THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENTS LOGICAL REASONING LEVEL THAT HAS TAUGHT WITH USING EXPOSITORY STRATEGY AND INQUIRY STRATEGY IN SMP N 1 TANJUNG MORAWA AT VIII CLASS 2014/2015.

(1)

THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENTS LOGICAL REASONING LEVEL THAT HAS TAUGHT WITH USING EXPOSITORY STRATEGY

AND INQUIRY STRATEGY IN SMP N 1 TANJUNG MORAWA AT VIII CLASS 2014/2015

by:

Zulika Rahmi YS ID 4103312010

Mathematics Education Study Program

A THESIS

Submit to Fulfill the Requiretments for Getting the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan

DEPARTMENT of MATHEMATICS

FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

MEDAN 2015

(2)

(3)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Praise to God Almighty for His amazing grace, His wonderful love, the strength and the health which have been given so the writer could finish this thesis.

The writer’ special sincerest thanks are expressed to Mr. Dr. Waminton Rajagukguk, M.Pd as his thesis supervisor for his advice, encouragements, suggestions and knowledge that have been contributed to help the writer in compiling this thesis so that this thesis could be finished. May God always bless her and his family now and forever. The writer’s special thanks are expressed to Mr. Dr. Zul Amry, M.Si. Ph.D, Mr. Elvis Napitupulu M.S , Mrs. Danny Haris, Mr. Togi, M.Pd as her thesis consultants for their advice, encouragements, suggestions and knowledge that have been contributed to help the writer in compiling this thesis.

The writer also give thanks to Mr Prof. Dr. Ibnu Hajar, M.Si as the Rector of State University of Medan and also to Mr. Prof. Dr. Motlan Sirait, M.Sc., Ph.D. as the Dean of FMIPA UNIMED, and to Mr. Prof. Dr. Herbert Sipahutar, M.Sc as the Vice Dean of FMIPA in State University of Medan who help the writer in the compiling of this thesis.

The writer’s sincerest thanks are expressed also to Mr. Dr. Edy Surya, M.Pd as the head of Mathematics Department for his management department and valuable guidance in the arrangement of this thesis, and also for Mr. Drs. Yasifati Hia, M.Si as the secretary of Mathematics Department for his guidance given. The writer doesn’t forget to express special thanks also to Mr. Prof. Dr.rer.nat Binari Manurung, M.Si as the coordinator of Bilingual Program for his contribution to help the writer in compiling this thesis. Big thanks to all the lecturers of Mathematics Department and all administrative staff at the faculty, department and bilingual program for their guidance and administrative assistance given.

This thesis can’t be compiled well without the everlasting love and pray from his beloved parents, Mr. Yusri, S.Ag and Mrs. Sri Rahayu S.Pd. Her thanks

(4)

are also for her beloved brothers Zikri Akbar for his support, motivation and pray so that he is able to face the problems during her academic years at the university.

This thesis was compiled from the strength given by all his best friends Hidayatul Kamila, Fitria Falni and big thanks for Dwi Ardy Dermawan. Her thanks are sxpressed for the strength, spirit, and endless friendship ever. All his classmates in bilmath10, Abdul, Anggi, Dian, Dwi, Elfan, Erlyn, Kikie, Ana, Mila, Lia, Maria, Martyanne, Meiva, Melin, Surya, Nelly, Petra, Riny, Rully, Sartika, Sheila, Siti, Wulida, are given thanks for the togetherness, spirit, and our friendship. For all his pplmate in SMP N 1 Tebing Tinggi especially for #BKB Vika, Melani, Vita, Rully, and Milaare given thanks for the motivation to compile this thesis. And the next one the special thanks for Puguh Santoso Amd for big support since process of thesis .

Finally, the writer should give a big effort to prepare this thesis, and the writer knows that this thesis has so many weaknesses. The writer needs some suggestions to make it better. At last, may this thesis can be helpful and improve our knowledge.

Medan, August 2014 The writer,

Zulika Rahmi YS 4103312010

(5)

THE DIFFERENCES OF STUDENTS’ LOGICAL REASONING THAT HAS THAUGHT WITH USING EXPOSITORY STRATEGY AND INQUIRY STRATEGY

IN SMP N 1 TANJUNG MORAWA Zulika Rahmi Ys (IDN 4103312010)

ABSTRACT

This research is quasi-experiment. The purpose of this research was to know if student’s logical reasoning with using inquiry strategy is better than student’s logical reasoning with using expository strategy at SMP N 1 Tanjung Morawa.

The sample of this research is consist of 2 clsses from all students in SMP N 1 Tanjung Morawa. They are VIII-3 Class as Control Class consist of 30 students and VIII-5 Class as Experiment Class consist of 36 students. Control class used Expository Strategy, whereas Experiment class used Inquiry strategy. Collecting data technique of this research was the logical reasoning test that has given in the end of learning either in experimental class or control class. The type of this test is easy, medium and difficult test.

