THE DIFFERENCES OF STUDENT’S LEARNING OUTCOMES AND STUDENT’S CHARACTER THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL IN SALT HYDROLYSIS TOPIC.
1
THE DIFFERENCES OF STUDENT’S LEARNING OUTCOMES AND
STUDENT’S CHARACTER THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION OF
COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL IN
SALT HYDROLYSIS TOPIC
By :
Evi Riana Simanjuntak
Reg. Number 4123131029
Bilingual Chemistry Education Study Program
A THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fullfillment of the Requirements for The
Degree of SarjanaPendidikan
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2016
2
i
xiii
THE DIFFERENCES OF STUDENT’S LEARNING OUTCOMES AND
STUDENT’S CHARACTER THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION OF
COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL IN
SALT HYDROLYSIS TOPIC
Evi Riana Simanjuntak (4123131029)
Abstract
The objective of this research is to know the difference of student’s learning
outcomes and student’s character by implementing cooperative learning model types STAD
(Student Team Achievement Division), NHT (Number Head Together) and TPS (Think Pair
Share). This research was conducted in three different school in grade XI, in SMA Negeri 1
Tebing Tinggi, SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi and SMA Negeri 1 Sidikalang where each school
consist of three experimental classes, the first experimental class taught by cooperative
learning model STAD, second experimental class taught by cooperative learning model NHT
and third experimental class taught by cooperative learning model TPS. The research
instrument in this research are 20 multiple choice questions from 40 questions that have
validated. Before hypothesis test, the data of research had been analyzed by using normality
test and homogeneity test, which is shown that learning outcomes are normal distributed and
homogenous. For the first school based on hypothesis test using F-Test (α = 0.05), the sig
value is 3.949, second school, the sig value is 9.699 and third school the sig value is 4.674. .
It show for verbal hypothesis that Ftable (3.11) < Fcount (3.949) means the Ho is rejected and
Ha is accepted. So, it shown that there is differences in in student’s learning outcomes that
taught by cooperative learning model types STAD, NHT and TPS. The student’s character
consist of discipline, teamwork, mutual respect and responsibility. The differences of
student’s character analyzed by the average score student’s character in observation sheet.
By the result in , there’s difference in student’s character taught by cooperative learning
model STAD, NHT and TPS in salt hydrolysis topic where STAD > TPS > NHT.
Keyword: Cooperative Learning Model, Student Team Achievement Division (STAD),
Number Head Together (NHT), Think Pair Share (TPS), Student’s Learning
Outcomes, Character
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The writer say the praise and gratitude to Jesus Christ, for all His graces
and blessing who always provide health, strength, spirit and everything to writer
in finishing this thesis well.
Thesis entitled “The Differences of Student’s Learning Outcomes and
Student’s Character Through Implementation of Cooperative Learning Model In
Salt Hydrolysis Topic” has been arranged to obtain the S.Pd degree of Chemistry
Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, State University of
Medan.
In this opportunity, the writer would like to axpress a million thanks for
Mr. Dr. Ajat Sudrajat, M.Si as thesis supervisor, for his guidance, advice,
suggestions and big support from begging until the end of completing this
research and also to Mr. Prof. Drs. Manihar Situmorang, M.Sc, Ph.D., Mrs. Dr.
Murniaty Simorangkir, M.Si and Mrs. Dra. Ani Sutiani, M.Si as examiner lecturer
who had given advice and suggestion to completing this thesis. Thanks also goes
to Dr. Iis Siti Jahro, M.Si, as academic supervisor who had motivated and
guidance the writer during lecturing, Prof. Dr. Retno Dwi Suyanti, M.Si as
instrument and observation sheet validator, Dr. Asrin Lubis, M.Pd, as a dean of
FMIPA UNIMED, Agus Kembaren, S.Si,M.Si as Head of Chemistry Department,
Dr. Iis Siti Jahro, M.Si, as Coordinator of Bilingual Program, Nora Susanti,S.Si,
Apt., M.Sc, as Secretary of Bilingual Program and for Sir Syamsudin as Bilingual
staff for helping in administrative assistance and kindness and all lecturer and
staff in chemistry department.
The writer also say thanks to schools that supporting for this research, the
writer would like to say thanks to Drs. Sariono as headmaster of SMA Negeri 1
Tebing Tinggi, Risna Rotua Silalahi, S.Pd as chemistry teacher, staff and
student’s grade XI. The writer would like to say thanks to Alberto Colia, M.Pd as
headmaster of SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi,Esrida Tarigan, S.Pd as chemistry
teacther, staff and student’s grade XI. And the writer also would like to say
thanks to Drs. Alben Sianturi as a headmaster of SMA Negeri 1 Sidikalang, Silas
iii
Sihombing, S.Pd as chemistry teacher, staff administration, and all students grade
XI.
The special deepest gratitude and appreciation to my beloved family, my
beloved mother Merryana Sirait and my beloved father Hasudungan Simanjuntak.
Thanks for loving, caring and supporting me all the times, and thank you for my
beloved sister Eva Riana Simanjuntak, for my young brothers Sahat Josua
Simanjuntak and Jonatan Simanjuntak and all my family who have prayed and
gave me encouragement to complete my study.
The writer also say thanks to my crazy friends, Fany, Ernita, Lady, and
Novel for the times we spent during finishing this thesis in the ‘kost’ and all my
friends in family of CESP’12, Rimbun, Lestari, Arif, Elviana, Meliana, Seruni,
Rina, Lisna, Hariati, Frida, Saadah, Nova , Suditro, Wita, Mariana, Ivana, Rolina,
, Biuti, Taufik, Descey. And also for my teaching and learning experience (PPL)
friends in Matauli Sibolga Aisyah, Febrina, Putri Wita, Findi, Bowo and Aldo,
thanks for the unforgotable experiences and moments. And thanks for all people,
whom I can’t tell one by one, who helped and gave support during my study.
The writer has done the maximal effort in the completion of this thesis, but
the writer is aware there are many weakness in terms of both content and
grammar. The writer welcome any suggestion and constructive criticism from
reader for this thesis perfectly. The writer hope the content of this thesis would be
useful in enriching the repertoire of knowledge.
