EFFECT OF SAVI APPROACH IN JIGSAW COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL ON STUDENTS’ ACTIVITY AND LEARNING OUTCOME IN BIODIVERSITY TOPIC IN X GRADE OF SMA NEGERI 3 MEDAN ACADEMIC YEAR 2015/2016.

i

EFFECT OF SAVI APPROACH IN JIGSAW COOPERATIVE
LEARNINGMODEL ON STUDENTS’ ACTIVITY AND LEARNING
OUTCOME
IN BIODIVERSITYTOPIC IN X GRADE OF SMA N 3
MEDANACADEMIC YEAR 2015/2016

By:
Atika Julia Handayani Nasution
4113141007
Bilingual BiologyEducation

THESIS
Submitted to Fulfill the Requirement for Degree
Sarjana Pendidikan

FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2016

i

BIOGRAPHY
Atika Julia Handayani Nasution was born on July 26 th 1991, in Medan,
North Sumatra. She is the second daughter of Wardana Nasution and Hartaty. She
started her study as a kindergarten student at TK Swasta Tamansiswa Medan in
1996 and continued her study at SD Swasta Tamansiswa Medan in 1997. She
continued her study at SMP N 13 Medan in 2003 and at SMA N 1 Medan in 2006.
She started to involve actively in Scout when in Junior High School and also in
some organization and an extracuricular in Senior High School such as
BAKMISS (Badan Kemakmuran Mushollah Ibnu Sina Smansa), Scout, OSIS
(Organisasi Siswa Intra Sekolah), and KIR (Kelompok Ilmiah Remaja). Then, she
continued her study at Bilingual Biology Education in UNIMED (Universitas
Negeri Medan) in 2011. During following her study in university, she became
member of internal organizations such as UKMI Ar Rahman and Fostibi. She
developed her ability in some of Scientific Writing Competitions and her team
included into one of fifteen finalists in LKTI N UNDIP Science and also became
first winner in LKTIN FKM II UNAND. Besides, she was a laboratory assisstant
in Experimental of General Biology II, Experimental of Plant Morphology, and

Experimental of Plant Physiology.

i

BIOGRAPHY
Atika Julia Handayani Nasution was born on July 26 th 1991, in Medan,
North Sumatra. She is the second daughter of Wardana Nasution and Hartaty. She
started her study as a kindergarten student at TK Swasta Tamansiswa Medan in
1996 and continued her study at SD Swasta Tamansiswa Medan in 1997. She
continued her study at SMP N 13 Medan in 2003 and at SMA N 1 Medan in 2006.
She started to involve actively in Scout when in Junior High School and also in
some organization and an extracuricular in Senior High School such as
BAKMISS (Badan Kemakmuran Mushollah Ibnu Sina Smansa), Scout, OSIS
(Organisasi Siswa Intra Sekolah), and KIR (Kelompok Ilmiah Remaja). Then, she
continued her study at Bilingual Biology Education in UNIMED (Universitas
Negeri Medan) in 2011. During following her study in university, she became
member of internal organizations such as UKMI Ar Rahman and Fostibi. She
developed her ability in some of Scientific Writing Competitions and her team
included into one of fifteen finalists in LKTI N UNDIP Science and also became
first winner in LKTIN FKM II UNAND. Besides, she was a laboratory assisstant

in Experimental of General Biology II, Experimental of Plant Morphology, and
Experimental of Plant Physiology.

i

EFFECT OF SAVI APPROACH IN JIGSAW COOPERATIVE LEARNING
MODEL ON STUDENTS’ ACTIVITY AND LEARNING OUTCOME
IN BIODIVERSITY TOPIC IN X GRADE OF SMA N 3
MEDAN ACADEMIC YEAR 2015/2016

