize mathematical concepts and just take notes, even though they don't understand what they are memorized and note so that when students are given math problems they don't understand how to solve them with concepts that they have memorized.
Specifically, based on the explanation of the mathematics’ teacher in SMAN 5 Medan Mr. L. Pakpahan, there is a problem in which students are still difficult to solve mathematical problems. It can be understood because students are less involved in instructional process. Although the curriculum 2013 has been applied in the school but teacher still use the conventional method to teach the material. Teacher actively leads the learning process. It makes students feel so boring during the learning process. In other words, the learning model which used by teacher has not been proper with students’ proclivity and need.
The learning process that's still in conventional way, where the teacher as a center of learning, make students less involved in the learning process so that student learning outcomes becomes low, causing a mathematical problem solving ability and independence of learning students are unable to grow and develop.This is in accordance with the said Trianto (2009:5):
The main issue in formal education (schools) nowadays is still low the learners absorption. It can be shown from students’ outcomes that always cause for concern.This achievement is certainly a result of the learning conditions are still conventional and do not touch the realm of dimensions learners themselves, namely how to actually learn it. In the sense of something more substantial, that the learning process today still gives dominance teachers and do not provide access for students to develop independently through his discovery in his thinking process.
Based on the initial observation which researcher has done in January 27th, 2016 in SMA Negeri 5 Medan, researcher found main problem which related to students’ learning outcomes. Most of students had low problem solving ability. Whereas, Slavin (2005: 249) stated “problem solving is a skill that very essential for the learners”.
(16)
4
Hamalik (2001:151-152) says “problem solving as an activity associated with the the selection of way out or a way that is suitable for action and changing conditions now heading to the desired situation”. Slameto (2010:86) stated that “Problem solving is seen as a process to find a combination of a number of rules that can be applied in an effort to overcome the new situation”. Problem solving ability is very important for students and their future. The lower ability of solving the problem is students have difficulty in learning mathematics, lack of interest in learning teaching mathematics considers difficult to understand because students become lazy to learn mathematics. To acquire the ability to problem-solving students have a many experience in solving the problem. Students who have a many training to a higher value than students are less practiced.
Actually, as a reference to the real facts above, Mink (2010: 188) proposes that there are seven difficulty factors in learning problem solving: (1) wrong order; (2) key words; (3) extraneous numbers; (4) hidden word numbers; (5) implied numbers; (6) multiple steps; and (7) exact mathematical vocabulary.
The low of students’ mathematical problem – solving ability also shown when the researcher did initial observation in grade XI SMA Negeri 5 Medan. With topic Statistics, the researcher gave this question below:
1. The following figure illustrates parents occupation of 48 students. Determine how many parents who work as:
a. PNS b. Farmer c. Entrepreneur
2. Consider the price of gold for 5 days in the month of May 2013 below. Give an appreciation of the data and make the conclusion from the diagram
(17)
5
From the test, Based on the test results and the answer given most students only focused search for the answer without making strides in solving the problem. Of the 30 students who take the test, retrieved level overview of students' mathematical problem solving ability as follows: there is a level of 46.67% of students who are very good at understanding the problem. There is a level of 26.67% of students who are very good at devising a plan, 50% who are very good at carrying out the plan and 3.3% who are good at looking back. Of these cases can be concluded that the students still has low ability in looking back.
The lack of problem solving ability becomes a topic that teacher must focus on. Teacher, with all of his or her professionalism, must engage students to learn problem solving. Teacher, for example, prepares students with many exercises. In doing the problem solving, the openness is truly important. Here is the point in which teacher and students interact all together in constructing knowledge. The more exercise, the more experience students. The exercises will help students to enrich their experiences in problems explorations. This point is represented by Guttierez and Boereo (2006: 34) as follows:
… I understand problem solving to refer to the solving of problems by the forming and solving of equations; this is the narrow sense of the term. But the essential mathematical activity is that of exploring problems in an open way, extending and developing them in the search for more results and more general ones. Hence [all algebra learning] … is based on problem explorations. This is the broad sense of the term.