Medan, June
2016
Writer,
Evi Riana Simanjuntak
ii
CONTENT LIST
LEGALIZATION SHEET
i
BIOGRAPHY
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
iii
CONTENT LIST
v
LIST OF APPENDICES
viii
LIST OF TABLES
ix
LIST OF FIGURE
xii
ABSTRACT
xiii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1
1.1 Background
1
1.2 Problem Scope
4
1.3 Problem Identification
4
1.4 Problem Formulation
4
1.5 Problem Limitation
5
1.6 Research Objectives
5
1.7 Research Benefits
5
1.8 Operational Definition
6
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Theoritical Terms
7
7
2.1.1 Definition of Learning
7
2.1.2 Learning Process
9
2.1.3 Learning Activities
9
2.1.4 Learning Outcomes
11
2.1.5 Factors Affecting Learning Outcomes
11
2.2 Cooperative Learning Model
14
2.2.1 Characteristics and Purpose of Cooperative Learning
14
2.2.2 Advantages and Weakness of Cooperative Learning
15
2.3 Character
16
2.3.1Character Values
16
ii
iii
2.3.2 Character Education
17
2.3.3 Assesment Criteria of Character Education
18
2.4 Salt Hydrolysis Materials
19
2.4.1 Kind Of Salt
20
2.5 Research Hypothesis
22
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODS
23
3.1 Place and Time of Research
23
3.2 Population and Sample of Research
23
3.3 Variable and Instrument of Research
23
3.4 Research Design
26
3.5 Research Procedures
27
3.6 Data Analysis Technique
28
3.6.1 Normality Test
28
3.6.2 Homogenity Test
28
3.6.3 One Way ANOVA Test
31
3.7 Learning Outcomes Improvement Percentage
CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION
30
32
4.1 Research Result
32
4.1.1Data Analysis of Research Instrument
32
4.1.1.1 Validity Test
32
4.1.1.2 Reliability Test
33
4.1.1.3 Difficulty Level
33
4.1.1.4 Discrimination Index
33
4.1.1.5 Destructor
34
4.1.2 Data Desciption of Result
34
4.1.2.1 Student’s Learning Outcomes
34
4.1.2.2 Observation Sheet Data of Student’s Character
36
4.1.3 Data Analysis of Research Result
38
4.1.3.1Normality Test of Student’s Learning Outcomes
38
4.1.3.2 Normality Test of Student’s Character
40
4.1.3.3 Homogeneity Test of Student’s Learning Outcomes
41
iii
iv
4.1.3.4 Homogeneity Test of Student’s Character
43
4.1.3.5 Hypothesis Test
44
4.2 Research Discussion
45
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
49
5.1 Conclusion
49
5.2 Suggestion
49
REFERENCES
50
iv
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.3. Character values in the human life and for this research the
researcher only used four character values to be measured and
observed to the students, discipline, responsibility, tolerance,
and social care(team work)
18
Table 2.4. Kind of salt in salt hydrolysis material, there are normal salt,
acidic salt and basic salt
20
Table 3.1 The design of research the difference of students’ learning
outcomes and students’ character through implementation of
cooperative learning model types in salt hydrolysis topic
27
Table 4.1.Student’s Learning Outcomes Data in SMA N 1 Tebing
Tinggi
34
Table 4.2. Student’s Learning Outcomes Data in SMA N 1 Berastagi
34
Table 4.3. Student’s Learning Outcomes Data in SMA N 1 Sidikalang
35
Table 4.4 Data of student’s character percentage of each class , experimental
class I (STAD), experimental class II (NHT) and experimental
class III (TPS) in SMA Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi
35
Table 4.5 Data of student’s character percentage of each class , experimental
class I (STAD), experimental class II (NHT) and experimental class
III (TPS) in SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi
Table 4.6 Data of student’s character percentage of each class , experimental
class I (STAD), experimental class II (NHT) and experimental class
III (TPS) in SMA Negeri 1 Sidikalang
36
36
Table 4.7. Normality Test of Student’s Learning Outcomes in SMA N 1
Tebing Tinggi
37
x
Table 4.8. Normality Test of Student’s Learning Outcomes in SMA N 1
Berastagi
38
Table 4.9. Normality Test of Student’s Learning Outcomes in SMA N 1
Sidikalang
38
Table 4.10. Normality Test of Student’s Character SMA N 1 Tebing
Tinggi
39
Table 4.11. Normality Test of Student’s Character SMA N 1 Berastagi
39
Table 4.12. Normality Test of Student’s Character SMA N 1 Sidikalang
40
Table 4.13. Homogeneity Test of Student’s Learning Outcomes in
SMA N 1 Tebing Tinggi
40
Table 4.14. Homogeneity Test of Student’s Learning Outcomes in
SMA N 1 Berastagi
41
Table 4.15. Homogeneity Test of Student’s Learning Outcomes in
SMA N 1 Sidikalang
41
Table 4.16. Homogeneity Test of Student’s Character in SMA N 1
Tebing Tinggi
42
Table 4.17. Homogeneity Test of Student’s Character in SMA N 1
Berastagi
42
Table 4.18. Homogeneity Test of Student’s Character in SMA N 1
Sidikalang
43
xi
Table 4.19 Hypothesis Test of Verbal Hypothesis 1 in SMA N 1
Tebing Tinggi
Table 4.20 Hypothesis Test of Verbal Hypothesis 1 in SMA N 1 Berastagi
44
44
Table 4.21 Hypothesis Test of Verbal Hypothesis 1 in SMA N 1
Sidikalang
45
viii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1
Syllabus
53
Appendix 2
Lesson Plan
55
Appendix 3
Instrument Test Lattice
81
Appendix 4
Instrument Test
96
Appendix 5
Key Answer of Instrument Test
100
Appendix 6
Student’s Character Assessment Indicator
103
Appendix 7
Calculation of Validity Test
106
Appendix 8
Calculation of Reliability Test
109
Appendix 9
Calculation of Difficulty Level
111
Appendix 10 Calculation of Discrimination Index
114
Appendix 11 Calculation of Destructor
116
Appendix 12 Data of Student’s Learning Outcomes
117
Appendix 13 Calculation of Improvement Percentage
126
Appendix 14 Calculation of Normality Test
135
Appendix 15 Calculation of Homogeneity Test
147
Appendix 16 Student’s Character Data Calculation
153
Appendix 17 Hypothesis Testing
155
Appendix 18 Research Documentation
161
viii
xii
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 3.5. The overview of research planning to senior high school students,
the difference of students’ learning outcomes and students’ character
through implementation of cooperative learning model types in salt
hydrolysis topic
31
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Through the education process in schools and learning activities is the most
fundamental, this means that the achievement of educational goals much depends on
the learning process experienced by students , (Daryanto, 2010). Education is a
process of guidance which determine the pattern of growth and development of
children towards maturation. Therefore, education is a basic human needs in the
process of potential coaching sense, spiritual, physical and moral. The concept of
learning rooted to the students and teaching on students.
The problem of education can not be separated from the problem of learning
because learning is at the core of education prosses. Improving the quality of
education shows on improving the quality of learning processes and outcomes. A
good quality education system in term of its process is if the learning process takes
place in an effective and students experience significant learning process and
supported by sufficient resources (Hamid, 2007: 1). The effectiveness of learning is
described by the achievement of learning achieved by the students. In other words,
the more effective of learning so the student learning outcomes become better.