Atika Julia Handayani Nasution
4113141007

ABSTRACT

The aims of this study were to know the effect of SAVI in Jigsaw
cooperative learning model on students’ (1) activity and (2) learning outcome in
biology at biodiversity topic. This research was conducted in SMA Negeri 3
Medan, academic year of 2015/2016. Type of research was quasi-experimental
design. Population of research was all X Grade students. There were three classes

as the samples whichchosen by cluster random sampling technique. Experimental
class I used SAVI approach in Jigsaw model, experimental class II used Jigsaw
model only, and control class used Direct Instruction model. Students’ activity
was measured by using observation sheet as non-test instrument. The data were
analyzed with ANAVA by using SPSS v.18 software. The research result
indicates that there is significant effect of SAVI approach in Jigsaw cooperative
learning model on students’ activity (F = 110.70; P = 0.00). Students were more
active in experimental class I with mean value is 40.04 rather than in experimental
class II and in control class with mean value are 35.10 and 4.36. Students’
learning outcome was measured by using multiple choice-tests. The data were
analyzed with ANCOVA by using SPSS v.18 software.The research result also
indicates that there is significant effect of SAVI approach in Jigsaw cooperative
learning model on students’ learning outcome (F = 5.90; P = 0.04) with the
highest mean value is 71.52.
Keywords:

SAVI approach, Jigsaw model, Direct Instruction model, students’
activity, learning outcome,

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Alhamdulillah, praise and gratitude the writer prayed to Allah SWT, for
His blessing and grace the writer is able to finish this thesis by title “Effect of
SAVI Approach in Jigsaw Cooperative Learning Model on Students’ Activity and
Learning Outcome in Biodiversity Topic in X Grade of SMA N 3 Medan
Academic Year 2015/ 2016” to fulfill one of the requirements for degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan in Biologi Department, FMIPA UNIMED.
The enormous appreciation and gratitude the writer presented to Prof.
Dr.rer.nat. Binari Manurung, M. Si. as thesis supervisor who has given guidances,
suggestions, comments, encouragements, and spent precious time, so this thesis
comes to its present form. The writer also would like to thank to Prof. Dr. Herbert
Sipahutar, MS, M. Sc., DR. Fauziyah Harahap, M. Si., Selvia Dewi Pohan, S. Si.,
M. Si., as thesis examiners who have given criticisms and valuable advices.
Special thanks to all lectures of Biology Bilingual Education Program,
Headmaster and also Biology teachers in SMA N 3 Medan who helped the writer
during the research.
Deepest gratitude the writer presented to beloved parents, Hartaty and
Wardana Nasution for their love, encouragement throughout entire life, and also

to beloved sisters and brother, Winda, Wulan, Fahmi for their kindness. Finally,
the writer also thank to amazing women in circle of fraternity for their support,
sharing experiences and to friends in Biology Bilingual 2011 for togetherness
during four years and to Fatimah and Saras who helped the writer in the research,
and to all people who helped and supported the writer in other way. May Allah
bless and reward all those who contributed in the completion of this thesis.
Hopefully, the thesis will be beneficial to contribute idea in education.
Medan,
Writer,

Januari 2016

Atika J. H. Nasution

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Biography
Abstract

Acknowledgement
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
List of Appendices
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
1.2. Problem identification
1.3. Problem Scope
1.4. Research Question
1.5. Research Objectives
1.6. Research Contribution

ii
iii
iv
v
vii
viii
ix

Error! Bookmark not defined.
Error! Bookmark not defined.
4
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Error! Bookmark not defined.

CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL REVIEW
2.1. Learning Understanding
6
2.2. SAVI Approach
7
2.2.1. Definition of SAVI
8
2.2.2. Components of SAVI
8
2.2.3. Syntax of SAVI
Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.4. Jigsaw Cooperative Learning ModelError! Bookmark not defined.

