THE DIFFERENCES OF STUDENTS’ LEARNING OUTCOMES AND STUDENTS’ CHARACTERS THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL TYPES IN SOLUBILITY AND SOLUBILITY PRODUCT TOPIC.
THE DIFFERENCES OF STUDENTS’ LEARNING OUTCOMES AND
STUDENTS’ CHARACTERS THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION
OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL TYPES
IN SOLUBILITY AND SOLUBILITY
PRODUCT TOPIC
By:
Descey Natalia Simbolon
Reg. Number: 4123131011
Chemistry Education Study Program 2012
A THESIS
Submitted to Fulfill Requirement for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2016
i
iii
THE DIFFERENCES OF STUDENTS’ LEARNING OUTCOMES AND
STUDENTS’ CHARACTERS THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION
OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL TYPES
IN SOLUBILITY AND SOLUBILITY
PRODUCT TOPIC
DESCEY NATALIA SIMBOLON (4123131011)
ABSTRACT
These objectives of the research are: (1) To know difference of learning
outcomes from students on learning solubility and solubility product among the
Cooperative Types STAD, TGT, and Jigsaw classes. (2) To know the characters
of students who taught by STAD, TGT and Jigsaw classes. (3) To know the
increasing of students’ learning outcomes who taught by STAD, TGT, and
Jigsaw. Populations of this research were all class in grade XI Science on 2nd
semester from SMAN 1 Tebing Tinggi, SMAN 1 Sidikalang, and SMAN 1
Berastagi. Samples were chosen by purposive random sampling and taken 3
classes per schools, so that they are 9 classes. The initial characters of students
were assumed in the same condition. The result of research of students’ learning
outcomes and treatments (STAD, TGT and Jigsaw model) are (1) There are
significant differences between learning outcomes between three of learning
models with Pretest value in SMAN 1 T.Tinggi for experiment I is 35.50 ± 8.07,
for experiment II is 35.38 ± 8.80, and experiment III is 37.38 ± 6.89. In SMAN 1
Sidikalang experiment I is 38.28 ± 8.12, for experiment II is 40.47 ± 6.64, and
experiment III is 39.84 ± 6.45. In SMAN 1 Berastagi for experiment I is 35.94 ±
6.89, for experiment II is 37.50 ± 6.96, and experiment III is 39.53 ± 6.52. For
Posttest value in SMAN 1 T.Tinggi for experiment I is 83.75 ± 4.63, for
experiment II is 81.50 ± 5.21, and experiment III is 78.00 ± 5.64. In SMAN 1
Sidikalang experiment I is 80.78 ± 7.16, for experiment II is 78.75 ± 5.82, and
experiment III is 79.22 ± 6.51. In SMAN 1 Berastagi for experiment I is 82.50 ±
6.35, for experiment II is 82.19 5.67, and experiment III is 83.28 ± 4.85. The
hypothesis can be seen from
. In SMAN 1 Tebing Tinggi is
12.524 > 3.25. In SMAN 1 Sidikalang is 5.851 > 3.33. In SMAN 1 Berastagi is
3.433 > 3.33. It means Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted (2) There are significant
differences of students’ characters in SMAN 1 T.Tinggi for experiment class I is
72.23, class II is 68.28, class III is 67.50. In SMAN 1 Sidikalang for experiment
class I is 74.74, class II is 72.01, and class III is 66.60. And in SMAN 1 Berastagi
for experiment class I is 74.74, class II is 72.01, class III is 66.06 (3) There are
significant differences increasing students’ learning outcomes that taught by
Cooperative Learning Model Types STAD, TGT, and Jigsaw in SMAN 1 Tebing
Tinggi is 70%, in SMAN 1 Sidikalang is 66%, and in SMAN 1 Berastagi is 72%.
Key Words: Learning Outcomes, Students’ Characters, Cooperative Learning
Model Types, Solubility and Solubility Product
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The greatest thankfulness is given to Almighty God, Jesus Christ, and
Mother Marry, who always give blessing and provide health, wisdom, strength,
spirit, knowledge and materials for the writer in composing this thesis accordance
with the planned time.
The title of thesis is “The Differences of Students’ Learning Outcomes and
Students’ Characters through Implementation of Cooperative Learning Model
Types in Solubility and Solubility Product Topic” that arranged to obtain the
degree of Sarjana Pendidikan in Chemistry Department, Faculty of Mathematics
and Natural Sciences, State University of Medan (Unimed).
In this opportunity, the writer would like to express thanks and great
appreciation to the Dr. Ajat Sudrajat, M.Si as my thesis supervisor for his valuable
time spent in giving guidance, advices, motivations and suggestions during
completing this thesis. The writer also thanks to Prof. Drs. Manihar Situmorang,
M.Sc., Ph.D., Dra. Ani Sutiani, M.Si., and Dr. Murniaty Simorangkir, M. S., as
the reviewer counselor for this thesis that giving me advices, suggestions,
guidance and constructive comments for this thesis’ completeness.
The writer also says thanks to Dr. Asrin Lubis, M.Pd., as the Dean of
Mathematics and Natural Sciences Faculty, State University of Medan, Dr. Iis Siti
Jahro, M.Si., as the Coordinator of Bilingual Program, Mrs.Nora Susanti, S.Si,
Apt., M.Sc., as the Secretary of Bilingual Program, Agus Kembaren, S.Si., M.Si
as the head of chemistry department, Mr. Syamsudin and Mr. Iqbal as the
administrator of Bilingual Office for their advices and other necessary
administrative business. The great thanks are also given to Drs. Eddyanto, Ph.D.,
as my academic supervisor for his guidance during my academic process in this
University. The writer also says thanks to Prof.Dr. Retno Dwi Suyanti, M.Si as
the instrument’s validator in this research.
The author appreciation also given to Principal of SMA Negeri 1 Tebing
Tinggi, Drs. Sariono, for the chemistry teacher, Mrs. Jenny Pasaribu, S.Pd;
Principal of SMA Negeri 1 Sidikalang, Drs. Alben Sianturi, for the chemistry
v
teacher, Mr. S. Sihombing, S.Pd; and Principal of SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi,
Alberto Colia, M.Pd., for the chemistry teacher, Mrs. Mariani Barus, S.Pd.
A deepest love, appreciation and thanks also go to my beloved parents,
Mr. Kiris Simbolon and Mrs. Sormada Sinaga for their love, motivations, prays,
and financial support to me during my university lecture process, also for my
family, my sisters and brothers of cousins for their fighting and prays.
Special thanks are given to all my classmates in Bilingual Chemistry
Education 2012 that always give me the best memory in my education process.
For my sisters and brother of CESP 2013.Special thanks also for my PPL Team in
SMAN 2 Balige; Ruben, Arny, Corry, Carol, Rani, Bella, Arif, Ivana, Marianna,
Rohani, and Jerry for the love, motivations, supports, and spending time together.