Interview was also conducted with mathematics’ teacher in SMA Negeri 5 Medan, Mr. L.Pakapahan. Researcher found that most of the teachers have received continuous training about various learning methods. But, in the implementation, most of them still using conventional way because of limitation of time and the content of material which sould be given to students.
The same thing is also said Trianto (2009: 5) “empirically, based on the results of the analysis of the poor performance of learners due to the dominance of conventional learning process.In this learning atmosphere tends to teacher-centered classroom so that students become passive”. Therefore, in order to overcome the problems of lack of student learning outcomes it is necessary to apply a model of
(18)
6
learning that can improve students' mathematical problem solving abilities. There are many models of learning that can improve students' mathematical problem solving abilities which are models of PBL and cooperative learning model that includes, (TPS, STAD, Jigsaw, Group Investigation, NHT and TGT).
Actually there is a lot of learning methods that have been used in learning process of mathematics. Cooperative learning is one of the most commonly used forms of active pedagogy. Taking place through an individual’s interaction with his or her environment and peers, cooperative learning is largely based on the idea that students learn through social contexts (Tsay and Brady, 2010). Slavin (2005: 8) also stated that in cooperative learning method, students work together in four member teams to master material initially presented by the teacher.
Two forms of cooperative learning, the oldest and most widely researched is the Student Teams - Achievement Divisions (STAD) and Teams – Games – Tournament (Slavin, 2005: 143). Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) was developed by Robert Slavin and his colleagues at Johns Hopkins University and is perhaps the simplest and most straightforward of the cooperative learning approaches.
Teachers using STAD present new academic information to students each week or on a regular basis, either through verbal presentation or text. Students within a given class are divided into four- or five-member learning teams, with representatives of both sexes, various racial or ethnic groups, and high, average, and low achievers on each team. Team members use worksheets or other study devices to master the academic materials and then help each other learn the materials through tutoring, quizzing one another, or carrying on team discussions (Arends, 2012: 368).
While in another hand, kothiyal dkk (2013) state that Think-Pair-Share (TPS) is a classroom-based active learning strategy, in which students work on a problem posed by the instructor, first individually, then in pairs, and finally as a class-wide discussion. Students pair up to share thoughts on a problem or question initiated by the instructor. This can be modified to involve pairs of students
(19)
7
exchanging ideas to enrich the discussion. The technique is good for generating class discussion and sharing of opinions and ideas.
Based on background above, reseaarcher interested in conducting research entitled:
“The Difference of Students’ Problem Solving Ability that Taught Using Cooperative Type Think – Pair – Share (TPS) and Student Teams - Achievement Divisions (STAD) in Grade XI SMA Negeri 5 Medan A.Y 2016/ 2017”.
1.2. Problem Identification
Identified problems based on the background of research above are: 1. Learning math is often considered something scary and boring
2. Students tend to memorize mathematical concepts and just take notes, even though they don't understand what they are memorized and note so that when students are given mathematics problems they don't understand how to solve them with concepts that they have memorized.
3. Students’ mathematical problem solving ability in SMA Negeri 5 Medan tends to be low. Based on the description of the mathematics teacher of SMA Negeri 5 Medan , students are not too good in solving problems. 4. Learning process in the classroom is not involving experiential situation
so that students do not make many contribution to build their knowledge. 5. The conventional way is often used in SMA Negeri 5 Medan while
respected to Curriculum of KTSP or Curriculum 2013, student centered learning has not been applied fully in the teaching and learning process of mathematics.
1.3. Problem Limitation
Based on the problem identification, the scope of this study is limited on the difference of students’ problem solving ability taught using cooperative learning model type of think – pair – share (TPS) and students teams – achievement division (STAD) in grade X SMA Negeri 5 Medan.
(20)
8
1.4. Problem Formulation
Based on the background above, the problems are formulated as: “How is the difference between Cooperative Learning model of Think – Pair – Share (TPS) and Student Teams – Achievement Division (STAD) towards students’ problem solving ability?”