The number of concepts in chemistry leads to the assumption of learning for
students that chemistry is difficult. This is consistent with observations of researchers
for implementing Program Field Experience Integrated (PPLT) in SMA Negeri 1
Matauli Pandan Sibolga in class XI, the value of the chemical the average student is
still far from the value of minimum completeness criteria (KKM) assigned schools
where KKM for class XI 2.81 of an index is 4.00. From the observations of
researchers, on average only 25% of students are able to follow and understand the
lessons well. Based on interviews conducted by researchers obtained the fact that the
chemistry was difficult because of the many concepts, formulas, and the learning are
less interesting.
2
The fact are often found is a learning model that is often used by teachers is a
conventional model. In this model, the teacher lecturing while students just sit down,
take notes and listen to what is presented teacher. Sometimes teachers give students
the opportunity to ask if there are things that not understood in the subject matter
described. However this is not strong enough to stimulate the students in improving
its activity following the learning process.
Student-centered teaching and learning is the recommended approach to modern
day pedagogy especially in the Outcomes-based Education where the teachers served
as the facilitator of learning activities rather than performing the traditional lecture
method (Laguador, 2014). Based on current trends in education which point toward
increased use of distance learning and research on the benefits of cooperative learning
at all levels, this study investigated the effectiveness of specific cooperative learning
(CL) strategies in discussion boards, a commonly used distance learning tool which
fosters student engagement online. The results of the study will benefit instructors as
well as students participating in distance learning, as they reflect on an improve
teaching and learning practices in a virtual classroom (Kupczynski, 2012)
Cooperative learning model is a learning approach that focuses on the use of
small groups to work together to maximize the learning conditions for achieving the
goal. Cooperative learning is a teaching strategy that involves students working in
collaboration to achieve common goals.
Cooperative learning model has several types with different steps include learning
model STAD (Students Teams Achievement Division), NHT (Numbered Head
Together) and TPS (Think Pair Share). Where all three of these methods are equally
divide the students into groups of heterogeneous and students work together with the
group, so that students can exchange information and learning experiences.
STAD is one of the simplest and most extensively researched forms of all
cooperative learning techniques and it could be an effective instrument to begin with
for teachers who are new to the cooperative learning technique (Micheal, 2012)
3
While the cooperative learning model NHT (Numbered Head Together) is a
teaching and learning techniques developed by Spencer to engage students in
studying the material covered in the lesson and check their understanding of the
lesson content. NHT is a cooperative learning designed to meet students' interaction
patterns and as an alternative to the traditional classroom structure (Trianto, 2009).
TPS is a cooperative learning that is designed to influence the pattern of student
interaction and is an effective way to create an atmosphere variation pattern class
discussion, with the assumption that all the recitation and discussion requires setting
in the control of the class as a whole (Alpusari, 2013).
Implementation of the various types of cooperative learning model has been
widely studied, one by Zuliah Isnaini Siregar (2015) with the title " Perbedaan Hasil
Belajar Kimia Siswa Menggunakan Model Pembelajaran Tipe TPS (Think Pair
Share) Dengan NHT (Numbered Head Together) Pada Pokok Bahasan Sistem Koloid
" with an increase of 75% on TPS cooperative learning model and increased 45% on
NHT cooperative learning model. Other research conducted by Sopan Nababan
(2012) with the title " Perbedaan Peningkatan Hasil Belajar Kimia Siswa Dengan
Menggunakan Metode STAD dan NHT Berbasiskan Peta Konsep Pada Materi Pokok
Hidrokarbon " with an increase of 48% on STAD cooperative learning model and
increased 53% on NHT cooperative learning model.
Character is something that has influence in the learning process. Aristotle, the
Greek philosopher, stated that good character is a practice of correct behavior
(Lickona, 1991: 50). Furthermore, Aristotle says that life in modern times tend to
forget manners including self-orientation, such as self-control, generous attitude, and
social sense. Character is a set of traits that define the figure of a person as an
individual. Character determines whether someone in achieving the desire to use the
correct way according to the environment and comply with the laws and rules of the
group.
Based on descriptions above, researchers want to apply various types of
cooperative learning model is not only on learning outcomes but also on the character
of students, so researchers interested in conducted research with the title "The
4
Differences Of Student’s Learning Outcomes And Student’s Character Through
Implementation Of Cooperative Learning Model In Salt Hydrolysis Topic”
1.2 Problem Scope
Based on the background of the problems that have been described, then the
scope of the problem in this research is how the influence of various types of
cooperative learning model for learning outcomes and students’ character.
1.3 Problem Identification
According to background above, researchers identified some problems as follows:
1. Teachers still using conventional model in teaching students
2. Students less interests to studying chemistry because the learning activity is
bored
3. Students learning outcomes very low
4. Students less in interaction and pair work in learning process because the
“teacher’s centered” model
5. The innovative learning model required that could help students in learning
process and activated students comprehension in learning chemistry,
especially on Salt Hydrolysis Topic that will taught by cooperative learning
model types STAD, TPS, and NHT.
1.4 Problem Formulation
1. Is there any difference on students learning outcomes in hydrolysis topic
between class taught by cooperative learning model types STAD, TPS, and
NHT ?
2.
How the students’ character taught by cooperative learning model types
STAD, TPS, and NHT?
3. How many the improvement percentage of students learning outcomes taught
by cooperative learning model types STAD, TPS, and NHT?
5
1.5 Problem Limitation
From the formulation of the problem that has been stated above, the researchers
need to limit the issues in this study in order to research more directed and focused.
The limitation problem in this research are:
1. The learning model used is cooperative model type STAD (Student Team
Achievement Division), NHT (Number Head Together) and TPS (Think Pair
Share).
2. The principal material which is defined on the subject of salt hydrolysis.
3. The character of the students during the learning process using the cooperative
model.
4. The subjects were students of class XI even semester in high school N 11 TP
2015/2016.
1.6 Research Objectives
1. To determine the difference on students learning outcomes in hydrolysis topic
between class taught by cooperative learning model types STAD, TPS, and
NHT
2. To determine the students character taught by cooperative learning model
types STAD, TPS, and NHT
3. To determine the increase percentage of students learning outcomes taught by
cooperative learning model types STAD, TPS, and NHT
1.7 Research Benefits
The expected benefits of this research are:
1.
For students: students will be helped in their learning because of the new
models of learning so as to improve understanding of the material being
taught and also cultivate a better character
6
2. For chemistry teacher: as consideration for the teacher to select appropriate
learning models in the learning process and help teachers in an effort to find a
model that is effective and efficient learning.