For all my students at SMAN 2 Balige especially, Elescour, Aselcif, Alkana
,Qafoess, and Nommensen. Thanks for being my strengths. Thanks for my
students at SMAN 1 Tebing Tinggi, SMAN 1 Sidikalang, and SMAN 1 Berastagi
as my researches’ students and schools. The writer also would like to say thanks
to my childhood friend as sister, Borisma Anastasia Sinaga, my best friend from
Junior High School until now Novi Serliana and everyone in my life that can’t be
mentioned one by one for your support and helping in my thesis process.
Finally, writer hopes this thesis can be used for those who would like to
explore more about learning model in solubility and solubility product topic. The
writer realizes that this thesis is still far from being perfect. Therefore, critiques
and suggestions are needed for future improvement of this thesis.
Medan,
June 2016
The Writer,
Descey Natalia Simbolon
NIM. 4123131011
vi
LIST OF CONTENTS
Page
Ratification Sheet
i
Biography
ii
Abstract
iii
Acknowledgement
iv
List of Contents
vi
List of Appendix
ix
List of Table
x
List of Figure
xi
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1
1.2 Identification Problems
4
1.3 Scopes of the Study
4
1.4 Formulation Problems
5
1.5 Research Objectives
5
1.6 Research Significances
5
1.7 Operational Definition
6
CHAPTER II LITERATURE STUDY
2.1 Learning Process
7
2.1.1 Learning Process
7
2.1.2 Learning Activities
8
2.1.3 Learning Outcomes
9
2.1.4 Factors Affecting the Learning Outcomes
9
2.1.5 The Essence of Chemical and Chemistry Learning
10
2.2 Cooperative Learning Model
12
2.2.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Cooperative Learning
13
2.2.2 The Objectives of Cooperative Learning
13
2.2.3 Cooperative Model Type STAD
14
vii
2.2.4 Advantages and Disadvantages of STAD
2.3 Team Games Tournaments (TGT) Type
16
16
2.3.1 Steps of TGT Type
16
2.3.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of TGT
17
2.4 Jigsaw Type
18
2.4.1 Steps of Jigsaw Type
18
2.4.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Jigsaw Type
18
2.5 Characters
19
2.5.1 Character Education
19
2.5.2 Character Values
20
2.5.3 Assessment Criteria of Character Education
21
2.6 Solubility and Solubility Product
21
2.6.1 Solubility
22
2.6.2 Solubility Product
22
2.6.3 Chemical Equilibrium and Solubility
24
2.6.4 Relationship between Solubility and Ksp
25
2.6.5 Molar Solubility and Solubility Products
25
2.7 Hypothesis Research
26
2.8 Statistic Hypothesis
26
2.9 Conceptual Framework
27
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODS
3.1 Place and Time of Research
28
3.2 Population and Samples
28
3.3 Research Variables
29
3.4 Research Instruments
29
3.4.1. Validity
30
3.4.2. Validity of Item Test
30
3.4.3. Reliability
31
3.4.4. Difficulty Level
31
3.4.5. Discrimination Power
32
3.4.6. Destructor
32
viii
3.5 Research Design
33
3.6 Research Procedure
35
3.7 Data Collection
36
CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Description of School Sample
38
4.2 Description of Cooperative Learning Model Type in Solubility
38
and Solubility Product.
4.3 The Instruments’ Analysis
42
4.3.1. Observation Sheet of Students’ Characters
42
4.3.2. Validity of Evaluation Test
43
4.3.3. Reliability of Evaluation Test
43
4.3.4. Difficulty Level of Evaluation Test
43
4.3.5. Discrimination Power of Evaluation Test
44
4.3.6. Destructor Index
44
4.4 Results of Data
45
4.4.1. Data of Students’ Characters
46
4.4.2. Data of Students’ Learning Outcomes
46
4.4.3. Gain Data
48
4.5 Data Analysis
48
4.5.1. Normality Test
49
4.5.2. Homogeneity Test
49
4.5.3. Hypothesis Testing
51
4.6 Discussion
51
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusion
56
5.2 Suggestions
56
REFERENCES
57
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1
Comparison between Cooperative Learning and Learning Group
13
Table 2.2
Table of Cooperative Learning’s Phases
15
Table 2.3
Character Values
20
Table 3.1
Population and Samples in state SHS
28
Table 3.2
Research Planning
33
Table 4.1
Description of Class Samples
38
Table 4.2
Description of Subject Matters with STAD
39
Table 4.3
Description of Subject Matters with TGT
40
Table 4.4
Description of Subject Matters with Jigsaw
41
Table 4.5
Summary of Instrument Analysis
45
Table 4.6
Improvement the Characters
46
Table 4.7
Learning Outcomes of Pretest SMAN 1 T.Tinggi
46
Table 4.8
Learning Outcomes of Pretest SMAN 1 Sidikalang
47
Table 4.9
Learning Outcomes of Pretest SMAN 1 Berastagi
47
Table 4.10 Learning Outcomes of Posttest SMAN 1 T.Tinggi
47
Table 4.11 Learning Outcomes of Posttest SMAN 1 Sidikalang
47
Table 4.12 Learning Outcomes of Posttest SMAN 1 Berastagi
48
Table 4.13 Gain Data of SMAN 1 T.Tinggi
48
Table 4.14 Gain Data of SMAN 1 Sidikalang
48
Table 4.15 Gain Data of SMAN 1 Berastagi
48
Table 4.16 Normality Data of SMAN 1 T.Tinggi
49
Table 4.17 Normality Data of SMAN 1 Sidikalang
49
Table 4.18 Normality Data of SMAN 1 Berastagi
49
Table 4.19 Homogeneity Data of SMAN 1 T.Tinggi
50
Table 4.20 Homogeneity Data of SMAN 1 Sidikalang
50
Table 4.21 Homogeneity Data of SMAN 1 Berastagi
50
Table 4.22 Homogeneity Data with Characters of SMAN 1 T.Tinggi
50
Table 4.23 Homogeneity Data with Characters of SMAN 1 Sidikalang
50
Table 4.24 Homogeneity Data with Characters of SMAN 1 Berastagi
50
Table 4.25 Hypothesis Testing of SMAN 1 T.Tinggi
51
Table 4.26 Hypothesis Testing of SMAN 1 Sidikalang
51
Table 4.27 Hypothesis Testing of SMAN 1 Berastagi
51
xi
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 3.1
The overview of research planning
34
ix
LIST OF APPENDIX
Appendix 1
Syllabus
60
Appendix 2
Lesson Plan
63
Appendix 3
Instrument Analysis
96
Appendix 4
Instrument Test before Validation
103
Appendix 5
Students’ Character Assessment
109
Appendix 6
Characters Value
111
Appendix 7
Development of Characters
138
Appendix 8
Table of Validity Instrument
147
Appendix 9
Table of Reliability Instrument
148
Appendix 10
Table of Discrimination Power
149
Appendix 11
Table of Difficulty Test
150
Appendix 12
Destructor Index
151
Appendix 13
Instrument Test after Validation
153
Appendix 14
Gain Data
160
Appendix 15
Pretest and Posttest Result
169
Appendix 16
Normality Data
187
Appendix 17
Homogeneity Data
193
Appendix 18
Hypothesis Testing
197
Appendix 19
Documentations
200
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research Background
Chemistry is one of the most important branches of science; it enables learners
to understand what happened around student. Because chemistry topics are
generally related to or based on the structure of matter, chemistry proves a
difficult subject for many students. Chemistry curricula commonly incorporate
many abstract concepts, which are central to further learning in both chemistry
and other sciences. These abstract concepts are important because further
chemistry/science concepts or theories cannot be easily understood if these
underpinning concepts are not sufficiently grasped by the student (Sakti, 2014).