2.3. Direct Instruction Model
Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.4. Learning Outcomes
Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.5. Learning Activity
18
2.6. Critical Framework
18
2.7. Research Hypothesis
19
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. Location and Time
3.2. Population and Sample
3.3. Research Variables
3.4. Research Design
3.5. Research Instrument
3.5.1. Non-Test Instrument
3.5.2. Test Instrument
3.5.2.1.
Validity

3.5.2.2.
Reliability
3.5.2.3.
Item Difficulty
3.5.2.4.
Item Discriminant
3.6. Research Procedure
3.7. Data Analysis

Error! Bookmark not defined.
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Error! Bookmark not defined.

Error! Bookmark not defined.
28

ii

3.7.1. Student’s Activity Data
3.7.2. Learning Outcome Data
3.7.3. Student’s Cognitive Data
3.7.3.1.
Normality Test
3.7.3.2.
Homogeneity Test
3.8. Hypothesis Test
CHAPTER IV: RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Result
4.1.1. Students’ Activity
4.1.2. Learning Outcome
4.1.3. Test of Hypothesis
4.1.3.1. Students’ Activity
4.1.3.2. Students’ Learning Outcome
4.2. Discussion
4.3. Research Limitation

28
29
29
29
29
30

Error! Bookmark not defined.
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Error! Bookmark not defined.
36

CHAPTER IV: CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATION
5.1. Conclusion
5.2. Recommendation
REFERENCES

37
37

i

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.4.

Revised Blooms' Taxonomy of Cognitive Domain

17

Table 3.4.

Test Reserch Design

21

Table 3.5.2.

Distribution of Cognitive Level

22

i

LIST OF FIGURES

Table 2.1.

Cone of Experience Diagram

7

Table 2.5.

Critical Framework

19

Table 3.6.

Research Procedure

28

Table 4.1.1.

Chart of Students’ Activity

31

Table 4.1.2.

Chart of Students’ Learning Outcome

32

i

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1.

Syllabus

42

Appendix 2.

Lesson Plan

46

Appednix 3.

Observation Sheet

66

Appendix 4.

Students’ Worksheet

69

Appendix 5.

Assessment Rubric

67

Appendix 6.

Cognitive Test

78

Appendix 7.

Validity of Cognitive Test

86

Appendix 8.

Students’ Activity Data

88

Appendix 9.

Learning Outcome Data

91

Appendix 10.

Analysis of Learning Outcome Data

94

Appendix 11.

Analysis of Students’ Activity Data

96

Appendix 12.

Research Documentation

97

Appendix 13.

Letters

100

1

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

1.1.

Background
Learning biology is required of learning experience from students. The

result of learning is the ability of the student after receiving a learning experience
(Sudjana, 2008). This experience is really needed by students to achieve the
learning outcomes in accordance naturally with biology as a science. The success
of the learning process conducted by the teacher can be seen from the student’s
learning outcome. International survey of TIMSS (Trends in International
Mathematics and Science Study) in 2007 stated that Indonesia was ranked 35 out
of 49 countries in the field of science with a score far below from international
average of 500, with an average score obtained is 427 (Litbang Kemendikbud,
2011). The results of PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) in
2009 also revealed that the ability of students' scientific literacy Indonesia was
ranked 60 out of 65 countries with an average score obtained is 383.
The low of student’s learning outcomes are caused by several factors, they
are: (1) Teaching and learning process are still teacher centered (Chotimah, 2007;
Sulastri, 2009), (2) Model and method used by teacher are not varied and tend to
use conventional method (Arahim, 2006; Ghazi, 2003; Oleyede, 2011) (3)
Students tend to memorize than to understand the concept so makes them easily to
forget the subject matters (Yusuf, 2006).
Wijyanti et al.(2013) also revealed student’s learning outcome in control
class is still low. It is shown at the time of the third meeting that students have
difficulties when they did the evaluation test. From calculation of the researchers,
the results of study in control class has an average value is lower than the
experimental class on aspects of cognitive (58.54), psychomotor (51.67), and
affective (62.08).
Adlini (2013) stated that in learning using Direct Instruction model which
is implemented in SMA N 1 Tebing Tinggi, students tend to be more passive
though there are some students who sometimes want to ask the teacher. Students