3. For collegers : as a comparison for the next researcher who will conduct
research with the same problem.
1.8 Operational Definition
The operational definition in this study are:
1. STAD cooperative learning model is a cooperative learning method for mixed
ability grouping involving the recognition of team and responsibility for
individual learning group members. Membership according to the level of
achievement, gender, ethnicity and 4-5 people in one group.
2. The type of cooperative learning model NHT is a learning model that provides
the opportunity for students to exchange ideas. This model consists of four
steps: numbering, asking questions, thinking together and giving answers.
3. The type of cooperative learning model TPS as the name "Thinking", begins
with the teacher questions or issues related to the subjects to be considered by
learners. The next, "Pairing" the teacher asks students in pairs to discuss.
"Sharing", the results of discussions with entire pair in the classroom.
4.
The results of study are the abilities of a person after the end of the learning
activity. Learning outcomes are classified into three domains: cognitive,
affective, and psychomotor domains.
5.
The character is a way of thinking and behaving that is characteristic of each
individual to live and work, both within the family, community, nation and
state. Individuals that good character is an individual who can make decisions
and be ready accountable for each result of a decision he made.
49
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1
Conclusion
Based on discussion on Chapter IV, researcher could concluded the research
that was from Problem Formulation of Chapter I :
1. There are differences on students learning outcomes in hydrolysis topic
between class of each school taught by cooperative learning model types
STAD, TPS, and NHT. NHT model’s the best model compare to STAD
and TPS in each of school sample
2. There are differences on students character in between class of each
school taught by cooperative learning model types STAD, TPS, and NHT
3. The improvement of students learning outcomes in first school ( SMA N 1
Tebing Tinggi ) are STAD = 63 % , NHT = 70 %, TPS = 49 %. For
second school ( SMA N 1 Berastagi ) are STAD = 48 %, NHT = 60 %,
TPS = 54 %. For third school ( SMA N 1 Sidikalang ) STAD = 49 %,
NHT = 60 %, TPS = 52 %.
5.2
Suggestion
Based on the research through implementation of cooperative learning model
various types in students learning, so the researcher have some suggestion
there are :
1. The teacher of school should use this model, because it can increases the
student’s learning outcomes
2. Cooperative learning model is a good innovative of learning model
because it is not just incr.ease the student’s learning outcomes but also
student’s character
3. This thesis may be a reference of the next researcher if wanted to
conducted the research same as this thesis or if wanted to developed this
research.
50
REFERENCES
Aisha., (2008), Penerapan Model Pembelajaran
NHT Dengan Bantuan Problem
Posing Untuk Meningkatkan Aktivitas Dan Hasil Belajar Akuntasi Siswa
Kelas XI SMA Purworejo T.P. 2007/2008 Jurnal Pendidikan 30: 10581065
Alpusari, M., Putra, R.A., (2015), The Application of Cooperative Learning Think
Pair Share(TPS) Model to Increase the Process Science Skills in Class IV
Elementary School Number 81 Pekanbaru City, International Journal of
Science and Research 4: 2805-2808
Arifin,Z., (2014), Evaluasi Pembelajaran, PT Rosdakarya,Bandung.
Arikunto, S., (2009), Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan, Bumi Aksara, Jakarta
Daryanto., (2010), Belajar Mengajar, Yrama Widya, Bandung.
Dheeraj, D., Kumari, R., (2013), Effect of Co-operative Learning on Achievement in
Environmental Science of School Student, International Journal of
Scientific and Research Publications 3: 1-3
Djamarah, B.S., dan Zain, A., (2006), Strategi Belajar Mengajar, Penerbit Rineka
Cipta, Jakarta.
Djamarah, B.S., (2011), Psikologi Belajar, Penerbit Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
Hamid, A., (2007), Teori Belajar dan Pembelajaran, Universitas Negeri Medan,
Medan.
Holiwarni, B., (2008), Penerapan Metode Penemuan Terbimbing Pada Mata
Pelajaran Sains untuk Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar Siswa Kelas IV SD
016 Pekanbaru (Laporan Penelitian), Lemlit UNRI, Pekanbaru.
Ibrahim, dkk., (2000), Pembelajaran Kooperatif, University Press, Surabaya.
Isnaini, Zuliah., (2015), Perbedaan Hasil Belajar Kimia Siswa Menggunakan Model
Pembelajaran Tipe TPS (Think Pair Share) Dengan NHT (Numbered
Head Together) Pada Pokok Bahasan Sistem Koloid., Skripsi, FMIPA,
Unimed, Medan.
51
Kiran, S., Rashid, M., Satti, A.K., (2012), A Study of Student’s Attitudes towards
Cooperative Learning, International Journal of Humanities and Social
Science 2: 141-147
Kupczynski, L., Mundy, M.A., Goswani, J., Meling, V., (2012), Cooperative
Learning In Distance Learning: A Mixed Method Study, International
Journal of Instruction 5: 81-90
Laguador, J.M., (2014), Cooperative Learning Approach In An Outcomes-Based
Environment, International Journal of Social Sciences 2: 46-55
Lickona, Thomas., (2006), Educating For Character, Bantam Books, New York
Lie, A., (2007), Mempraktikan Cooperative Learning di Ruang-Ruang Kelas,
Penerbit Grasindo, Jakarta.
Micheal, M., (2012), The Effect of the STAD Cooperative Learning Method On
Student Achievement, Attitude and Motivation in Economics Education,
Journal Social Science 33: 261-270
Nababan, Sopan., (2012), Perbedaan Peningkatan Hasil Belajar Kimia Siswa
Dengan Menggunakan Metode STAD dan NHT Berbasiskan Peta Konsep
Pada Materi Pokok Hidrokarbon, Skripsi, FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.
Silitonga, P.M., (2011), Statistik Teori dan Aplikasi Dalam Penelitian, FMIPA
UNIMED, Medan.
Slameto, 2003, Belajar dan Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya, Rineka Cipta,
Jakarta.
Siregar, E., dan Nara, H., (2010), Teori Belajar dan Pembelajaran, Penerbit Ghalia
Indonesia, Bogor.
Sudarnoto,L.F.N.,http://kuliahdaring.dikti.go.id/materiterbuka/open/dikti/Mata%20K
uliah%20Awal/Statistika%20Pendidikan/BAC/Statistika_Pendidikan_unit
_4.pdf (accesed on 14/02/2016).
Sudrajat, A, (2013), Pengembangan Perangkat Asesmen
Kompetensi Praktikum
Kimia Analitik Dasar Berbasis Task With Student Direction (TWSD) Bagi
Mahasiswa Calon Guru., Disertasi, UPI, Bandung
Suprijono, A., (2010), Cooperative Learning, Penerbit Pustaka Belajar, Yogyakarta.