Based on the experienced of PPLT in the SMAN 2 Balige, Generally teachers
do not use cooperative learning model in teaching chemistry topic. Most of
teacher who teach chemistry through face to face in the classroom using
conventional learning, which is dominated by the lecture method. Thus, these
methods of learning is still teacher-centered learning, have not been able to
increase the active role students in the learning process, and provides less
opportunity for students to express their understanding and skills. Students will
find it is hard to follow or get the essence of learning materials, so that their
activities are limited to take notes apocryphal. The pattern of active learning with
students’ teachers is passive low efficacy and can’t develop the active
participation in the learning process.
In the process of learning, success is measured based upon achievement of
competence of teaching and learning established since the beginning of the
learning activities. Teacher’s role is very important in learning. The teachers act
as facilitators, mediators, and counselors. In this role, the teacher should also be
able to work well with students, support each other so that the achievement of
competence specified. An important element in the process of teaching and
learning is a method of teaching and learning media that used in accordance with
the material being taught. It is trivial, but these link to each other. (Slameto,2003).
1
2
Teachers should be known to teach the learning material by used method
combined with media compatible. The teachers need to be more creative and
innovative in teaching, especially in the learning chemistry topic. Education
without technological advances is boring. The tendency of a teacher in delivering
subject matter using the same method in chemistry courses, asked students to read
and memorize the learning materials make students feel bored, annoyed and less
active. (Hamalik,2008). It is make decrease of students’ interest inquired for the
material being taught and understand it. The teachers should keep students’
interest and motivate to learn in different ways of teaching, using varies teaching
method and combined with teaching media in improving students’ motivation and
students’ achievement. (Mulyani, 2009).
The facts 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. This condition is
one factor causing low student learning outcomes. Therefore, teachers need to
develop learning that can improve the character and student learning outcomes
with the use of appropriate learning strategies. One model of learning that can be
used is the model cooperative learning.
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 (Muhammad, 2010). Cooperative learning model is method that can be
done because it can improve learning progress; makes positives attitudes of
students; increases motivation and confidence of students.(Slavin, 1995).
Cooperative learning model has several types with different steps include
learning model STAD (Students Teams Achievement Division), TGT (Team
Games Tournament) and Jigsaw. 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.
3
Students Team Achievement Division (STAD) is a cooperative learning
model for mixed-ability groupings involving team recognition and group
responsibility for individual learning. STAD cooperative learning model is one of
the simplest models of cooperative learning and is an appropriate model for
starters for teachers who use cooperative approach. On STAD learning model
teachers prepare and develop the concept of the material before learning begins is
a good step and precise enough to be able to support the learning process.
While the cooperative learning model TGT (Team Games Tournament) is a
teaching and learning techniques to engage students interested in studying the
material covered in the lesson and check their understanding of the lesson content.
TGT is a cooperative learning designed to develop the knowledge in saying the
idea or opinion verbal and compare with the others’ ideas. (Trianto, 2009).
Cooperative learning model Jigsaw is one type of cooperative learning where
students form group responsible of the material assigned student teaches then
teach it to the other members in the group. The concept of the jigsaw is peer
tutoring learning. Learning jigsaw expected to improve the students to be
responsible for the assignment. (Lie, 1993).
Character is something that has influence in the learning process. Aristotle, the
Greek philosopher, stated that good character is a practice of correct behavior.
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.
One of the subjects in SHS Chemistry that interesting to discuss and study is
Solubility and Solubility Product. The solubility and solubility product is a
challenging one for chemistry teacher because high school students are difficult to
understand both in conceptual theory (Blanchard, 2001). The purpose of the
research planning are to investigate the differences of students’ learning outcomes
4
and students’ characters through implementation of cooperative learning model
types in solubility and solubility product. The study is conducted to high school
students in North Sumatera (three SHS).
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 Differences of Students’ Learning Outcomes and Students’
Characters through Implementation of Cooperative Learning Model Types
in Solubility and Solubility Product Topic”.
1.2 Problem Identifications
Based on the background above, so the problems that can identified as
following:
1. Generally teachers do not use cooperative learning model in teaching
chemistry topic.
2. Teacher use monotone and less attractive method in classroom so that
students’ learning outcomes and motivation is low.
3. The concepts of Chemistry still difficult understanding by the students.
1.3 Scopes of The Study
In this study, the problems are limited to scope:
1. This research is focused to Senior High School in class XI on the subject
matter Solubility and Solubility Product.
2. To know the increasing of student achievement with cooperative learning
model (STAD, TGT, and Jigsaw).
3. The topic of Solubility and Solubility Product: Solubility and Solubility
Products, The Effect of Common Ion to the Solubility, The Effect of pH to
the Solubility and The Precipitation Reaction.
5
1.4 Problem Formulations
Based on the problem identification above, the formulation problem in this
research are:
1. Is there any difference of learning outcomes from students on learning
solubility and solubility products among the Cooperative Types STAD,
TGT, and Jigsaw classes?
2. How the characters of students who taught by STAD, TGT and Jigsaw
classes?
3. How many increasing of students’ learning outcomes who taught by
STAD, TGT, and Jigsaw?
1.5 Research Objectives
The research objectives in this case are to investigate the best method in
teaching Solubility and Solubility Products topic. The specific objectives of the
study are:
1. To know difference of learning outcomes from students on learning
colloids system among the Cooperative Types STAD, TGT, and Jigsaw
classes.
2. To know the characters of students who taught by STAD, TGT and Jigsaw
classes.
3. To know the increasing of students’ learning outcomes who taught by
STAD, TGT, and Jigsaw.
1.6 Research Significances
The significances of this research are:
1. For the Researcher :
a. Improving the knowledge of research
b. To increase the students’ achievement in subject matter that taught
2. For Teachers
a. As the alternative in learning process
b. To grow the creativity of teachers in the learning process.
6
3. For the Prospective Teacher
a. To train the own self to find the solution in process of the learning
activity in the classroom.
b. Training the own self to make the learning tools.
4. For School
Giving the donation for school in leaning repairs.