1.5. Objectives of Research
The objectives of the research is:
To know any difference between cooperative learning model type of Think – pair – share and student teams – achievement division towards students’ problem solving ability in Grade X SMAN 5 Medan.
1.6. Benefits of Research
This research is expected will give the benefits as follows:
1. For students, helping them to increase their problem solving ability of mathematic
2. For teachers, opening their insight about developing the learning process well.
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 the insight, ability, information and experience in increasing the competency as teacher student.
1.7. Operational Definition
The operational definition of this study is described as follows:
1. Cooperative Learning Think- Pair-Share (TPS) type: The think, pair, share strategy is a cooperative learning technique that encourages individual participation and is applicable across all grade levels and class sizes. Students think through questions using three distinct steps:
(21)
9
Think: Students think independently about the question that has been posed, forming ideas of their own.
Pair: Students are grouped in pairs to discuss their thoughts. This step allows students to articulate their ideas and to consider those of others.
Share: Student pairs share their ideas with a larger group, such as the whole class. Often, students are more comfortable presenting ideas to a group with the support of a partner. In addition, students' ideas have become more refined through this three-step process.
2. Student Teams - Achievement Divisions is one of the systems of cooperative learning in which students learn to be formed into groups of four or five members representing the students with the skills and different genders.
3. Problem solving ability is the ability which gained by students to understand and complete the problems which are faced by using their skills and abilities to determine the concept they should use to be applied in solving the problem.
(22)
52
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclusion
In this research, the comparison of students’ mathematical problem solving
ability in the unit of Program Linear in grade XI classes in SMA N 5 Medan is examined between the class which is taught using Think – Pair – Share (TPS) and Student Teams – Achievement Division (STAD
In Hypothesis test, the data are processed based on difference of posttest and pretest shows that � � (0.100) < � (1.99) which mean H₀ accepted. So, can be concluded that there is no difference between cooperative learning model type of think – pair – share and student teams – achievement division towards
students’ problem solving ability
5.1 Suggestions
Related to the writer’s research, some suggestions are pointed out as
follows:
Based on the conclusion and relevant study of this research, there are some suggestions as follows:
1. For mathematics teacher, to implement Think-pair-share and student teams –
achievement division model in the learning activity such that students’ problem
solving ability can be increased significantly.
2. For students, to cooperate with teachers by following the steps of learning
process and don’t ignore the steps of problem solving ability.
3. For next researcher, to observe another students’ ability of mathematics which can be affected by problem based learning model and another choices of learning model and also choose the school that already familiar with cooperative learning. 4. Because in this research the learning models are implemented to the topic of program linear, it is suggested to try another topic of mathematics and relate it
(23)
53
REFERENCES
Abdurrahman, M., (2009), Pendidikan Bagi Anak Berkesulitan Belajar, Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
Adam, D., Hamm, M., (2010). Demystify Math, Science, And Technology: Creativity, Innovation and Problem Solving, Rowman and Littlefield Education, Meryland.
Apriliana, Irma (2011), Perbedaan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematis Siswa Menggunakan Model Pembelajaran Tipe STAD dan Tipe TPS, Skripsi, FMIPA – Unila, Lampung.
Arends, R.I., (2012), Learning to Teach, Ninth Edition, Mc GrawHill, New York. Asmin., (2012), Pengukuran dan Penilaian Hasil Belajar dengan Analisis Klasik dan
Modern, LARISPA, Medan.
Bafaqih, F., (2013), The Difference of Mathematical Problem Solving Ability by Using Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD) and Direct Instruction (DI) on System Linear Equation Two Variable in Grade VIII SMP Negeri 11 Medan Academic Year 2013/2014, Skripsi, FMIPA – Unimed, Medan.
Baiduri., (2014), Thinking Process of Elementary School Students in Word Problem Solving, International Seminar on Innovation in Mathematics and Mathematics Education, Yogyakarta.
Brown, Tom and John Eagles., (2011), Teaching Psychiatry to Undergraduates, The Royal College Psychiatrists, London.