2

are less enthusiastic in the learning process and student’s learning outcome is still
low. The mean of student’s activity in control class which is taught with Direct
Instruction model was 14.85% if it is compared with experimental class was
62.03%. Result of study also shown the different of student’s cognitive learning
outcome in control class which is obtained from the post-test I was 84.15 is lower
than experimental class was 88.03.
Based on observation in SMA N 3 Medan which done by researcher on
11th February 2015, particularly in X grade, one of problems on biology learning
are teacher centered. Students were listening to the teacher talk continuously for a
certain time during the learning process and made them less active and tend to
become bored. They became unfocuse and their minds drifted everywhere while
students without thinking can listen to an average of 400-500 words per minute
(Silberman, 2009). The teacher guided students to begin presentation in class.
Most students did not focus to pay attention and to understand the explanation that
was given by their friend when presentations per group were being held. There
was less of asking and less of giving opinion. Most of them did not write the point
of presentation and teachers’ explanation. Class circumstance was not conducive
and the process of transferring information by the method of group presentation
was not optimal.
Result of in-depth interview also was done by researcher on 11th February
2015with biology teacher who taught in X grade of SMA N 3 Medan. The teacher
stated that most students were not familiar with some concepts of biology.
Students’ learning was more likely to memorize the concepts rather than trying to
understand and finding the concept of biology, and students are less active on
biology learning. Many of them think that some of biology concept was not fun to
learn because it was full of recitation and difficult to learn. This statement also
strengthened by Ozcanet al. (2013), stated that biology concepts are difficult to
learn because they are long, complicated, includes many details, and depend on
memorizing. Eventually, made students become less excited and bored because
lack of understanding.

3

Type of students’ learning also affects their learning outcome and it also
depends on teachers’ ability to generate students’ enthusiastic provides
opportunity for students to learn on their own or do activities is effective to
improve their activity when learning process in the class (Hamalik 2007). Paul B.
Diedrich (Hamalik, 2007) stated that activity is the important thing which can
make students actively engage on learning process such as visual activity, oral
activity, listening activity, and mental activity. These activities need learning
strategy that oriented to the learning approach of students. Learning approach and
learning strategy determine the success rate of the learning process. Learning
strategy refers to the behaviors and thought processes used by students that
influence what is learned, including memory and metacognitive process (Arends,
2009). Besides, subject matters of biology need students' involvement actively
because relate to real objects in daily environment (Wendraningrumet al., 2014).
SAVI is learning approach which is consisted of four components;
Somatic is learning by moving and doing, Auditoryis learning by talking and
hearing, Visualis learning by observing and picturing, and Intellectualis learning
by problem solving and reflecting, so all this components must present and
integrated to do optimization on learning process (Meier, 2000). SAVI approach is
effectively implemented to students and can improve students’ activity and
learning outcome in biology learning (Elina, 2009; Mustikasari, 2012) particularly
in biodiversity topic (Wendraningrum, 2014). Lindawati (2009) stated that effect
of SAVI approach on Mathematics learning also can improve students’ activity
with percentage is 67.45%.
Sutrisno (2013) stated that SAVI approach through cooperative learning
model is able to generate better learning achievement for student. The effect of
SAVI approach through cooperative learning model also has been proven by
Wijayanti, Prayitno, and Marjono (2013). They stated that SAVI approach
through cooperative learning model gave influence on student’s learning
outcomes. This could be occurred because in this approach has developed
student’s sense, intellectual, and social skills optimally.

4

Arends (2009) revealed that cooperative learning strategies is excel to help
students to understand the concepts and also to courage students in ability of
collaboration, critical thinking and develop student’s social attitude. Armstrong
(2007) research results indicated that cooperative learning can help students
improve their knowledge on biological materials.Use of Jigsaw is more successful
in mastering the concept compared to Direct Instruction model (Kilic, 2008).
Jigsaw makes students are able to connect their existing knowledge with new
knowledge gained and discuss with their friends in group through the process of
cooperative learning. It is easier for students to master concepts that have built
together (Kuswardhani, 2011).
Based on the background above, researcher needs to conduct research by
using learning approach through cooperative learning modelto actively engage
students during the learning process through cooperation in a team.

