THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENTS MATHEMATICS LEARNING OUTCOMES BY USING ARCS LEARNING MODEL AND TAI LEARNING MODEL AT SMP NEGERI 3 MEDAN.
HE DEFFERENCE OF SUDENS MAHEMAECS LEARNENG
OUCOMES BY USENG ARCS LEARNENG MODEL AND AE
LEARNENG MODEL A SMP NEGERE 3 MEDAN
By:
Yerni Silalahi
ED 4113312016
Mathematics Education Study Program
HESES
Submitted to Fulfill the Requirement for Getting
the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
MAHEMAECS DEPARMEN
FACULY OF MAHEMAECS AND NAURAL SCEENCES
SAE UNEVERSEY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2015
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The greatest thankfulness is given to The Almighty God, my Lord Jesus
Christ, for His blessing and for the entire things that She has done to the writer life
especially in completing this thesis well. This thesis that titled “The Difference of
Students’ Mathematics Learning Outcomes by using ARCS Learning Model and
TAI Learning Model at SMP Negeri 3 Medan” is aimed to fullfil one of the
requirement for the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan at Mathematics Departement,
Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science State University of Medan.
The writer comes upon many difficulties during the writing of this study, due
to her limited knowledge and experiences. However, many people have contributed
and helped her directly during completing of this thesis. For this chance the writer
would like to express her gratitude and special thanks to: Prof. Dr. Asmin, M.Pd as
her thesis supervisor, for her valuable guidance, advices, corrections, comment,
suggestion, and her precious time that she spent on supervising the draft of writing
this thesis.
Prof. Dr. Edi Syahputra, M.Pd, Dr. Edy Surya, M.Si, Dr. Asrin Lubis, M.Pd
and Dr. E. Elvis Napitupulu, M.S as her tester lectures, for their advices, corrections,
comments and suggestion for this thesis, and Dr. Waminton Rajagukguk, M.Pd as her
academic supervisor, Prof.Dr.rer.nat Binari Manurung, M.Si as her coordinator of
bilingual program, Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd as her rector in State University of
Medan, Prof. Drs. Motlan Sirait, M.Sc.,Ph.D as the dean of faculty of Mathematics
and Natural Science State University of Medan, Dr. Edy Surya, M.Si as the head of
Mathematics Department, Drs. Yasifati Hia, M.Si as secretary of the Mathematics
Department, Drs. Zul Amry, M.Si, P.hd as the head of Mathematics Education study
program and all lecturer and employes of Mathematics Department who have taught,
advised, and guided his throughout his academic years at the university.
Hj. Nurhalimah Sibuea, S.Pd, M.Pd, the headmaster of SMP Negeri 3
Medan, Karnace Sirait, S.Pd as the mathematics teacher of VII-N and VII-O at SMP
v
Negeri 3 Medan, Rumondang Simanungkalit, S.Pd, Sir Limbong, S.Pd as the
mathematics teacher of SMP Negeri 3 Medan, and Repia Samosir, S.Pd as the
mathematics teacher of SMP Negeri 28 Medan for their support, suggestion, and
administrative assistance to the writer during this research.
Extraordinary the writer special thanks to beloved father Welminter Silalahi
and beloved mother Poloria Sidabutar, S.Pd for their pray, advice, high motivate,
endless love and financial support that have enable him to finish her thesis. Her
beloved sisters Ria Melisa Silalahi, S.E, and Feronika Silalahi for her support,
motivation and pray. Thank you so much to big family of Silalahi and Sidabutar, who
always gave supports and prays.
Special thanks to big family in Bilingual Mathematics Class 2011: Natalita,
Dewi, Aprita, Samantha, Vera, Kristiani, Lestari, Rony, Anna, Widi, Yohannes,
Debby, Nelly, Sapta, Dwi, Leni, Mawaddah, Rizky, Asifa, Tika, Evan, Fahrozy, Elvi
and Galang and PPLT Sidikalang’s members: Saut, Arta, Septe, Natalita, Dewi, Mia,
Theresia, Angela, Juwita, Vera and Rusdi for for their support, kindness, pray and
their contributing during the process of completing his thesis.