52
Trianto., (2009), Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif-Progresif, Penerbit
Kencana Perdana Group, Jakarta.
THE DIFFERENCES OF STUDENT’S LEARNING OUTCOMES AND
STUDENT’S CHARACTER THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION OF
COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL IN
SALT HYDROLYSIS TOPIC
By :
Evi Riana Simanjuntak
Reg. Number 4123131029
Bilingual Chemistry Education Study Program
A THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fullfillment of the Requirements for The
Degree of SarjanaPendidikan
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2016
2
i
xiii
THE DIFFERENCES OF STUDENT’S LEARNING OUTCOMES AND
STUDENT’S CHARACTER THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION OF
COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL IN
SALT HYDROLYSIS TOPIC
Evi Riana Simanjuntak (4123131029)
Abstract
The objective of this research is to know the difference of student’s learning
outcomes and student’s character by implementing cooperative learning model types STAD
(Student Team Achievement Division), NHT (Number Head Together) and TPS (Think Pair
Share). This research was conducted in three different school in grade XI, in SMA Negeri 1
Tebing Tinggi, SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi and SMA Negeri 1 Sidikalang where each school
consist of three experimental classes, the first experimental class taught by cooperative
learning model STAD, second experimental class taught by cooperative learning model NHT
and third experimental class taught by cooperative learning model TPS. The research
instrument in this research are 20 multiple choice questions from 40 questions that have
validated. Before hypothesis test, the data of research had been analyzed by using normality
test and homogeneity test, which is shown that learning outcomes are normal distributed and
homogenous. For the first school based on hypothesis test using F-Test (α = 0.05), the sig
value is 3.949, second school, the sig value is 9.699 and third school the sig value is 4.674. .
It show for verbal hypothesis that Ftable (3.11) < Fcount (3.949) means the Ho is rejected and
Ha is accepted. So, it shown that there is differences in in student’s learning outcomes that
taught by cooperative learning model types STAD, NHT and TPS. The student’s character
consist of discipline, teamwork, mutual respect and responsibility. The differences of
student’s character analyzed by the average score student’s character in observation sheet.
By the result in , there’s difference in student’s character taught by cooperative learning
model STAD, NHT and TPS in salt hydrolysis topic where STAD > TPS > NHT.
Keyword: Cooperative Learning Model, Student Team Achievement Division (STAD),
Number Head Together (NHT), Think Pair Share (TPS), Student’s Learning
Outcomes, Character
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The writer say the praise and gratitude to Jesus Christ, for all His graces
and blessing who always provide health, strength, spirit and everything to writer
in finishing this thesis well.
Thesis entitled “The Differences of Student’s Learning Outcomes and
Student’s Character Through Implementation of Cooperative Learning Model In
Salt Hydrolysis Topic” has been arranged to obtain the S.Pd degree of Chemistry
Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, State University of
Medan.
In this opportunity, the writer would like to axpress a million thanks for
Mr. Dr. Ajat Sudrajat, M.Si as thesis supervisor, for his guidance, advice,
suggestions and big support from begging until the end of completing this
research and also to Mr. Prof. Drs. Manihar Situmorang, M.Sc, Ph.D., Mrs. Dr.
Murniaty Simorangkir, M.Si and Mrs. Dra. Ani Sutiani, M.Si as examiner lecturer
who had given advice and suggestion to completing this thesis. Thanks also goes
to Dr. Iis Siti Jahro, M.Si, as academic supervisor who had motivated and
guidance the writer during lecturing, Prof. Dr. Retno Dwi Suyanti, M.Si as
instrument and observation sheet validator, Dr. Asrin Lubis, M.Pd, as a dean of
FMIPA UNIMED, Agus Kembaren, S.Si,M.Si as Head of Chemistry Department,
Dr. Iis Siti Jahro, M.Si, as Coordinator of Bilingual Program, Nora Susanti,S.Si,
Apt., M.Sc, as Secretary of Bilingual Program and for Sir Syamsudin as Bilingual
staff for helping in administrative assistance and kindness and all lecturer and
staff in chemistry department.
The writer also say thanks to schools that supporting for this research, the
writer would like to say thanks to Drs. Sariono as headmaster of SMA Negeri 1
Tebing Tinggi, Risna Rotua Silalahi, S.Pd as chemistry teacher, staff and
student’s grade XI. The writer would like to say thanks to Alberto Colia, M.Pd as
headmaster of SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi,Esrida Tarigan, S.Pd as chemistry
teacther, staff and student’s grade XI. And the writer also would like to say
thanks to Drs. Alben Sianturi as a headmaster of SMA Negeri 1 Sidikalang, Silas
iii
Sihombing, S.Pd as chemistry teacher, staff administration, and all students grade
XI.
The special deepest gratitude and appreciation to my beloved family, my
beloved mother Merryana Sirait and my beloved father Hasudungan Simanjuntak.
Thanks for loving, caring and supporting me all the times, and thank you for my
beloved sister Eva Riana Simanjuntak, for my young brothers Sahat Josua
Simanjuntak and Jonatan Simanjuntak and all my family who have prayed and
gave me encouragement to complete my study.
The writer also say thanks to my crazy friends, Fany, Ernita, Lady, and
Novel for the times we spent during finishing this thesis in the ‘kost’ and all my
friends in family of CESP’12, Rimbun, Lestari, Arif, Elviana, Meliana, Seruni,
Rina, Lisna, Hariati, Frida, Saadah, Nova , Suditro, Wita, Mariana, Ivana, Rolina,
, Biuti, Taufik, Descey. And also for my teaching and learning experience (PPL)
friends in Matauli Sibolga Aisyah, Febrina, Putri Wita, Findi, Bowo and Aldo,
thanks for the unforgotable experiences and moments. And thanks for all people,
whom I can’t tell one by one, who helped and gave support during my study.
The writer has done the maximal effort in the completion of this thesis, but
the writer is aware there are many weakness in terms of both content and
grammar. The writer welcome any suggestion and constructive criticism from
reader for this thesis perfectly. The writer hope the content of this thesis would be
useful in enriching the repertoire of knowledge.