1.7 Operational Definition
The operational definitions 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. TGT has the academic games, so that it can be process of learning become
pleasure and create the team competition that based on the responsibility of
each individual. Students work in the group that consists of 5-6 people with
the different academic knowledge, gender, and ethnic group.
3. Jigsaw cooperative learning model is one type of cooperative learning where
students form group responsible of the material assigned student teaches then
teach it to the other members in the group. The concept of the jigsaw is peer
tutoring learning. Learning jigsaw expected to improve the students to be
responsible for the assignment. It consists of 4-6 people per group member.
4. Solubility is the amount of solute to that of solvent. Solvent is substance used
to dissolve solute, commonly the amount of the solvent is more than that
solute. A solubility product is a condition that can dissolve in water until it
gets a saturated condition.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
After conducting the research and analyzing the data, there are some
conclusions that gotten, they are:
1. There are significant differences of students’ learning outcomes and
treatments (STAD, TGT and Jigsaw model) are in SMAN 1 Tebing Tinggi
(STAD > TGT > Jigsaw), SMAN 1 Sidikalang (STAD > Jigsaw > TGT ) and
SMAN 1 Berastagi (Jigsaw > STAD > TGT).
2. There are significant differences of students’ characters in SMAN 1 Tebing
Tinggi, SMAN 1 Sidikalang, and SMAN 1 Berastagi for each experimental
classes.
3. There are significances differences increasing students’ learning outcomes that
taught by Cooperative Learning Model Types STAD, TGT, and Jigsaw in
three different schools. In SMA Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi from the three models
for each class, the student’s gain is 70 %, in SMA Negeri 1 Sidikalang is 66%,
and in SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi is 72 %.
5.2 Suggestions
From the result of the research, there are some suggestions must be raised:
1. Chemistry teachers can use the differences of students’ learning outcomes and
students’ characters through implementation of Cooperative Learning Model
Types in Solubility and Solubility Product Topic in learning process.
2. Other researchers that want to implement Cooperative Learning Model Types
can make variation in students’ characters such as discipline, teamwork;
respect each other, responsibility, etc.
56
57
REFERENCES
Adesoji, F. A., & Ibraheem, T. L., (2009), Effect of Student Teams Achievement
Divisions and Mathematic Knowledge on Learning Outcomes in Chemical
Kinetics. The Journal of International Social Research, 2(6), 15-16.
Albertus, Doni Koesoema., (2010), Pendidikan Karakter, Strategi Mendidik Anak
di Zaman Global, Grasindo, Jakarta.
Alebiosu, K. A., (1998), Effects of Two Cooperative Learning Models on Senior
Secondary
School
Students’
Learning
Outcomes
in
Chemistry,
Thesis.Dept.of Teacher Education. University of Ibadan, Ibadan.
Arikunto, S., (2009), Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan, PT Bumi Akasara,
Jakarta.
Arsyad,A.,(2009), Media Pengajaran, PT Grafindo, Jakarta.
Blanchard, A., (2001), Contextual Teaching and Learning. Ohio: Bowling Green
State University.
Doymus, K., (2008), Teaching Chemical Bonding through Jigsaw Cooperative
Learning, Journal of Research in Science & Technological Education, vol
26(1), 47-5.
Gagne, Robert M., (1963), The Condition of Learning, Third Edition, Florida
State University, Rinehart and Winston. Inc., Canada.
Giancarlo, L.C., and Slunt, K.M., (2004), The Dog ate My Homework: A
Cooperative Learning Project for Instrumental Analysis, Journal of
Chemical Education 81: 868-869.
Gultom, A., and P.M. Silitonga., (2009), Pengaruh Kemampuan Awal dan Model
Pembelajaran terhadap Hasil Belajar Kimia SMA, Journal Pendiidikan
Matematika & Sains 4(2): 77-81.
Hamalik, O., (2008), Proses Belajar Mengajar, Bumi Aksara, Jakarta
Isjoni, H., (2009), Pembelajaran Kooperatif, PT. Grafindo, Jakarta.
58
Jansoon, N., (2008), Thai Undergraduate Chemistry Practical Learning
Experiences Using the Jigsaw IV Method, Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education in South East Asia, vol. 31(2), 178-200.
Justiana, S., (2010), Chemistry for Senior High School, Yudistira, Jakarta.
Lie, A., (1993), Cooperative Learning : Mempraktikkan Cooperative Learning di
Ruang-ruang Kelas, cet. Ke-7, PT. Grasindo, Jakarta .
Muhammad, R., (2010), Effect of Cooperative Learning Instructional Strategy on
Students’ Performance in Biology, Journal of Theoretical and Empirical
Studies in Education 2 (1), 222-278.
Mulyani, A., (2009), Strategi Belajar Mengajar, UM Press, Malang.
Rusman, (2011), Model-Model Pembelajaran Mengembangkan Profesional Guru,
Rajawali Pers , Jakarta.
Sakti, V.A.B., (2014), Implementation of Cooperative Learning Model Team
Games Tournaments (TGT) Type with Structure Exercise Method to Gain
Improve Motivation and Students’ Learning Outcomes on Hydrolysis Matter
at SMAN 1 Kebomas-Gresik, Journal of Chemistry Education vol 3(3), 216223.
Sani, U., (2015), Effects of Cooperative Learning Strategy on Senior Secondary
High School Students’ Performance in Quantitative Chemistry. Journal of
Education and Social Science, vol.1, Waziri Umaru Federal Polytechnic,
Nigeria.
Siegel, C., (2005), Implementing a Research-Based Model of Cooperative
Learning, Journal of Educational Research, vol. 98, no. 6, pp. 339–349.
Sirhan, Ghassan, (2007), Learning Difficulties in Chemistry: An Overview,
Journal
of
Turkish
http://www.tused.org
Science
Education,
Vol.
4,
access
on
59
Situmorang, M. (2010), Penelitian Tindakan Kelas (PTK) untuk Mata Pelajaran
Kimia, FMIPA, UNIMED, Medan.
Slameto, (2003), Belajar dan Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya. Penerbit
Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
Slavin, Robert E., (1995) Cooperative Learning, Review of Educational Research,
vol. 50, no. 2, Johns Hopkins University , Sage Publications.
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., (2009), Cooperative Learning Theory, Pustaka Pelajar,
Yogyakarta.
Trianto, (2009), Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif-Progresif, PT Grafindo,
Jakarta.
Utami, B., (2009), Kimia Untuk SMA Kelas XI, Departemen Pendidikan Nasional,
Jakarta.
Wang, P., (2009), Applying Slavin’s Cooperative Learning Technique to EFL
Conversation Class, The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning,
vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 112–120.
Yasemin, K., (2010), The Effects of Two Cooperative Learning Strategies on the
Teaching and Learning of the Topics of Chemical Kinetics, Journal of
Turkish Science Educations, vol.7 , Ataturk University, Turkey.