1.2.

Problem identification
Problems were found relate to student’s mastery still low on ecosystem

topic which has been caused by:
1. Most teachers use conventional approach on learning process
2. Students are difficult to understand and to memorize the biology concept
3. Student’s activity and learning outcome are still low
4. There is less variation of learning model
5. Learning model design has not involved students actively so that students
to be less excited and bored.

1.3.

Problem Scope
According to background and problem identification which have been

described before, so this research is limited on:
1. The treatments of research used SAVI approach and Jigsaw cooperative
learning model for experimental class and Direct Instruction model for
control class
2. Aspects measurable are student’s activity and learning outcome.

5

1.4.

Research Question
Focus on the background, the problem questions are:
1. Is there significant effect of learning model (SAVI in Jigsaw) on student’s
activity?
2. Is there significant effect of learning model (SAVI in Jigsaw) on student’s
learning outcome?

1.5.

Research Objectives
The aim of this research is to know:
1. The effect of learning model (SAVI in Jigsaw) on student’s activity
2. The effect of learning model (SAVI in Jigsaw) on student’s learning
outcome.

1.6.

Research Contribution
This result of research is expected to be useful both theoretically and

practically:
Theoretically
1. This result of research can be used as study material of similar research on
biology learning in senior high school
2. This result of research can be used as strengthening of theory on SAVI
approach and Jigsaw cooperative learning model to improve student’s
activity and learning outcome.
Practically
1. Teacher can modify this research to do innovation on biology learning in
senior high school
2. Students obtain useful learning experience to enhance their activity and
learning outcome on biology learning
3. School can be research information to encourage biology teacher to do
learning innovation.

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1. Conclusion
Based on the result of research, it can be concluded as follows:
1. There is significant effect of SAVI approach in Jigsaw cooperative
learning model on students’ activity in biodiversity topic for X Grade of
SMA N 3 Medan, academic year 2015/2016.
2. There issignificant effect of SAVI approach in Jigsaw cooperative learning
model on students’ learning outcome in biodiversity topic for X Grade of
SMA N 3 Medan, academic year 2015/2016.

5.2. Recommendation
Based on the result of conclusion, there are some recommendations for
further research as follows:
1. SAVI approach could be used with other cooperative learning model to do
innovation and to modify biology learning process in senior high school.
2. Preparing enough time to design biology learning process by using SAVI
approach that combines with other cooperative learning model.
3. Further research could use an observer for each of groups in class to
observe students’ activity in order to get higher significant effect.
4. Validity of instrument test must be accurately in accordance with lesson
plan to get higher significant effect.

38

REFERENCES

Adlini, M. (2013). The Effect of SAVI Approach on Students’ Activity, Learning
Outcome, and Retention in Human Regulatory System Topic for Grade XI
IPA SMA N 1 Tebing Tinggi Academic Year 2012/ 201. Thesis. Medan:
State University of Medan.
Allen, D. and K. Tanner. (2005). Infusing Active Learning into the Largeenrollment Biology Class: Seven Strategies, from the Simple to Complex.
Cell Biology Education, 4(4), 262-268.
Arahim, Z. (2006). Peningkatan Minat Belajar Biologi Siswa SMP Melalui Model
Pembelajaran TGT. Thesis. Surakarta: PPS Universitas Muhammadiyah.
Arends, R. I. (2009). Learning to Teach (9th ed.). New York: Mc Graw Hill.
Arikunto, S. (2006). Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktek. Jakarta:
Rhineka Cipta.
Armstrong, N., Chang, S., and Brickman, M. (2007). Cooperative learning in
industrial-sized biology classes. CBE-Life Science Education, 6(2), 163171.
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephin, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The Jigsaw
Classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing Company.
Ausubel, D. P. (1986). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, Winston
Chotimah, H. (2007). Peningkatan Proses dan Hasil Belajar Biologi dalam
Pendekatan Kontekstual Melalui Model Pembelajaran Think-Pair-Share
pada Peserta Didik Kelas X-6 SMA Laboratorium Universitas Negeri
Malang. Journal Penelitian Kependidikan, 17(1), 1-14.
Caskey, M. M. and Vincent A. A. Jr. (2007). Research Summary: Young
Adolescents’ Developmental Characteristics. Portland State University:
PDXScholar.
Coletta,V. P., J. A. Phillips., and J. J. Steinert. (2007). Why You Should Measure
Your Students’ Reasoning Ability. The Physics Teacher,45(4), 235-238.
DePorter, B. and Hernacki. (2002). Quantum Learning: Membiasakan Belajar
Nyaman dan Menyenagkan. Bandung: Kaifa