Daulay, Anggi Paramita., (2014), The Difference Of Students’ Problem Solving Ability By Using Cooperative Learning Model Type Think-Pair Share (TPS) And Type Student Teams-Achievement Division (STAD) In The Topic Of Trigonometry In Grade X Of SMA Negeri 1 Perbaungan A.Y. 2013/2014, Skripsi, FMIPA – Unimed, Medan.
Dyson, Ben and Ashley Casey., (2012), Cooperative Learning in Physical Education: A Research – Based Approach, Routledge, New York.
(24)
54
Febianti, G.A.D., (2012), Perbandingan Peningkatan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematis Antara Siswa yang Memperoleh Pembelajaran Melalui Pendekatan Anchored Instruction dan Pendekatan Problem Posing, Thesis, FMIPA, UPI, Bandung.
Guttierez, A., and Boero, P., (2006), Handbook of Research on the Psychology of Mathematics Education: Past, Present and Future, Sense Publisher, Rotterdam.
Hamalik, Oemar., (2001), Proses Belajar Mengajar, Bumi Aksara, Jakarta.
Hudojo, H., (2005), Pengembangan Kurikulum dan Pembelajaran Matematika, Universitas Negeri Malang (UM Press), Malang.
Isjoni, (2007), Pembelajaran Visioner, Pustaka Pelajar, Jakarta.
Kumalasari, Ellisia., (2011), Peningkatan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematis Siswa Smp Melalui Pembelajaran Matematika Model Core, Bandung: Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pendidikan Matematika STKIP, Siliwangi Bandung.
Mansyur, M.Z., (2014), Penerapan Pendekatan Pembelajaran Metacognitive Scaffolding Untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematis Siswa Sekolah Menengah Pertama, Thesis, UPI, Bandung.
Millis, Barbara J., (2010), Cooperative Learning in Higher Education: Across the Disciplines, Across the Academy, Stylus Publishing, Virginia.
Mink, D.V., (2010), Strategies for Teaching Mathematics, Shell Education, California. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)., (2000), Principles and
Standards for School Mathematics, Reston, NCTM.
Roberts, Tim S., (2004), Online Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice, Idea Group Inc, USA.
Ruseffendi., (2006), Pengantar Kepada Membantu Guru Mengembangkan Kompetensinya dalam Pengajaran Matematika, Tarsito, Bandung.
(25)
55
Sharan, S., (2009), Handbook of Cooperative Learning: Inovasi Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran untuk Memacu Keberhasilan Peserta didik di Kelas, Imperium, Yogyakarta.
Sharp, Conni., (2000), Increasing Mathematical Problem Solving Performance Through Relaxation Training, Mathematics Education Research Journal,
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03217074
Slameto., (2010), Belajar dan Faktor – Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya, Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
Slavin, Robert., (2005), Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research and Practice, Allymand Bacon, London.
Sumarmo, Utari., (2012), Pendidikan Karakter serta pengembangan berpikir dan disposisi Matematika dalam Pembelajaran Matematika, Seminar Pendidikan Matematika, NTT.
Tokuhama – Espinosa, Tracey., (2014), Making Classrooms Better: 50 Practical Applications of Mind, Brain, and Education Science, W.W. Norton and
Company, New York.
Trianto., (2009), Model-model Pembelajaran Inovatif Berorientasi Konstruktivistik, Prestasi Pustaka Publisher, Jakarta.
Tsay, M., Brady, M., (2010), A Case Study of Cooperative Learning and Communication Pedagogy: Does Working in Teams Make a Difference?, Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 78 –89.
Wyk, M.M., (2013), The Effect of Student Teams Achievement Divisions as a Teaching
Strategy on Grade 10 Learners’ Economics Knowledge, International Journal
For Cross- Disciplinary Subject in Education, 4(2), 1153-1157.
Yusmaniar, Lusy., (2014), Meningkatkan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematis Siswa Melalui Pembelajaran Matematika Dengan Menggunakan Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD), Thesis, Universitas Singaperbangsa Karawang, Bekasi.
(1)
1.4. Problem Formulation
Based on the background above, the problems are formulated as: “How is the difference between Cooperative Learning model of Think – Pair – Share (TPS) and Student Teams – Achievement Division (STAD) towards students’ problem solving ability?”