Before doing hypothesis test, it would be done normality and homogeneity test. From the result of test, sample was taken from normal distribution and homogeneus population. For data analysis of experimental class it was used t-test with significance level α=0.05 , obtained that tcalculation > ttable then H0 is rejected and Ha is accepted.

It can be conclude that student’s logical reasoning in Inquiry strategy is better than student’s logical reasoning in expository strategy at SMP Negeri 1 Tanjung Morawa.

Researcher recomend that Inquiry strategy can be as consideration to teachers to increase the logical reasoning level of student . In learning process of inquiry strategy, students get the information with finding the solutionof problem with making hypothesis and teachers as a guide finding the information. And basedon the result and instrument of this experiment, it can be used as consideration to implement inquiry strategy in different class level and topic

(6)

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1.Background 1

1.2.Problem Identification 7

1.3.Problem Limitation 8

1.4.Problem Formulation 8

1.5.Research Objectives 8

1.6.Research Benefit 9

1.7.Operational Definition 9

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1.Theoretical Framework 11

2.1.1. Learning understanding 11

2.1.2. Mathematical Reasoning Ability 13

2.1.3. Kinds of Reasoning 15

2.1.3.1. Inductive Reasoning 15

2.1.3.2.Deductive reasoning 17

2.1.4. Indicator of Mathematical Reasoning 18

2.1.5. Metacomponents of Mathematical Reasoning 19

2.1.6. Reasoning With Mathematical Analogues 21

2.1.7. Reasoning By Analogy In Solving Problems 22

2.1.8. Learning Strategies 22

2.1.8.1.Inquiry learning strategy 22

2.1.8.2.Expository Learning Strategy 29

2.1.9. Linear System Of Two Variables 32

(7)

CHAPTER III

REASERCH METHODOLOGY

3.1.Location and Time Research 36

3.1.1. Population and Research Sample 36

3.2.Variable of Research 36

3.2.1. Independent variable 36

3.3.Research Instrument 37

3.4.Types of Research 37

3.5.Research Design 37

3.6.Research procedures 38

3.7.Data Collection Techniques 40

3.7.1. The validity of the test 40

3.7.2. Reliability test 40

3.7.3. The level of questions difficulty 41

3.7.4. Differential Power 42

3.7.5. Tests of mathematical reasoning abilities 44

3.7.6. Analysis of reasoning abilities 46

3.8.Data Analysis Techniques 47

3.8.1. Normality test 48

3.8.2. Homogeneity test 48

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1.Research Result Description 52

4.1.1. Understanding of Mathematical concept Ability Test 52 4.1.2. The description of Students Logical Reasoning 53

4.2.Analysis of Research Data 54

4.2.1. Analysis of Logical Reasoning Test 54

(8)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1.Conclusion 62

5.2.Suggestion 62

(9)

LIST OF APPENDIX

Appendix 1 (LESSON PLAN I / Inquiry Strategy) 63

Appendix 2( LESSON PLAN II / Inquiry Strategy) 72

Appendix 3 ( LESSON PLAN III / Inquiry Strategy) 82

Appendix 4 ( LESSON PLAN I / Expository Strategy) 91

Appendix 5( LESSON PLAN II / Expository Strategy) 100

Appendix 6 ( LESSON PLAN III / Expository Strategy) 110

Appendix 7 ( SAS 1 ) 119

Appendix 8 (

Rubric SAS 1

) 122

Appendix 9 (SAS2 ) 125

Appendix 10 (

Rubric SAS 2)

130

Appendix 11 (SAS 3 ) 134

Appendix 12 (

Rubric SAS 3)

137

Appendix 13 (Post Test ) 140

Appendix 14 (Rubric of Post Test ) 143

Appendix 15 (Blue Print of Post Test) 147

Appendix 16 (Normality Test) 148

Appendix 17 (

Test of Homogeneity of Variance)

149

(10)

Appendix 19 ( The Different Level of Test) 151

Appendix 20 ( The Difficulty Level of Test ) 153

Appendix 21 (The Result of Validity Test ) 155

Appendix 22 (

Observation Sheet

)

157

Appendix 23 ( Table of Reability Test) 161

Appendix 24 (

r Product Moment Table

) 163

(11)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

a. Conclusion

Based on the analysis and discussion of research, it can be conclude that Students logical reasoning that has taught using Inquiry strategy is better than students’ logical reasoning that has taught using expository strategy at SMP Negeri 1 Tanjung Morawa. The percentage of indicators of logical reasoning i.e Students can determine the relationships within a pattern, Students can draw a general conclusion, Students can make a conclusion of an argument by using the principle of modus tollens. Students can make a conclusion of an argument using modus ponens principle, and Students can make a conclusion of an argument by using the principle of syllogism. And after doing the inquiry strategy and expository strategy, it find that inquiry strategy have the higher value of some indicators than expository strategy to measure the logical reasoning of students.

b. Suggestion

Based on the result of research and the above conclusion, the researcher submits some suggestion, as follows:

1. Inquiry strategy can be as consideration to teachers in enhancing junior high school students’ logical reasoning of mathematical concept ability.