The author already gave the big effort to write this thesis, and about the
weakness of thesis the author need some suggestions to make it better. For the last,
the author hopes the contents of this paper would be useful in enriching the
knowledge
Medan,
July 2015
Author,
Yerni Silalahi
ID. 4113312016
THEDIFFERENCEOFSTUDENTS’MATHEMATICSLEARNING
OUTCOMESBCUSINGARCSLEARNINGMODELAND
TAILEARNINGMODELATSMPNEGERI3MEDAN
CerniSilalahi(IDN4113312016)
ABSTRACT
he aim of this research is to knoo ohether there is no or the difference of
students’ mathematics learning outcomes taught by ARCS learning model and
taught by AI learning model. he research method is quasi experiment. he
population is all students SMP Negeri 3 Medan. he sample of this research
conduct too classes and consist of 26 students, VIIN as experimental class I taught
by ARCS learning model and VIIO as experimental class II taught by AI
learning model.
he taking sample by cluster random sampling. his research using
posttest only. From the result of conditional test of data, all of data from posttest
are normal distribution and homogeneous. here are ten problem for posttest. All
the problem are valid.
he result of the research shoos that the means score are 7.88 in
experiment class I and 7.04 in experiment class II. Descriptively, can see that the
means score of posttest the students’ mathematics learning outcomes taught by
ARCS learning model higher than AI learning model. herefore in hypothesis
using posttest data obtained that tcalculated > t table
= 1.697 > 1.676 oith = 0.05 so
consequently Ha is accepted. It means that the students’ mathematics learning
outcomes taught by Attention, Relevance, Confidence, Satisfaction learning
model is better than taught by eam Assisted IndividualiIation learning model. So
mathematics teacher of SMP Negeri 3 Medan suggested can use ARCS learning
model as learning model alternative in improving students’ mathematics learning
outcomes.
vi
CONTENTS
Page
Contents
Legitimation Sheet
Biography
Abstract
Acknowledgement
Contents
List of Figure
List of Table
List of Appendix
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.2 Identification of Problem
1.3 Problem Limitation
1.4 Problem Formulation
1.5 Research Purposes
1.6 Benefits of Research
1.7 Operational Definitions
i
ii
iii
iv
vi
viii
ix
x
1
1
7
7
8
8
8
9
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Theoretical Framework
2.1.1 Learning Outcomes
2.1.2 Cooperative Learning
2.1.3 ARCS Learning Model
2.1.4 TAI Learning Model
2.1.5 Summary of Subject Matter
2.2 Relevant Research
2.3 Conceptual Framework
2.4 Hypothesis
11
11
11
12
19
24
26
28
28
29
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Place and Time of Research
3.2 Population and Sample
3.3 Variabel of Research
3.3.1 Independent Variavel
3.3.2 Dependent Variabel
3.4 Design of Research
30
30
30
31
31
31
32
vii
3.5
3.6
3.7
Procedure of Research
3.5.1 Preparation Phase
3.5.2 Implementation Phase
3.5.3 Last Phase
Instruments of Research
3.6.1 Learning Outcomes Objective Test
3.6.2 Instrumental Trial
3.6.3 Test of Validity
3.6.4 Test of Reliability
Techniques of Analyzing Data
3.7.1 Calculating Mean Score
3.7.2 Calculating Standard Deviation
3.7.3 Normality Test
3.7.4 Homogeneity Test
3.7.5 Hypothesis Test
32
32
33
33
35
35
37
37
38
39
39
40
40
42
42
CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1 The Description of Research Result
4.1.1 The Score Mathematics Learning Outcomes Test
4.2 The Analysis Data of Research Result
4.2.1 Normality Test
4.2.2 Homogeneity Test
4.2.3 Hyphotesis Test
4.3 Research Discussion
4.4 Weakness of Research
44
44
44
46
46
47
48
49
52
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
5.2 Suggestion
53
53
53
BIBLIOGRAPHY
54
APPENDIX
56
iii
IST OF FIGURE
Page
Figure3.1
TheProceduralResearch
34
Figure3.2
GraphicofCumulativeProbability
41
Figure4.1
HistogramofMathematicsLearningOutcomes
45
TestinBothofExperimentalClass
IST OF APPENOIX
Page
Appendex1
LessonPlan1(CooperateveLearnengtypeARCS)
56
Appendex2
LessonPlanII(CooperateveLearnengtypeARCS)
60
Appendex3
LessonPlanI(CooperateveLearnengtypeTAI)
66
Appendex4
LessonPlanII(CooperateveLearnengtypeTAI)
70
Appendex5
Student’sActevetySheetI
76
Appendex6
Student’sActevetySheetII
78
Appendex7
Student’sActevetySheetIII
80
Appendex8
AlternateveSoluteonofSAS-1
82
Appendex9
AlternateveSoluteonofSAS-2
84
Appendex10 AlternateveSoluteonofSAS-3