Zainal, A., (2010), Pendidikan Karakter, Membangun Perilaku Positif Anak
Bangsa, Yrama Widya, Bandung.
STUDENTS’ CHARACTERS THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION
OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL TYPES
IN SOLUBILITY AND SOLUBILITY
PRODUCT TOPIC
By:
Descey Natalia Simbolon
Reg. Number: 4123131011
Chemistry Education Study Program 2012
A THESIS
Submitted to Fulfill Requirement for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2016
i
iii
THE DIFFERENCES OF STUDENTS’ LEARNING OUTCOMES AND
STUDENTS’ CHARACTERS THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION
OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL TYPES
IN SOLUBILITY AND SOLUBILITY
PRODUCT TOPIC
DESCEY NATALIA SIMBOLON (4123131011)
ABSTRACT
These objectives of the research are: (1) To know difference of learning
outcomes from students on learning solubility and solubility product among the
Cooperative Types STAD, TGT, and Jigsaw classes. (2) To know the characters
of students who taught by STAD, TGT and Jigsaw classes. (3) To know the
increasing of students’ learning outcomes who taught by STAD, TGT, and
Jigsaw. Populations of this research were all class in grade XI Science on 2nd
semester from SMAN 1 Tebing Tinggi, SMAN 1 Sidikalang, and SMAN 1
Berastagi. Samples were chosen by purposive random sampling and taken 3
classes per schools, so that they are 9 classes. The initial characters of students
were assumed in the same condition. The result of research of students’ learning
outcomes and treatments (STAD, TGT and Jigsaw model) are (1) There are
significant differences between learning outcomes between three of learning
models with Pretest value in SMAN 1 T.Tinggi for experiment I is 35.50 ± 8.07,
for experiment II is 35.38 ± 8.80, and experiment III is 37.38 ± 6.89. In SMAN 1
Sidikalang experiment I is 38.28 ± 8.12, for experiment II is 40.47 ± 6.64, and
experiment III is 39.84 ± 6.45. In SMAN 1 Berastagi for experiment I is 35.94 ±
6.89, for experiment II is 37.50 ± 6.96, and experiment III is 39.53 ± 6.52. For
Posttest value in SMAN 1 T.Tinggi for experiment I is 83.75 ± 4.63, for
experiment II is 81.50 ± 5.21, and experiment III is 78.00 ± 5.64. In SMAN 1
Sidikalang experiment I is 80.78 ± 7.16, for experiment II is 78.75 ± 5.82, and
experiment III is 79.22 ± 6.51. In SMAN 1 Berastagi for experiment I is 82.50 ±
6.35, for experiment II is 82.19 5.67, and experiment III is 83.28 ± 4.85. The
hypothesis can be seen from
. In SMAN 1 Tebing Tinggi is
12.524 > 3.25. In SMAN 1 Sidikalang is 5.851 > 3.33. In SMAN 1 Berastagi is
3.433 > 3.33. It means Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted (2) There are significant
differences of students’ characters in SMAN 1 T.Tinggi for experiment class I is
72.23, class II is 68.28, class III is 67.50. In SMAN 1 Sidikalang for experiment
class I is 74.74, class II is 72.01, and class III is 66.60. And in SMAN 1 Berastagi
for experiment class I is 74.74, class II is 72.01, class III is 66.06 (3) There are
significant differences increasing students’ learning outcomes that taught by
Cooperative Learning Model Types STAD, TGT, and Jigsaw in SMAN 1 Tebing
Tinggi is 70%, in SMAN 1 Sidikalang is 66%, and in SMAN 1 Berastagi is 72%.
Key Words: Learning Outcomes, Students’ Characters, Cooperative Learning
Model Types, Solubility and Solubility Product
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The greatest thankfulness is given to Almighty God, Jesus Christ, and
Mother Marry, who always give blessing and provide health, wisdom, strength,
spirit, knowledge and materials for the writer in composing this thesis accordance
with the planned time.
The title of thesis is “The Differences of Students’ Learning Outcomes and
Students’ Characters through Implementation of Cooperative Learning Model
Types in Solubility and Solubility Product Topic” that arranged to obtain the
degree of Sarjana Pendidikan in Chemistry Department, Faculty of Mathematics
and Natural Sciences, State University of Medan (Unimed).
In this opportunity, the writer would like to express thanks and great
appreciation to the Dr. Ajat Sudrajat, M.Si as my thesis supervisor for his valuable
time spent in giving guidance, advices, motivations and suggestions during
completing this thesis. The writer also thanks to Prof. Drs. Manihar Situmorang,
M.Sc., Ph.D., Dra. Ani Sutiani, M.Si., and Dr. Murniaty Simorangkir, M. S., as
the reviewer counselor for this thesis that giving me advices, suggestions,
guidance and constructive comments for this thesis’ completeness.
The writer also says thanks to Dr. Asrin Lubis, M.Pd., as the Dean of
Mathematics and Natural Sciences Faculty, State University of Medan, Dr. Iis Siti
Jahro, M.Si., as the Coordinator of Bilingual Program, Mrs.Nora Susanti, S.Si,
Apt., M.Sc., as the Secretary of Bilingual Program, Agus Kembaren, S.Si., M.Si
as the head of chemistry department, Mr. Syamsudin and Mr. Iqbal as the
administrator of Bilingual Office for their advices and other necessary
administrative business. The great thanks are also given to Drs. Eddyanto, Ph.D.,
as my academic supervisor for his guidance during my academic process in this
University. The writer also says thanks to Prof.Dr. Retno Dwi Suyanti, M.Si as
the instrument’s validator in this research.
The author appreciation also given to Principal of SMA Negeri 1 Tebing
Tinggi, Drs. Sariono, for the chemistry teacher, Mrs. Jenny Pasaribu, S.Pd;
Principal of SMA Negeri 1 Sidikalang, Drs. Alben Sianturi, for the chemistry
v
teacher, Mr. S. Sihombing, S.Pd; and Principal of SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi,
Alberto Colia, M.Pd., for the chemistry teacher, Mrs. Mariani Barus, S.Pd.
A deepest love, appreciation and thanks also go to my beloved parents,
Mr. Kiris Simbolon and Mrs. Sormada Sinaga for their love, motivations, prays,
and financial support to me during my university lecture process, also for my
family, my sisters and brothers of cousins for their fighting and prays.
Special thanks are given to all my classmates in Bilingual Chemistry
Education 2012 that always give me the best memory in my education process.
For my sisters and brother of CESP 2013.Special thanks also for my PPL Team in
SMAN 2 Balige; Ruben, Arny, Corry, Carol, Rani, Bella, Arif, Ivana, Marianna,
Rohani, and Jerry for the love, motivations, supports, and spending time together.