2. Learning process of mathematics by using inquiry strategy needs longer time since in its learning, students get the information by them self and with teachers as guide, so it needs preparation to touch the logical reasoning of students and using the time with effectively.

3. For further researcher, result and instrument of this research can be used as consideration to implement inquiry strategy in different class level and topic.

(12)

REFERENCE

Abdurrahman, Mulyono. (2009). Pendidikan Bagi Anak Berkesulitan Belajar. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta

Arifin, Zaenal, (2009), Evaluasi Pembelajaran, Remaja Rosdakarya, Bandung

Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2010. Prosedure Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta

Asmin (2012), Pengukuran dan Penilaian Hasil Belajar dengan Analisis Klasik dan Modern, LARISPA, Medan

Azis, Abdul. 2012. Strategi Inkuiri. http://www.tuanguru.com. Accessed (2012/04/26)

Curcio, Frances R. (1999). Developing Mathematical Reasoning in Grades K-12. New York: NCTM.

Hamruni.( 2012). Strategy Pembelajaran. Yogyakarta: Insan Madani. Hamalik (2008), Kurikulum dan Pembelajaran, Bumi Aksara, Jakarta

Lestari, Rahmawati. 2013. Defenisi dan Penalaran. http:// wordpress._definisi-dan-penalaran. Accesed (2014./03/25)

Mudjiono & Dimyati. 2006. Belajar dan Pembelajaran. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta. Noor, Juliansyah. 2013. Metodology Penelitian. Jakarta: Kencana.

Noviana Nuryan. (2013) . penalaran induktif dan penalaran deduktif .

(http://noviananuryan.wordpress.com . Accessed (18 may:11:50PM)

Nurgayah. (2011). Strategi dan Metode Pembelajaran. Bandung: Cipta Pustaka Media Perintis.

Priatna,Nanang . 2012. Mengembangkan Penalaran Ppemecahan Masalah Melalui Strategi Daya Matematis. http://berita.upi.edu. Accessed (2012/04/26)

Sitanggang,Riwi D (2010) , Upaya Meningkatkan Kemampuan Penalaran Siswa SMP N 1 Percut Sei Tuan Melalui Metode Inquiry Dengan Menggunakan Alat Peraga Pada Bahasan Bangun Ruang Sisi Lengkung Tahun Ajaran 2010/1011, Medan , Unimed Slameto. (2010). Belajar dan Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Jakarta:RinekaCipta.

(13)

Sudjana, Nana (2005), Penilaian Hasil Proses Belajar Mengajar, Rosda, Jakarta Sudjana, (2008), Metoda Statistika, Tarsito, Bandung

Suprijo, Agus. 2009. Cooperative Learning. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar. Suntiko, Sobry. 2013. Belajar dan Pembelajaran. Lombok: Holistica

(14)

BIOGRAPHY

Zulika Rahmi Ys was born in Kisaran, the 8th May 1992. Her father named Yusri S.Ag and her mother named Sri Rahayu S.pd. She is the firt of 2 children.

In 1996 she accepted in SDN 013849 Siumbut Baru until 2003. After that she’s continiued her study in SMP Nnegeri 1 Kisaran until 2006. And from 2006 until 2009 she’s studying in SMA Negeri 4 Kisaran. In 2009 she accepted in Mechanic of Industry’s Department , Faculty of Technique. And in 2010 she accepted in Bilingual Class Mathematic Education, Department of Mathematic, Faculty of Mathematics and Sciences, University Negery Medan or The character of Building University, and Graduated on January 14th 2015.

(1)

LIST OF APPENDIX

Appendix 1 (LESSON PLAN I / Inquiry Strategy) 63

Appendix 2( LESSON PLAN II / Inquiry Strategy) 72

Appendix 3 ( LESSON PLAN III / Inquiry Strategy) 82 Appendix 4 ( LESSON PLAN I / Expository Strategy) 91 Appendix 5( LESSON PLAN II / Expository Strategy) 100 Appendix 6 ( LESSON PLAN III / Expository Strategy) 110

Appendix 7 ( SAS 1 ) 119

Appendix 8 (Rubric SAS 1) 122

Appendix 9 (SAS2 ) 125

Appendix 10 (Rubric SAS 2)

130