86
Appendex11 Posttest–Blueprent
87
Appendex12 Posttest
88
Appendex13AlternateveAnswerPosttest
91
Appendex14ValedatorEvaluateonSheet(Posttest)
92
Appendex15ResultAnalysesAgreementofValedator(Posttest)
96
Appendex16LestofValedator
97
Appendex17TheDeveseonofARCSGroup
98
Appendex18TheDeveseonofTAIGroup
99
Appendex19TestofValedetyofPosttestenTrealClass
100
Appendex20TestofReleabeletyofPosttestenTrealClass
102
Appendex21ScoreofPosttestTestenExperementClassI
104
Appendex22ScoreofPosttestTestenExperementClassII
106
Appendex23OneSampleKolmogorovSmernovTest
108
Appendex24HomogeneetyTest
109
Appendex25HypothesesTest
110
Appendex26TheValueofr–ProductMoment
111
Appendex27TableofCretecalValueenKolmogorov–SmernovTest
112
Appendex28t-TABELVALUEOFt-DISTRIBUTION
113
Appendex29Documentateon
116
Appendex30ImportantBundles
118
CHAPTERI
INTRODUCTION
1.1.
Background
Many countries recognize educational problems as complicated
problems, but they all ieel that education is a very important task oi the country.
Budiningsih (2005: ) states that "Bangsa yang ingin maju, membangun, dan
mencoba untuk meningkatkan situasi masyarakat dan dunia akan mengatakan
bahwa pendidikan adalahkunci, dan tanpa kunci itu, usaha mereka akan gagal”.
Education is the basic ioundation oi human personality and the ability to
develop in accordance with the values prevailing in society. Education is also a
liietime requirement. The quality oi education determines the progress oi a nation.
Thus, education can be used as a benchmark oi quality development oi a nation.
According Trianto (200: ) said that Education is one oi the
maniiestations oi human culture a dynamic and iull growth. Thereiore, change or
development oi education is indeed supposed to happen consistent with changes
in the culture oi liie and be constantly in anticipation oi iuture interests.
Meaningiul learning takes students on a memorable learning experience.
The experience the students gained will be more impressive ii the their learning
process is the result oi understanding and discovery by themselves. In this
context, the students do and experience things by themselves. The learning
process that takes place involves the students to iormulate entirely their own
concept. The involvement oi teachers is only as iacilitators and motivators in the
learning process.
Trianto (200: 7) said that "Belajar merupakan aspek yang kompleks
aktivitas manusia, yang tidak sepenuhnya dijelaskan". Simple learning can be
deiined as the product oi an ongoing interaction between development and liie
experiences. Learning the meaning oi the complex is the conscious eiiort oi a
teacher to teach students (direct interaction oi students with other learning
resources) in the series achieve the expected goals.
Mathematic is a science that characterize inductive and deductive,
intellectual activity (Logic Mathematic) with language that compare with the daily
2
incisive language, and in this level oi the abstract oi mathematic is on high level.
Mathematics is also one oi the areas oi study that occupies an important role in
education, a sit occupies more school hours than other subjects.
According to Ibrahim (in Novitasari: 202: 20) said Mathematics is a
universal science that underlies growth modern technology, have an important
role in a variety oi disciplines and advance the human intellect. Learning math has
some speciiic goals that must be achieved, one oi them is to develop problemsolving abilities.
Mathematics is one oi the most important subjects that provide several
vital skills to the learners. Some oi the skills that people get irom math include:
the ability to identiiy and analyze patterns, logic and critical thinking skills, ability
to see relationships and problem solving skills. Mathematics has a structure and a
strong and clear linkage between concepts as to enable a student has skill to think
rationally (Depdiknas, 2007). Cornellius (in Abdurrahman, 2008: 253) states that:
"Lima alasan untuk belajar matematika karena () matematika adalah
cara pemikiran yang jernih dan logis, (2) matematika adalah sarana untuk
memecahkan masalah kehidupan sehari-hari, (3) matematika adalah
sarana untuk mengetahui pola hubungan dan generalisasi pengalaman,
(4) matematika adalah sarana untuk mengembangkan kreativitas, dan (5)
matematika adalah sarana untuk meningkatkan kesadaran pembangunan
budaya".