39

Dimyati and Mudjiono. (2002). Belajar dan Pembelajaran. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Elina, T. (2009). Efektivitas Media Comic Strip pada Pembelajaran Materi
Pewarisan Sifat di SMPN 2 Taman Kabupaten Pemalang dengan
Pendekatan SAVI. Skripsi. Semarang: Universitas Negeri Semarang.
Ghazi, G. (2003). Effects of The Learning Together Model of Cooperative
Learning on English as Foreign Language Reading Achievement,
Academic, Self-esteem, Feelings of School Alienation. Bilingual Research
Journal, 27(3), 451-469.
Gilakjani, A. P. (2012). Visual, Auditory, Kinaesthetic, Learning Styles and Their
Impacts on English Language Teaching. Journal of Studies in Education,
2(1), 104-103.
Gunawan, A. W. (2004). Genius Learning Strategy. Jakarta: PT Gramedia
Pustaka Utama
Hamalik, O. (2007). Proses Belajar Mengajar. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
Hobri. (2009). Model-Model Pembelajaran Inovatif. Jember: Center for Society
Studies (CSS) Jember
Joyce, B. and Weil, M. (2003). Model of Teaching. New Delhi: Prentice Hall Inc.
Katherine, H. (2005). Getting The Picture: Using Visual Learning Techniques to
Foster Higher Order Thinking Skills and Encourage Connection in The
Secondary Classroom. Language Arts Journal of Michigan, 21(2), 41-47.
Khanifah, S., K. K. Pukan and S. Sukaesih. (2012). Pemanfaatan Lingkungan
Sekolah sebagai Sumber Belajar untuk Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar Siswa.
Unnes Journal of Biology Education, 1(1), 83-89.
Kilic, D. (2008). The Effect of The Jigsaw Technique on Learning The
Concept of The Principles and Methods of Teaching. World Applied
Science Journal, 4 (1), 109-114.
Kuswardhani, A. L. (2011). Pembelajaran Biologi Model Jigsaw II dan Student
Team Achievement Division (STAD) Ditinjau dari Motivasi Belajar dan
Kreativitas Siswa. Surakarta: Universitas Sebelas Maret.
Lindawati, E. (2009). Penerapan Penddekatan SAVI Melalui Metode Accelerated
Learning Dalam Pembelajaran Matematika Pada Materi Limas di Kelas
VII-F SLTPN 1 Dringgu Probolinggo. Thesis. Malang: Faculty of Teacher
Training and Education, University of Muhammadiyah.