For all my students at SMAN 2 Balige especially, Elescour, Aselcif, Alkana
,Qafoess, and Nommensen. Thanks for being my strengths. Thanks for my
students at SMAN 1 Tebing Tinggi, SMAN 1 Sidikalang, and SMAN 1 Berastagi
as my researches’ students and schools. The writer also would like to say thanks
to my childhood friend as sister, Borisma Anastasia Sinaga, my best friend from
Junior High School until now Novi Serliana and everyone in my life that can’t be
mentioned one by one for your support and helping in my thesis process.
Finally, writer hopes this thesis can be used for those who would like to
explore more about learning model in solubility and solubility product topic. The
writer realizes that this thesis is still far from being perfect. Therefore, critiques
and suggestions are needed for future improvement of this thesis.
Medan,
June 2016
The Writer,
Descey Natalia Simbolon
NIM. 4123131011
vi
LIST OF CONTENTS
Page
Ratification Sheet
i
Biography
ii
Abstract
iii
Acknowledgement
iv
List of Contents
vi
List of Appendix
ix
List of Table
x
List of Figure
xi
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1
1.2 Identification Problems
4
1.3 Scopes of the Study
4
1.4 Formulation Problems
5
1.5 Research Objectives
5
1.6 Research Significances
5
1.7 Operational Definition
6
CHAPTER II LITERATURE STUDY
2.1 Learning Process
7
2.1.1 Learning Process
7
2.1.2 Learning Activities
8
2.1.3 Learning Outcomes
9
2.1.4 Factors Affecting the Learning Outcomes
9
2.1.5 The Essence of Chemical and Chemistry Learning
10
2.2 Cooperative Learning Model
12
2.2.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Cooperative Learning
13
2.2.2 The Objectives of Cooperative Learning
13
2.2.3 Cooperative Model Type STAD
14
vii
2.2.4 Advantages and Disadvantages of STAD
2.3 Team Games Tournaments (TGT) Type
16
16
2.3.1 Steps of TGT Type
16
2.3.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of TGT
17
2.4 Jigsaw Type
18
2.4.1 Steps of Jigsaw Type
18
2.4.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Jigsaw Type
18
2.5 Characters
19
2.5.1 Character Education
19
2.5.2 Character Values
20
2.5.3 Assessment Criteria of Character Education
21
2.6 Solubility and Solubility Product
21
2.6.1 Solubility
22
2.6.2 Solubility Product
22
2.6.3 Chemical Equilibrium and Solubility
24
2.6.4 Relationship between Solubility and Ksp
25
2.6.5 Molar Solubility and Solubility Products
25
2.7 Hypothesis Research
26
2.8 Statistic Hypothesis
26
2.9 Conceptual Framework
27
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODS
3.1 Place and Time of Research
28
3.2 Population and Samples
28
3.3 Research Variables
29
3.4 Research Instruments
29
3.4.1. Validity
30
3.4.2. Validity of Item Test
30
3.4.3. Reliability
31
3.4.4. Difficulty Level
31
3.4.5. Discrimination Power
32
3.4.6. Destructor
32
viii
3.5 Research Design
33
3.6 Research Procedure
35
3.7 Data Collection
36
CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Description of School Sample
38
4.2 Description of Cooperative Learning Model Type in Solubility
38
and Solubility Product.
4.3 The Instruments’ Analysis
42
4.3.1. Observation Sheet of Students’ Characters
42
4.3.2. Validity of Evaluation Test
43
4.3.3. Reliability of Evaluation Test
43
4.3.4. Difficulty Level of Evaluation Test
43
4.3.5. Discrimination Power of Evaluation Test
44
4.3.6. Destructor Index
44
4.4 Results of Data
45
4.4.1. Data of Students’ Characters
46
4.4.2. Data of Students’ Learning Outcomes
46
4.4.3. Gain Data
48
4.5 Data Analysis
48
4.5.1. Normality Test
49
4.5.2. Homogeneity Test
49
4.5.3. Hypothesis Testing
51
4.6 Discussion
51
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusion
56
5.2 Suggestions
56
REFERENCES
57
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1
Comparison between Cooperative Learning and Learning Group
13
Table 2.2
Table of Cooperative Learning’s Phases
15
Table 2.3
Character Values
20
Table 3.1
Population and Samples in state SHS
28
Table 3.2
Research Planning
33
Table 4.1
Description of Class Samples
38
Table 4.2
Description of Subject Matters with STAD
39
Table 4.3
Description of Subject Matters with TGT
40
Table 4.4
Description of Subject Matters with Jigsaw
41
Table 4.5
Summary of Instrument Analysis
45
Table 4.6
Improvement the Characters
46
Table 4.7
Learning Outcomes of Pretest SMAN 1 T.Tinggi
46
Table 4.8
Learning Outcomes of Pretest SMAN 1 Sidikalang
47
Table 4.9
Learning Outcomes of Pretest SMAN 1 Berastagi
47
Table 4.10 Learning Outcomes of Posttest SMAN 1 T.Tinggi
47
Table 4.11 Learning Outcomes of Posttest SMAN 1 Sidikalang
47
Table 4.12 Learning Outcomes of Posttest SMAN 1 Berastagi
48
Table 4.13 Gain Data of SMAN 1 T.Tinggi
48
Table 4.14 Gain Data of SMAN 1 Sidikalang
48
Table 4.15 Gain Data of SMAN 1 Berastagi
48
Table 4.16 Normality Data of SMAN 1 T.Tinggi
49
Table 4.17 Normality Data of SMAN 1 Sidikalang
49
Table 4.18 Normality Data of SMAN 1 Berastagi
49
Table 4.19 Homogeneity Data of SMAN 1 T.Tinggi
50
Table 4.20 Homogeneity Data of SMAN 1 Sidikalang
50
Table 4.21 Homogeneity Data of SMAN 1 Berastagi
50
Table 4.22 Homogeneity Data with Characters of SMAN 1 T.Tinggi
50
Table 4.23 Homogeneity Data with Characters of SMAN 1 Sidikalang
50
Table 4.24 Homogeneity Data with Characters of SMAN 1 Berastagi
50
Table 4.25 Hypothesis Testing of SMAN 1 T.Tinggi
51
Table 4.26 Hypothesis Testing of SMAN 1 Sidikalang
51
Table 4.27 Hypothesis Testing of SMAN 1 Berastagi
51
xi
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 3.1
The overview of research planning
34
ix
LIST OF APPENDIX
Appendix 1
Syllabus
60
Appendix 2
Lesson Plan
63
Appendix 3
Instrument Analysis
96
Appendix 4
Instrument Test before Validation
103
Appendix 5
Students’ Character Assessment
109
Appendix 6
Characters Value
111
Appendix 7
Development of Characters
138
Appendix 8
Table of Validity Instrument
147
Appendix 9
Table of Reliability Instrument
148
Appendix 10
Table of Discrimination Power
149
Appendix 11
Table of Difficulty Test
150
Appendix 12
Destructor Index
151
Appendix 13
Instrument Test after Validation
153
Appendix 14
Gain Data
160
Appendix 15
Pretest and Posttest Result
169
Appendix 16
Normality Data
187
Appendix 17
Homogeneity Data
193
Appendix 18
Hypothesis Testing
197
Appendix 19
Documentations
200
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research Background
Chemistry is one of the most important branches of science; it enables learners
to understand what happened around student. Because chemistry topics are
generally related to or based on the structure of matter, chemistry proves a
difficult subject for many students. Chemistry curricula commonly incorporate
many abstract concepts, which are central to further learning in both chemistry
and other sciences. These abstract concepts are important because further
chemistry/science concepts or theories cannot be easily understood if these
underpinning concepts are not sufficiently grasped by the student (Sakti, 2014).