1.5. Objectives of Research
The objectives of the research is:
To know any difference between cooperative learning model type of Think – pair – share and student teams – achievement division towards students’ problem solving ability in Grade X SMAN 5 Medan.
1.6. Benefits of Research
This research is expected will give the benefits as follows:
1. For students, helping them to increase their problem solving ability of mathematic
2. For teachers, opening their insight about developing the learning process well.
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 the insight, ability, information and experience in increasing the competency as teacher student.
1.7. Operational Definition
The operational definition of this study is described as follows:
1. Cooperative Learning Think- Pair-Share (TPS) type: The think, pair, share strategy is a cooperative learning technique that encourages individual participation and is applicable across all grade levels and class sizes. Students think through questions using three distinct steps:
(2)
Think: Students think independently about the question that has been posed, forming ideas of their own.
Pair: Students are grouped in pairs to discuss their thoughts. This step allows students to articulate their ideas and to consider those of others.
Share: Student pairs share their ideas with a larger group, such as the whole class. Often, students are more comfortable presenting ideas to a group with the support of a partner. In addition, students' ideas have become more refined through this three-step process.
2. Student Teams - Achievement Divisions is one of the systems of cooperative learning in which students learn to be formed into groups of four or five members representing the students with the skills and different genders.
3. Problem solving ability is the ability which gained by students to understand and complete the problems which are faced by using their skills and abilities to determine the concept they should use to be applied in solving the problem.
(3)
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclusion
In this research, the comparison of students’ mathematical problem solving ability in the unit of Program Linear in grade XI classes in SMA N 5 Medan is examined between the class which is taught using Think – Pair – Share (TPS) and Student Teams – Achievement Division (STAD
In Hypothesis test, the data are processed based on difference of posttest and pretest shows that � � (0.100) < � (1.99) which mean H₀ accepted. So, can be concluded that there is no difference between cooperative learning model type of think – pair – share and student teams – achievement division towards students’ problem solving ability
5.1 Suggestions
Related to the writer’s research, some suggestions are pointed out as follows:
Based on the conclusion and relevant study of this research, there are some suggestions as follows:
1. For mathematics teacher, to implement Think-pair-share and student teams – achievement division model in the learning activity such that students’ problem solving ability can be increased significantly.
2. For students, to cooperate with teachers by following the steps of learning process and don’t ignore the steps of problem solving ability.
3. For next researcher, to observe another students’ ability of mathematics which can be affected by problem based learning model and another choices of learning model and also choose the school that already familiar with cooperative learning. 4. Because in this research the learning models are implemented to the topic of program linear, it is suggested to try another topic of mathematics and relate it to others factor which may influent students’ learning outcomes
(4)
REFERENCES
Abdurrahman, M., (2009), Pendidikan Bagi Anak Berkesulitan Belajar, Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
Adam, D., Hamm, M., (2010). Demystify Math, Science, And Technology: Creativity, Innovation and Problem Solving, Rowman and Littlefield Education, Meryland.
Apriliana, Irma (2011), Perbedaan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematis Siswa Menggunakan Model Pembelajaran Tipe STAD dan Tipe TPS, Skripsi, FMIPA – Unila, Lampung.
Arends, R.I., (2012), Learning to Teach, Ninth Edition, Mc GrawHill, New York. Asmin., (2012), Pengukuran dan Penilaian Hasil Belajar dengan Analisis Klasik dan
Modern, LARISPA, Medan.
Bafaqih, F., (2013), The Difference of Mathematical Problem Solving Ability by Using Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD) and Direct Instruction (DI) on System Linear Equation Two Variable in Grade VIII SMP Negeri 11 Medan
Academic Year 2013/2014, Skripsi, FMIPA – Unimed, Medan.
Baiduri., (2014), Thinking Process of Elementary School Students in Word Problem Solving, International Seminar on Innovation in Mathematics and Mathematics Education, Yogyakarta.
Brown, Tom and John Eagles., (2011), Teaching Psychiatry to Undergraduates, The Royal College Psychiatrists, London.