40

Maynard, T. and J. Waters. (2007). Learning in the outdoor Environment: a
Missed Opportunity? Early Years: An International Research Journal, 27
(3), 255-265.
Meier, D. (2000). The Accelerated Learning Handbook. New York: McGraw Hill.
Milawati, T. (2011). Peningkatan Kemampuan Anak Memahami Drama dan
Menulis Teks Drama Melalui Model Pembelajaran Somatis, Auditori,
Visual, Intelektual (SAVI). Journal Penelitian Pendidikan, 14(2), 70-78.
Mustikasari, I., N. R. Utami, and Supriyanto. (2012). Efektivitas Pemanfaatan
Macromedia Flash dengan Pendekatan SAVI Materi Sistem Gerak di
SMA N 1 Kajen. Unnes Journal of Biology Education, 1(2), 1-7.
Oleyede, O. I. (2011). A Meta-Analysis of Effects of the Advance Organizers on
Acknowledgement and Retention of Senior Secondary School (SSS). Int.
J. Edu. Sci, 3(2), 129-135.
Ozcan, T., Ozgur, S., Kat, A., and Elgun, S. (2013). Identifiying and Comparing
the Degree of Difficulties Biology Subjects By Adjusting It is Reasons in
Elementary and Secondary Education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 116(2014), 113-122.
Pratiwi, D., Suratno and Pujiastuti. (2014). Pengembangan Bahan Ajar Biologi
Berbasis Pendekatan SAVI (Somatic, Auditory, Visual, Intellectual) pada
Pokok Bahasan Sistem Pernapasan Kelas XI SMA dalam Meningkatkan
Motivasi dan Hasil Belajar Siswa. Jurnal Edukasi Unej, 1(2), 5-9.
Silberman, M. L. (2009). Active Learning: 101 Strategi Pembelajaran Aktif.
Yogyakarta: Insan Media
Slavin, R. E., (2008). Cooperative Learning. Bandung: Nusa Media.
Sudjana, N. (2005).Metoda Statistika. Bandung: PT Tarsito.
Sudjana, N. (2008).Penialaian Hasil Proses Belajar Mengajar. Bandung: PT
Remaja Rosadakarya.
Sugiyo, W. L. and Z. Abidin. (2008). Peningkatan Hasil Belajar Siswa dengan
Model Pembelajaran Team Game Tournament Melalui Pendekatan Jelajah
Alam Sekitar dan Penilaian Portofolio. Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan Kimia,
2 (1), 236-243.
Sulastri. (2009). Pengaruh Penggunaan Pembelajaran Kooperative Tipe Jigsaw di
SMP N 2 Cimalaka. Journal Pengajaran MIPA, 13(1), 15-21.

41

Survei

International TIMSS. (2011, August
http://litbang.kemdikbud.go.id/index.php/timss

15).

Retrieved

from

Sutrisno., Mardiyana., & Usodo, B. (2013). Eksperimentasi Model Pembelajaran
Kooperatif Tipe STAD dan TPS Dengan Pendekatan SAVI Terhadap
Prestasi dan Motivasi Belajar Ditinjau Dari Gaya Belajar Siswa. Jurnal
Elekronik Pembelajaran Matematika, 1(7), 661- 672.
Tarigan, D. (1986). Teknik Pengajaran Keterampilan Berbahasa. Bandung:
Angkasa.
Wijayanti, T. F., Prayitno, B. A., & Marjono. (2013). Pengaruh Pendekatan SAVI
Melalui Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe STAD Terhadap Hasil
Belajar Pada Siswa Kelas VII SMP Negeri 14 Surakarta. Jurnal
Pendidikan Biologi, 5(1), 1-14.
Wendraningrum, D., N. Kariada and A. Marianti. (2014). Penerapan Pendekatan
SAVI (Somatis, Auditori, Visual, dan Intelektual) pada Materi
Keanekaragaman Hayati di SMA. Unnes Journal of Biology Education,
3(1), 44-52.
Winkel, W. S. (2009). Psikologi Pengajaran. Jakarta: Gramedia.
Yusuf, Y. (2006). Upaya Peningkatan Aktifitas dan Hasil Belajar Biologi Melalui
Penggunaan Peta Konsep pada Siswa Kelas II SMP 2 Pekanbaru Tahun
Ajaran 2004/2005. Journal Bioginesis, 2(2), 59-63.