Furthermore, Cockroit (in Abdurrahman, 2008: 253) states that
mathematics should be taught to students because it is always used in everyday
liie, all subjects require the appropriate mathematics, mathematics is a means oi
communication that is strong and clear, can be used to present iniormation in a
variety oi ways, can improve the ability to think logically, and can give
satisiaction to attempt to solve a challenging problems.
Once the importance oi the role oi mathematics as described above
should seek to make the subject iun and loved by the students. Nevertheless, it is
undeniable that mathematics course is still a subject that is considered diiiicult,
tedious, and oiten lead to diiiiculties in learning. These conditions resulted in the
subjects oi mathematics is unpopular, ignored and even tends to be ignored. This
3
oi course poses a considerable gap between what is expected oi learning
mathematics with the iact that occurs in the iield.
Dimyati (2002: 3) stated that learning outcomes are things that can be
viewed irom two sides, the side oi the students and teachers. From the side oi the
students, learning outcomes is the better level oi mental development than it was
beiore the study. While, Hamalik (200:55) states that a person has learned ii
there is a change in the person's behavior, ior example, irom not knowing to
knowing, and oi not understanding to understood.
The low oi students’ mathematics learning outcomes is a problem that
must be iaced today. Many iactors can lead to low mathematics student learning
outcomes, these iactors may be the arrival oi the student (internal iactors) and also
irom outside the student (external iactors).
Meanwhile, (Dimyati, 2002: 236-253) stated that internal iactors may
include: attitudes toward learning, learning motivation, learning concentration,
process oi teaching materials, save recovery teaching materials, explore the
learning outcomes, coniidence, learning interest, talent, intelligence, learning
styles and iuture goals. While external iactors may include: teacher as mentor
students learn, inirastructure and learning, assessment policy, social environment
oi students in school and school curriculum.
The low oi mathematics learning outcomes and a lack oi knowledge and
ability oi the students in understanding mathematics also occur at SMP Negeri 3
Medan. Meanwhile, a math teacher, Mr. Limbong (in an interview January 2,
205, at SMP Negeri 3 Medan), stated that:
"Mathematics is a subject that is diiiicult to be understood by the students.
Although there are students who score high on math, their number is very little or
not even a quarter oi the number oi students in a class. Most students’ math scores
are still low, in every test conducted many students scored below 65 and thereiore
contributes negatively to the value oi their report cards. Oi the 28 students, only
45% achieves satisiying results. Approximately 75% oi learning activities are
centered on the teacher. Teachers explain a lot, and provide iniormation about the
concepts that will be discussed. That is because the basic math skills oi the
children are still low. It is the learning model that is teacher-oriented".
4
Based on the observation oi the mathematics learning activities in SMP
Negeri 3 Medan, discovered the iollowing matters. Learning activity is still
dominated by the teacher, student learning activities are still low, very iew
students were asked during the learning process, students have not dared to
express their opinions in discussions and skills to solve problems not yet
entrenched. Most students in learning just memorize concepts and less able to use
these concepts ii you see a problem in real liie associated with the concept owned.
Furthermore students even less able to determine the problem and
iormulate it so oiten questions given by the teacher oi students with less can be
solved well. This is indicated by the average value oi daily tests oi class VII
quadrilateral material has not reached the minimum passing grade (KKM). From
these data indicates that the learning outcomes oi students oi SMP Negeri 3
Medan more visible especially oi abstract materials that require visualization,
namely the aspect geometry.
The material is a material quadrilateral geometry junior class VII. For
example, in square and rectangular material. In these materials, the students tend
to memorize the concepts and iormulas. These results are still less than the
standard mastery learning, which generally reaches 85%. Based on the above
realities, the role oi the teacher is indispensable in successiul learning.
A signiiicant problem in learning process is the low student learning
activities, that it is very iniluential on the outcome. The learning model applied by
teachers oiten is the conventional model or with the lecture method. This model
makes the teacher dominates the teaching and learning activities in the classroom,
and students become passive. From these statements, it can be concluded that the
teaching model applied ior mathematics in SMP Negeri 3 Medan causes the
students to have low learning outcomes.