Daulay, Anggi Paramita., (2014), The Difference Of Students’ Problem Solving Ability By Using Cooperative Learning Model Type Think-Pair Share (TPS) And Type Student Teams-Achievement Division (STAD) In The Topic Of Trigonometry In
Grade X Of SMA Negeri 1 Perbaungan A.Y. 2013/2014, Skripsi, FMIPA –
Unimed, Medan.
Dyson, Ben and Ashley Casey., (2012), Cooperative Learning in Physical Education: A Research – Based Approach, Routledge, New York.
(5)
Febianti, G.A.D., (2012), Perbandingan Peningkatan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematis Antara Siswa yang Memperoleh Pembelajaran Melalui Pendekatan Anchored Instruction dan Pendekatan Problem Posing, Thesis, FMIPA, UPI, Bandung.
Guttierez, A., and Boero, P., (2006), Handbook of Research on the Psychology of Mathematics Education: Past, Present and Future, Sense Publisher, Rotterdam.
Hamalik, Oemar., (2001), Proses Belajar Mengajar, Bumi Aksara, Jakarta.
Hudojo, H., (2005), Pengembangan Kurikulum dan Pembelajaran Matematika, Universitas Negeri Malang (UM Press), Malang.
Isjoni, (2007), Pembelajaran Visioner, Pustaka Pelajar, Jakarta.
Kumalasari, Ellisia., (2011), Peningkatan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematis Siswa Smp Melalui Pembelajaran Matematika Model Core, Bandung: Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pendidikan Matematika STKIP, Siliwangi Bandung.
Mansyur, M.Z., (2014), Penerapan Pendekatan Pembelajaran Metacognitive Scaffolding Untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematis Siswa Sekolah Menengah Pertama, Thesis, UPI, Bandung.
Millis, Barbara J., (2010), Cooperative Learning in Higher Education: Across the Disciplines, Across the Academy, Stylus Publishing, Virginia.
Mink, D.V., (2010), Strategies for Teaching Mathematics, Shell Education, California. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)., (2000), Principles and
Standards for School Mathematics, Reston, NCTM.
Roberts, Tim S., (2004), Online Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice, Idea Group Inc, USA.
Ruseffendi., (2006), Pengantar Kepada Membantu Guru Mengembangkan Kompetensinya dalam Pengajaran Matematika, Tarsito, Bandung.
(6)
Sharan, S., (2009), Handbook of Cooperative Learning: Inovasi Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran untuk Memacu Keberhasilan Peserta didik di Kelas, Imperium, Yogyakarta.
Sharp, Conni., (2000), Increasing Mathematical Problem Solving Performance Through Relaxation Training, Mathematics Education Research Journal, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03217074
Slameto., (2010), Belajar dan Faktor – Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya, Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
Slavin, Robert., (2005), Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research and Practice, Allymand Bacon, London.
Sumarmo, Utari., (2012), Pendidikan Karakter serta pengembangan berpikir dan disposisi Matematika dalam Pembelajaran Matematika, Seminar Pendidikan Matematika, NTT.
Tokuhama – Espinosa, Tracey., (2014), Making Classrooms Better: 50 Practical Applications of Mind, Brain, and Education Science, W.W. Norton and
Company, New York.
Trianto., (2009), Model-model Pembelajaran Inovatif Berorientasi Konstruktivistik, Prestasi Pustaka Publisher, Jakarta.
Tsay, M., Brady, M., (2010), A Case Study of Cooperative Learning and Communication Pedagogy: Does Working in Teams Make a Difference?, Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 78 –89.
Wyk, M.M., (2013), The Effect of Student Teams Achievement Divisions as a Teaching
Strategy on Grade 10 Learners’ Economics Knowledge, International Journal
For Cross- Disciplinary Subject in Education, 4(2), 1153-1157.
Yusmaniar, Lusy., (2014), Meningkatkan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematis Siswa Melalui Pembelajaran Matematika Dengan Menggunakan Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD), Thesis, Universitas Singaperbangsa Karawang, Bekasi.