Medan, June
2016
Writer,
Evi Riana Simanjuntak
ii
CONTENT LIST
LEGALIZATION SHEET
i
BIOGRAPHY
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
iii
CONTENT LIST
v
LIST OF APPENDICES
viii
LIST OF TABLES
ix
LIST OF FIGURE
xii
ABSTRACT
xiii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1
1.1 Background
1
1.2 Problem Scope
4
1.3 Problem Identification
4
1.4 Problem Formulation
4
1.5 Problem Limitation
5
1.6 Research Objectives
5
1.7 Research Benefits
5
1.8 Operational Definition
6
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Theoritical Terms
7
7
2.1.1 Definition of Learning
7
2.1.2 Learning Process
9
2.1.3 Learning Activities
9
2.1.4 Learning Outcomes
11
2.1.5 Factors Affecting Learning Outcomes
11
2.2 Cooperative Learning Model
14
2.2.1 Characteristics and Purpose of Cooperative Learning
14
2.2.2 Advantages and Weakness of Cooperative Learning
15
2.3 Character
16
2.3.1Character Values
16
ii
iii
2.3.2 Character Education
17
2.3.3 Assesment Criteria of Character Education
18
2.4 Salt Hydrolysis Materials
19
2.4.1 Kind Of Salt
20
2.5 Research Hypothesis
22
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODS
23
3.1 Place and Time of Research
23
3.2 Population and Sample of Research
23
3.3 Variable and Instrument of Research
23
3.4 Research Design
26
3.5 Research Procedures
27
3.6 Data Analysis Technique
28
3.6.1 Normality Test
28
3.6.2 Homogenity Test
28
3.6.3 One Way ANOVA Test
31
3.7 Learning Outcomes Improvement Percentage
CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION
30
32
4.1 Research Result
32
4.1.1Data Analysis of Research Instrument
32
4.1.1.1 Validity Test
32
4.1.1.2 Reliability Test
33
4.1.1.3 Difficulty Level
33
4.1.1.4 Discrimination Index
33
4.1.1.5 Destructor
34
4.1.2 Data Desciption of Result
34
4.1.2.1 Student’s Learning Outcomes
34
4.1.2.2 Observation Sheet Data of Student’s Character
36
4.1.3 Data Analysis of Research Result
38
4.1.3.1Normality Test of Student’s Learning Outcomes
38
4.1.3.2 Normality Test of Student’s Character
40
4.1.3.3 Homogeneity Test of Student’s Learning Outcomes
41
iii
iv
4.1.3.4 Homogeneity Test of Student’s Character
43
4.1.3.5 Hypothesis Test
44
4.2 Research Discussion
45
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
49
5.1 Conclusion
49
5.2 Suggestion
49
REFERENCES
50
iv
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.3. Character values in the human life and for this research the
researcher only used four character values to be measured and
observed to the students, discipline, responsibility, tolerance,
and social care(team work)
18
Table 2.4. Kind of salt in salt hydrolysis material, there are normal salt,
acidic salt and basic salt
20
Table 3.1 The design of research the difference of students’ learning
outcomes and students’ character through implementation of
cooperative learning model types in salt hydrolysis topic
27
Table 4.1.Student’s Learning Outcomes Data in SMA N 1 Tebing
Tinggi
34
Table 4.2. Student’s Learning Outcomes Data in SMA N 1 Berastagi
34
Table 4.3. Student’s Learning Outcomes Data in SMA N 1 Sidikalang
35
Table 4.4 Data of student’s character percentage of each class , experimental
class I (STAD), experimental class II (NHT) and experimental
class III (TPS) in SMA Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi
35
Table 4.5 Data of student’s character percentage of each class , experimental
class I (STAD), experimental class II (NHT) and experimental class
III (TPS) in SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi
Table 4.6 Data of student’s character percentage of each class , experimental
class I (STAD), experimental class II (NHT) and experimental class
III (TPS) in SMA Negeri 1 Sidikalang
36
36
Table 4.7. Normality Test of Student’s Learning Outcomes in SMA N 1
Tebing Tinggi
37
x
Table 4.8. Normality Test of Student’s Learning Outcomes in SMA N 1
Berastagi
38
Table 4.9. Normality Test of Student’s Learning Outcomes in SMA N 1
Sidikalang
38
Table 4.10. Normality Test of Student’s Character SMA N 1 Tebing
Tinggi
39
Table 4.11. Normality Test of Student’s Character SMA N 1 Berastagi
39
Table 4.12. Normality Test of Student’s Character SMA N 1 Sidikalang
40
Table 4.13. Homogeneity Test of Student’s Learning Outcomes in
SMA N 1 Tebing Tinggi
40
Table 4.14. Homogeneity Test of Student’s Learning Outcomes in
SMA N 1 Berastagi
41
Table 4.15. Homogeneity Test of Student’s Learning Outcomes in
SMA N 1 Sidikalang
41
Table 4.16. Homogeneity Test of Student’s Character in SMA N 1
Tebing Tinggi
42
Table 4.17. Homogeneity Test of Student’s Character in SMA N 1
Berastagi
42
Table 4.18. Homogeneity Test of Student’s Character in SMA N 1
Sidikalang
43
xi
Table 4.19 Hypothesis Test of Verbal Hypothesis 1 in SMA N 1
Tebing Tinggi
Table 4.20 Hypothesis Test of Verbal Hypothesis 1 in SMA N 1 Berastagi
44
44
Table 4.21 Hypothesis Test of Verbal Hypothesis 1 in SMA N 1
Sidikalang
45
viii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1
Syllabus
53
Appendix 2
Lesson Plan
55
Appendix 3
Instrument Test Lattice
81
Appendix 4
Instrument Test
96
Appendix 5
Key Answer of Instrument Test
100
Appendix 6
Student’s Character Assessment Indicator
103
Appendix 7
Calculation of Validity Test
106
Appendix 8
Calculation of Reliability Test
109
Appendix 9
Calculation of Difficulty Level
111
Appendix 10 Calculation of Discrimination Index
114
Appendix 11 Calculation of Destructor
116
Appendix 12 Data of Student’s Learning Outcomes
117
Appendix 13 Calculation of Improvement Percentage
126
Appendix 14 Calculation of Normality Test
135
Appendix 15 Calculation of Homogeneity Test
147
Appendix 16 Student’s Character Data Calculation
153
Appendix 17 Hypothesis Testing
155
Appendix 18 Research Documentation
161
viii
xii
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 3.5. The overview of research planning to senior high school students,
the difference of students’ learning outcomes and students’ character
through implementation of cooperative learning model types in salt
hydrolysis topic
31
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Through the education process in schools and learning activities is the most
fundamental, this means that the achievement of educational goals much depends on
the learning process experienced by students , (Daryanto, 2010). Education is a
process of guidance which determine the pattern of growth and development of
children towards maturation. Therefore, education is a basic human needs in the
process of potential coaching sense, spiritual, physical and moral. The concept of
learning rooted to the students and teaching on students.
The problem of education can not be separated from the problem of learning
because learning is at the core of education prosses. Improving the quality of
education shows on improving the quality of learning processes and outcomes. A
good quality education system in term of its process is if the learning process takes
place in an effective and students experience significant learning process and
supported by sufficient resources (Hamid, 2007: 1). The effectiveness of learning is
described by the achievement of learning achieved by the students. In other words,
the more effective of learning so the student learning outcomes become better.