Based on the experienced of PPLT in the SMAN 2 Balige, Generally teachers
do not use cooperative learning model in teaching chemistry topic. Most of
teacher who teach chemistry through face to face in the classroom using
conventional learning, which is dominated by the lecture method. Thus, these
methods of learning is still teacher-centered learning, have not been able to
increase the active role students in the learning process, and provides less
opportunity for students to express their understanding and skills. Students will
find it is hard to follow or get the essence of learning materials, so that their
activities are limited to take notes apocryphal. The pattern of active learning with
students’ teachers is passive low efficacy and can’t develop the active
participation in the learning process.
In the process of learning, success is measured based upon achievement of
competence of teaching and learning established since the beginning of the
learning activities. Teacher’s role is very important in learning. The teachers act
as facilitators, mediators, and counselors. In this role, the teacher should also be
able to work well with students, support each other so that the achievement of
competence specified. An important element in the process of teaching and
learning is a method of teaching and learning media that used in accordance with
the material being taught. It is trivial, but these link to each other. (Slameto,2003).
1
2
Teachers should be known to teach the learning material by used method
combined with media compatible. The teachers need to be more creative and
innovative in teaching, especially in the learning chemistry topic. Education
without technological advances is boring. The tendency of a teacher in delivering
subject matter using the same method in chemistry courses, asked students to read
and memorize the learning materials make students feel bored, annoyed and less
active. (Hamalik,2008). It is make decrease of students’ interest inquired for the
material being taught and understand it. The teachers should keep students’
interest and motivate to learn in different ways of teaching, using varies teaching
method and combined with teaching media in improving students’ motivation and
students’ achievement. (Mulyani, 2009).
The facts 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. This condition is
one factor causing low student learning outcomes. Therefore, teachers need to
develop learning that can improve the character and student learning outcomes
with the use of appropriate learning strategies. One model of learning that can be
used is the model cooperative learning.
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 (Muhammad, 2010). Cooperative learning model is method that can be
done because it can improve learning progress; makes positives attitudes of
students; increases motivation and confidence of students.(Slavin, 1995).
Cooperative learning model has several types with different steps include
learning model STAD (Students Teams Achievement Division), TGT (Team
Games Tournament) and Jigsaw. 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.
3
Students Team Achievement Division (STAD) is a cooperative learning
model for mixed-ability groupings involving team recognition and group
responsibility for individual learning. STAD cooperative learning model is one of
the simplest models of cooperative learning and is an appropriate model for
starters for teachers who use cooperative approach. On STAD learning model
teachers prepare and develop the concept of the material before learning begins is
a good step and precise enough to be able to support the learning process.
While the cooperative learning model TGT (Team Games Tournament) is a
teaching and learning techniques to engage students interested in studying the
material covered in the lesson and check their understanding of the lesson content.
TGT is a cooperative learning designed to develop the knowledge in saying the
idea or opinion verbal and compare with the others’ ideas. (Trianto, 2009).
Cooperative learning model Jigsaw is one type of cooperative learning where
students form group responsible of the material assigned student teaches then
teach it to the other members in the group. The concept of the jigsaw is peer
tutoring learning. Learning jigsaw expected to improve the students to be
responsible for the assignment. (Lie, 1993).
Character is something that has influence in the learning process. Aristotle, the
Greek philosopher, stated that good character is a practice of correct behavior.
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.
One of the subjects in SHS Chemistry that interesting to discuss and study is
Solubility and Solubility Product. The solubility and solubility product is a
challenging one for chemistry teacher because high school students are difficult to
understand both in conceptual theory (Blanchard, 2001). The purpose of the
research planning are to investigate the differences of students’ learning outcomes
4
and students’ characters through implementation of cooperative learning model
types in solubility and solubility product. The study is conducted to high school
students in North Sumatera (three SHS).
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 Differences of Students’ Learning Outcomes and Students’
Characters through Implementation of Cooperative Learning Model Types
in Solubility and Solubility Product Topic”.
1.2 Problem Identifications
Based on the background above, so the problems that can identified as
following:
1. Generally teachers do not use cooperative learning model in teaching
chemistry topic.
2. Teacher use monotone and less attractive method in classroom so that
students’ learning outcomes and motivation is low.
3. The concepts of Chemistry still difficult understanding by the students.
1.3 Scopes of The Study
In this study, the problems are limited to scope:
1. This research is focused to Senior High School in class XI on the subject
matter Solubility and Solubility Product.
2. To know the increasing of student achievement with cooperative learning
model (STAD, TGT, and Jigsaw).
3. The topic of Solubility and Solubility Product: Solubility and Solubility
Products, The Effect of Common Ion to the Solubility, The Effect of pH to
the Solubility and The Precipitation Reaction.
5
1.4 Problem Formulations
Based on the problem identification above, the formulation problem in this
research are:
1. Is there any difference of learning outcomes from students on learning
solubility and solubility products among the Cooperative Types STAD,
TGT, and Jigsaw classes?
2. How the characters of students who taught by STAD, TGT and Jigsaw
classes?
3. How many increasing of students’ learning outcomes who taught by
STAD, TGT, and Jigsaw?
1.5 Research Objectives
The research objectives in this case are to investigate the best method in
teaching Solubility and Solubility Products topic. The specific objectives of the
study are:
1. To know difference of learning outcomes from students on learning
colloids system among the Cooperative Types STAD, TGT, and Jigsaw
classes.
2. To know the characters of students who taught by STAD, TGT and Jigsaw
classes.
3. To know the increasing of students’ learning outcomes who taught by
STAD, TGT, and Jigsaw.
1.6 Research Significances
The significances of this research are:
1. For the Researcher :
a. Improving the knowledge of research
b. To increase the students’ achievement in subject matter that taught
2. For Teachers
a. As the alternative in learning process
b. To grow the creativity of teachers in the learning process.
6
3. For the Prospective Teacher
a. To train the own self to find the solution in process of the learning
activity in the classroom.
b. Training the own self to make the learning tools.
4. For School
Giving the donation for school in leaning repairs.
1.7 Operational Definition
The operational definitions 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. TGT has the academic games, so that it can be process of learning become
pleasure and create the team competition that based on the responsibility of
each individual. Students work in the group that consists of 5-6 people with
the different academic knowledge, gender, and ethnic group.