The number of concepts in chemistry leads to the assumption of learning for
students that chemistry is difficult. This is consistent with observations of researchers
for implementing Program Field Experience Integrated (PPLT) in SMA Negeri 1
Matauli Pandan Sibolga in class XI, the value of the chemical the average student is
still far from the value of minimum completeness criteria (KKM) assigned schools
where KKM for class XI 2.81 of an index is 4.00. From the observations of
researchers, on average only 25% of students are able to follow and understand the
lessons well. Based on interviews conducted by researchers obtained the fact that the
chemistry was difficult because of the many concepts, formulas, and the learning are
less interesting.
2
The fact are often found is a learning model that is often used by teachers is a
conventional model. In this model, the teacher lecturing while students just sit down,
take notes and listen to what is presented teacher. Sometimes teachers give students
the opportunity to ask if there are things that not understood in the subject matter
described. However this is not strong enough to stimulate the students in improving
its activity following the learning process.
Student-centered teaching and learning is the recommended approach to modern
day pedagogy especially in the Outcomes-based Education where the teachers served
as the facilitator of learning activities rather than performing the traditional lecture
method (Laguador, 2014). Based on current trends in education which point toward
increased use of distance learning and research on the benefits of cooperative learning
at all levels, this study investigated the effectiveness of specific cooperative learning
(CL) strategies in discussion boards, a commonly used distance learning tool which
fosters student engagement online. The results of the study will benefit instructors as
well as students participating in distance learning, as they reflect on an improve
teaching and learning practices in a virtual classroom (Kupczynski, 2012)
Cooperative learning model is a learning approach that focuses on the use of
small groups to work together to maximize the learning conditions for achieving the
goal. Cooperative learning is a teaching strategy that involves students working in
collaboration to achieve common goals.
Cooperative learning model has several types with different steps include learning
model STAD (Students Teams Achievement Division), NHT (Numbered Head
Together) and TPS (Think Pair Share). Where all three of these methods are equally
divide the students into groups of heterogeneous and students work together with the
group, so that students can exchange information and learning experiences.
STAD is one of the simplest and most extensively researched forms of all
cooperative learning techniques and it could be an effective instrument to begin with
for teachers who are new to the cooperative learning technique (Micheal, 2012)
3
While the cooperative learning model NHT (Numbered Head Together) is a
teaching and learning techniques developed by Spencer to engage students in
studying the material covered in the lesson and check their understanding of the
lesson content. NHT is a cooperative learning designed to meet students' interaction
patterns and as an alternative to the traditional classroom structure (Trianto, 2009).
TPS is a cooperative learning that is designed to influence the pattern of student
interaction and is an effective way to create an atmosphere variation pattern class
discussion, with the assumption that all the recitation and discussion requires setting
in the control of the class as a whole (Alpusari, 2013).
Implementation of the various types of cooperative learning model has been
widely studied, one by Zuliah Isnaini Siregar (2015) with the title " Perbedaan Hasil
Belajar Kimia Siswa Menggunakan Model Pembelajaran Tipe TPS (Think Pair
Share) Dengan NHT (Numbered Head Together) Pada Pokok Bahasan Sistem Koloid
" with an increase of 75% on TPS cooperative learning model and increased 45% on
NHT cooperative learning model. Other research conducted by Sopan Nababan
(2012) with the title " Perbedaan Peningkatan Hasil Belajar Kimia Siswa Dengan
Menggunakan Metode STAD dan NHT Berbasiskan Peta Konsep Pada Materi Pokok
Hidrokarbon " with an increase of 48% on STAD cooperative learning model and
increased 53% on NHT cooperative learning model.
Character is something that has influence in the learning process. Aristotle, the
Greek philosopher, stated that good character is a practice of correct behavior
(Lickona, 1991: 50). Furthermore, Aristotle says that life in modern times tend to
forget manners including self-orientation, such as self-control, generous attitude, and
social sense. Character is a set of traits that define the figure of a person as an
individual. Character determines whether someone in achieving the desire to use the
correct way according to the environment and comply with the laws and rules of the
group.
Based on descriptions above, researchers want to apply various types of
cooperative learning model is not only on learning outcomes but also on the character
of students, so researchers interested in conducted research with the title "The
4
Differences Of Student’s Learning Outcomes And Student’s Character Through
Implementation Of Cooperative Learning Model In Salt Hydrolysis Topic”
1.2 Problem Scope
Based on the background of the problems that have been described, then the
scope of the problem in this research is how the influence of various types of
cooperative learning model for learning outcomes and students’ character.
1.3 Problem Identification
According to background above, researchers identified some problems as follows:
1. Teachers still using conventional model in teaching students
2. Students less interests to studying chemistry because the learning activity is
bored
3. Students learning outcomes very low
4. Students less in interaction and pair work in learning process because the
“teacher’s centered” model
5. The innovative learning model required that could help students in learning
process and activated students comprehension in learning chemistry,
especially on Salt Hydrolysis Topic that will taught by cooperative learning
model types STAD, TPS, and NHT.
1.4 Problem Formulation
1. Is there any difference on students learning outcomes in hydrolysis topic
between class taught by cooperative learning model types STAD, TPS, and
NHT ?
2.
How the students’ character taught by cooperative learning model types
STAD, TPS, and NHT?
3. How many the improvement percentage of students learning outcomes taught
by cooperative learning model types STAD, TPS, and NHT?
5
1.5 Problem Limitation
From the formulation of the problem that has been stated above, the researchers
need to limit the issues in this study in order to research more directed and focused.
The limitation problem in this research are:
1. The learning model used is cooperative model type STAD (Student Team
Achievement Division), NHT (Number Head Together) and TPS (Think Pair
Share).
2. The principal material which is defined on the subject of salt hydrolysis.
3. The character of the students during the learning process using the cooperative
model.
4. The subjects were students of class XI even semester in high school N 11 TP
2015/2016.
1.6 Research Objectives
1. To determine the difference on students learning outcomes in hydrolysis topic
between class taught by cooperative learning model types STAD, TPS, and
NHT
2. To determine the students character taught by cooperative learning model
types STAD, TPS, and NHT
3. To determine the increase percentage of students learning outcomes taught by
cooperative learning model types STAD, TPS, and NHT
1.7 Research Benefits
The expected benefits of this research are:
1.
For students: students will be helped in their learning because of the new
models of learning so as to improve understanding of the material being
taught and also cultivate a better character
6
2. For chemistry teacher: as consideration for the teacher to select appropriate
learning models in the learning process and help teachers in an effort to find a
model that is effective and efficient learning.
3. For collegers : as a comparison for the next researcher who will conduct
research with the same problem.