3. Jigsaw cooperative learning model is one type of cooperative learning where
students form group responsible of the material assigned student teaches then
teach it to the other members in the group. The concept of the jigsaw is peer
tutoring learning. Learning jigsaw expected to improve the students to be
responsible for the assignment. It consists of 4-6 people per group member.
4. Solubility is the amount of solute to that of solvent. Solvent is substance used
to dissolve solute, commonly the amount of the solvent is more than that
solute. A solubility product is a condition that can dissolve in water until it
gets a saturated condition.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
After conducting the research and analyzing the data, there are some
conclusions that gotten, they are:
1. There are significant differences of students’ learning outcomes and
treatments (STAD, TGT and Jigsaw model) are in SMAN 1 Tebing Tinggi
(STAD > TGT > Jigsaw), SMAN 1 Sidikalang (STAD > Jigsaw > TGT ) and
SMAN 1 Berastagi (Jigsaw > STAD > TGT).
2. There are significant differences of students’ characters in SMAN 1 Tebing
Tinggi, SMAN 1 Sidikalang, and SMAN 1 Berastagi for each experimental
classes.
3. There are significances differences increasing students’ learning outcomes that
taught by Cooperative Learning Model Types STAD, TGT, and Jigsaw in
three different schools. In SMA Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi from the three models
for each class, the student’s gain is 70 %, in SMA Negeri 1 Sidikalang is 66%,
and in SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi is 72 %.
5.2 Suggestions
From the result of the research, there are some suggestions must be raised:
1. Chemistry teachers can use the differences of students’ learning outcomes and
students’ characters through implementation of Cooperative Learning Model
Types in Solubility and Solubility Product Topic in learning process.
2. Other researchers that want to implement Cooperative Learning Model Types
can make variation in students’ characters such as discipline, teamwork;
respect each other, responsibility, etc.
56
57
REFERENCES
Adesoji, F. A., & Ibraheem, T. L., (2009), Effect of Student Teams Achievement
Divisions and Mathematic Knowledge on Learning Outcomes in Chemical
Kinetics. The Journal of International Social Research, 2(6), 15-16.
Albertus, Doni Koesoema., (2010), Pendidikan Karakter, Strategi Mendidik Anak
di Zaman Global, Grasindo, Jakarta.
Alebiosu, K. A., (1998), Effects of Two Cooperative Learning Models on Senior
Secondary
School
Students’
Learning
Outcomes
in
Chemistry,
Thesis.Dept.of Teacher Education. University of Ibadan, Ibadan.
Arikunto, S., (2009), Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan, PT Bumi Akasara,
Jakarta.
Arsyad,A.,(2009), Media Pengajaran, PT Grafindo, Jakarta.
Blanchard, A., (2001), Contextual Teaching and Learning. Ohio: Bowling Green
State University.
Doymus, K., (2008), Teaching Chemical Bonding through Jigsaw Cooperative
Learning, Journal of Research in Science & Technological Education, vol
26(1), 47-5.
Gagne, Robert M., (1963), The Condition of Learning, Third Edition, Florida
State University, Rinehart and Winston. Inc., Canada.
Giancarlo, L.C., and Slunt, K.M., (2004), The Dog ate My Homework: A
Cooperative Learning Project for Instrumental Analysis, Journal of
Chemical Education 81: 868-869.
Gultom, A., and P.M. Silitonga., (2009), Pengaruh Kemampuan Awal dan Model
Pembelajaran terhadap Hasil Belajar Kimia SMA, Journal Pendiidikan
Matematika & Sains 4(2): 77-81.
Hamalik, O., (2008), Proses Belajar Mengajar, Bumi Aksara, Jakarta
Isjoni, H., (2009), Pembelajaran Kooperatif, PT. Grafindo, Jakarta.
58
Jansoon, N., (2008), Thai Undergraduate Chemistry Practical Learning
Experiences Using the Jigsaw IV Method, Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education in South East Asia, vol. 31(2), 178-200.
Justiana, S., (2010), Chemistry for Senior High School, Yudistira, Jakarta.
Lie, A., (1993), Cooperative Learning : Mempraktikkan Cooperative Learning di
Ruang-ruang Kelas, cet. Ke-7, PT. Grasindo, Jakarta .
Muhammad, R., (2010), Effect of Cooperative Learning Instructional Strategy on
Students’ Performance in Biology, Journal of Theoretical and Empirical
Studies in Education 2 (1), 222-278.
Mulyani, A., (2009), Strategi Belajar Mengajar, UM Press, Malang.
Rusman, (2011), Model-Model Pembelajaran Mengembangkan Profesional Guru,
Rajawali Pers , Jakarta.
Sakti, V.A.B., (2014), Implementation of Cooperative Learning Model Team
Games Tournaments (TGT) Type with Structure Exercise Method to Gain
Improve Motivation and Students’ Learning Outcomes on Hydrolysis Matter
at SMAN 1 Kebomas-Gresik, Journal of Chemistry Education vol 3(3), 216223.
Sani, U., (2015), Effects of Cooperative Learning Strategy on Senior Secondary
High School Students’ Performance in Quantitative Chemistry. Journal of
Education and Social Science, vol.1, Waziri Umaru Federal Polytechnic,
Nigeria.
Siegel, C., (2005), Implementing a Research-Based Model of Cooperative
Learning, Journal of Educational Research, vol. 98, no. 6, pp. 339–349.
Sirhan, Ghassan, (2007), Learning Difficulties in Chemistry: An Overview,
Journal
of
Turkish
http://www.tused.org
Science
Education,
Vol.
4,
access
on
59
Situmorang, M. (2010), Penelitian Tindakan Kelas (PTK) untuk Mata Pelajaran
Kimia, FMIPA, UNIMED, Medan.
Slameto, (2003), Belajar dan Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya. Penerbit
Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
Slavin, Robert E., (1995) Cooperative Learning, Review of Educational Research,
vol. 50, no. 2, Johns Hopkins University , Sage Publications.
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., (2009), Cooperative Learning Theory, Pustaka Pelajar,
Yogyakarta.
Trianto, (2009), Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif-Progresif, PT Grafindo,
Jakarta.
Utami, B., (2009), Kimia Untuk SMA Kelas XI, Departemen Pendidikan Nasional,
Jakarta.
Wang, P., (2009), Applying Slavin’s Cooperative Learning Technique to EFL
Conversation Class, The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning,
vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 112–120.
Yasemin, K., (2010), The Effects of Two Cooperative Learning Strategies on the
Teaching and Learning of the Topics of Chemical Kinetics, Journal of
Turkish Science Educations, vol.7 , Ataturk University, Turkey.
Zainal, A., (2010), Pendidikan Karakter, Membangun Perilaku Positif Anak
Bangsa, Yrama Widya, Bandung.