1.8 Operational Definition
The operational definition in this study are:
1. STAD cooperative learning model is a cooperative learning method for mixed
ability grouping involving the recognition of team and responsibility for
individual learning group members. Membership according to the level of
achievement, gender, ethnicity and 4-5 people in one group.
2. The type of cooperative learning model NHT is a learning model that provides
the opportunity for students to exchange ideas. This model consists of four
steps: numbering, asking questions, thinking together and giving answers.
3. The type of cooperative learning model TPS as the name "Thinking", begins
with the teacher questions or issues related to the subjects to be considered by
learners. The next, "Pairing" the teacher asks students in pairs to discuss.
"Sharing", the results of discussions with entire pair in the classroom.
4.
The results of study are the abilities of a person after the end of the learning
activity. Learning outcomes are classified into three domains: cognitive,
affective, and psychomotor domains.
5.
The character is a way of thinking and behaving that is characteristic of each
individual to live and work, both within the family, community, nation and
state. Individuals that good character is an individual who can make decisions
and be ready accountable for each result of a decision he made.
49
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1
Conclusion
Based on discussion on Chapter IV, researcher could concluded the research
that was from Problem Formulation of Chapter I :
1. There are differences on students learning outcomes in hydrolysis topic
between class of each school taught by cooperative learning model types
STAD, TPS, and NHT. NHT model’s the best model compare to STAD
and TPS in each of school sample
2. There are differences on students character in between class of each
school taught by cooperative learning model types STAD, TPS, and NHT
3. The improvement of students learning outcomes in first school ( SMA N 1
Tebing Tinggi ) are STAD = 63 % , NHT = 70 %, TPS = 49 %. For
second school ( SMA N 1 Berastagi ) are STAD = 48 %, NHT = 60 %,
TPS = 54 %. For third school ( SMA N 1 Sidikalang ) STAD = 49 %,
NHT = 60 %, TPS = 52 %.
5.2
Suggestion
Based on the research through implementation of cooperative learning model
various types in students learning, so the researcher have some suggestion
there are :
1. The teacher of school should use this model, because it can increases the
student’s learning outcomes
2. Cooperative learning model is a good innovative of learning model
because it is not just incr.ease the student’s learning outcomes but also
student’s character
3. This thesis may be a reference of the next researcher if wanted to
conducted the research same as this thesis or if wanted to developed this
research.
50
REFERENCES
Aisha., (2008), Penerapan Model Pembelajaran
NHT Dengan Bantuan Problem
Posing Untuk Meningkatkan Aktivitas Dan Hasil Belajar Akuntasi Siswa
Kelas XI SMA Purworejo T.P. 2007/2008 Jurnal Pendidikan 30: 10581065
Alpusari, M., Putra, R.A., (2015), The Application of Cooperative Learning Think
Pair Share(TPS) Model to Increase the Process Science Skills in Class IV
Elementary School Number 81 Pekanbaru City, International Journal of
Science and Research 4: 2805-2808
Arifin,Z., (2014), Evaluasi Pembelajaran, PT Rosdakarya,Bandung.
Arikunto, S., (2009), Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan, Bumi Aksara, Jakarta
Daryanto., (2010), Belajar Mengajar, Yrama Widya, Bandung.
Dheeraj, D., Kumari, R., (2013), Effect of Co-operative Learning on Achievement in
Environmental Science of School Student, International Journal of
Scientific and Research Publications 3: 1-3
Djamarah, B.S., dan Zain, A., (2006), Strategi Belajar Mengajar, Penerbit Rineka
Cipta, Jakarta.
Djamarah, B.S., (2011), Psikologi Belajar, Penerbit Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
Hamid, A., (2007), Teori Belajar dan Pembelajaran, Universitas Negeri Medan,
Medan.
Holiwarni, B., (2008), Penerapan Metode Penemuan Terbimbing Pada Mata
Pelajaran Sains untuk Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar Siswa Kelas IV SD
016 Pekanbaru (Laporan Penelitian), Lemlit UNRI, Pekanbaru.
Ibrahim, dkk., (2000), Pembelajaran Kooperatif, University Press, Surabaya.
Isnaini, Zuliah., (2015), Perbedaan Hasil Belajar Kimia Siswa Menggunakan Model
Pembelajaran Tipe TPS (Think Pair Share) Dengan NHT (Numbered
Head Together) Pada Pokok Bahasan Sistem Koloid., Skripsi, FMIPA,
Unimed, Medan.
51
Kiran, S., Rashid, M., Satti, A.K., (2012), A Study of Student’s Attitudes towards
Cooperative Learning, International Journal of Humanities and Social
Science 2: 141-147
Kupczynski, L., Mundy, M.A., Goswani, J., Meling, V., (2012), Cooperative
Learning In Distance Learning: A Mixed Method Study, International
Journal of Instruction 5: 81-90
Laguador, J.M., (2014), Cooperative Learning Approach In An Outcomes-Based
Environment, International Journal of Social Sciences 2: 46-55
Lickona, Thomas., (2006), Educating For Character, Bantam Books, New York
Lie, A., (2007), Mempraktikan Cooperative Learning di Ruang-Ruang Kelas,
Penerbit Grasindo, Jakarta.
Micheal, M., (2012), The Effect of the STAD Cooperative Learning Method On
Student Achievement, Attitude and Motivation in Economics Education,
Journal Social Science 33: 261-270
Nababan, Sopan., (2012), Perbedaan Peningkatan Hasil Belajar Kimia Siswa
Dengan Menggunakan Metode STAD dan NHT Berbasiskan Peta Konsep
Pada Materi Pokok Hidrokarbon, Skripsi, FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.
Silitonga, P.M., (2011), Statistik Teori dan Aplikasi Dalam Penelitian, FMIPA
UNIMED, Medan.
Slameto, 2003, Belajar dan Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya, Rineka Cipta,
Jakarta.
Siregar, E., dan Nara, H., (2010), Teori Belajar dan Pembelajaran, Penerbit Ghalia
Indonesia, Bogor.
Sudarnoto,L.F.N.,http://kuliahdaring.dikti.go.id/materiterbuka/open/dikti/Mata%20K
uliah%20Awal/Statistika%20Pendidikan/BAC/Statistika_Pendidikan_unit
_4.pdf (accesed on 14/02/2016).
Sudrajat, A, (2013), Pengembangan Perangkat Asesmen
Kompetensi Praktikum
Kimia Analitik Dasar Berbasis Task With Student Direction (TWSD) Bagi
Mahasiswa Calon Guru., Disertasi, UPI, Bandung
Suprijono, A., (2010), Cooperative Learning, Penerbit Pustaka Belajar, Yogyakarta.
52
Trianto., (2009), Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif-Progresif, Penerbit
Kencana Perdana Group, Jakarta.