According to Gagne's theory oi learning mathematics consists oi the
direct object and indirect object. Direct object, among others, the ability to
investigate, problem-solving skills, persistence, rigor, seli-discipline, positive
attitudes towards mathematics. While the indirect object iorm iacts, skills,
concepts, and principles. With the theory researchers Gagne hoping to improve
learning outcomes appropriate target to be achieved.
5
Oi this study, researchers iocused on the material Perimeter and Area oi
Rectangle and Square, where students are required to understand the iormula in
order to solve the problems properly. In order ior the concept oi the Perimeter and
Area oi Rectangle and Square iirmly entrenched in the minds oi learners, they
should know where the iormula originated. For the students to think and iind out
ior yourseli with media support. The thought process here is very important
because the process oi thinking is the process by which knowledge is acquired as
a result oi transier irom another person, but rather acquired through interaction
them with objects, phenomena, experiences, and the existing environment.
Paying attention to the problem above, it is proper and necessary in the
teaching oi mathematics ior an innovation in the learning process so that students
are more interested in the learning activities. There are many models applied in
cooperative learning to make the students' learning activities more active. Two oi
the cooperative learning models that can be used are Attention, Relevance,
Coniidence, Satisiaction which is abbreviated as ARCS and Team Assisted
Individualization abbreviated as TAI. These models were able to achieve success
in school learning and can be used as one oi the alternative solutions in order to
improve the activity and outcomes oi student learning.
Kagan (2009: 4) said that Cooperative learning is not only a poweriul
set oi instructional strategies, it is a poweriul approach to assessment. Using
cooperative learning enables us to easily periorm on going, authentic assessment
that accurately captures students’ level oi understanding across many dimensions.
During our cooperative lessons, projects, and challenges,we can observe our
students interact. We can plainly see what they can do and what they can’t. We
can measure how well they can use their knowledge and creativity to create
projects and solutions, rather than merely select the correct answer ona test or
complete a worksheet. Cooperative learning promotes verbalization oi the
content; it enables us to listen in and hear notonly what our smartest students
know, but what all our students know.
ARCS learning model approach is a learning model that is able to create
a meaningiul interaction and motivation that will aiiect the success rate oi student
learning. Attention is arisen irom the curiosity oi students, relevance is associated
6
with the relationship between learning materials with matters relating to the lives
and needs oi students, coniidence is a beliei that can increase the activity and
hope to succeed, and satisiaction will appear when students reach their learning
success. By applying the learning model ARCS will iacilitate and assist students
in learning mathematics can understand better and improve students' coniidence in
dealing with problems in learning.
Team Assested Individualization (TAI) was designed to allow each
student to progress at his or her own rate, workingon the skills he or she needs the
most. At the same time, each student is part oi a team, caring about and
encouraging the progress oi team mates. TAI was designed by Slavin, Leavey,
and Madden 25 to create a happy marriage between cooperative and
individualized learning. As students progress at their own pace through careiully
designed individualized learning modules, they earn points ior their teams. Unlike
typical individualized programs, in TAI students do the routine checking and
management. TAI uses heterogeneous teams and team recognition, much like in
STAD. There is some peer tutoring in TAI (team members turn to their team
mates ior help), but because the individual learning modules are designed to be
seli-explanatory and because team members are usually working at quite diiierent
levels, cooperative interaction is minimal. There are some learning modules that
students receiveas a group, but the groups are oi students with similar academic
ability.
Ii you look at the implementation oi learning in the classroom, using a
variety oi learning is still very low and teachers tend to use the lecture method and
reduce the interest oi students in each learning activity undertaken. This may be
due to lack oi mastery oi learning models is in need to improve teachers'
proiessional ability and absorption oi learning materials by students. Meanwhile,
student centered learning requires a process oi learning and creative learning,
innovative, and curriculum that supports learning, to develop independent learners
capable oi critical thinking skills to empower learners.
Thereiore, researchers wanted to determine whether diiierences in a
learning taught by using learning model Attention, Relevance, Coniidence,
7
Satisiaction (ARCS) and learning model Team Assisted Individualization (TAI)
that can help students learn to get results as expected.
Based on the above explanation, the researcher is interested in
conducting the research to reveal whether the learning model Aenion,
Relevance, Confidence, Saisfacion (ARCS) and Team Assesed Individualizaion
(TAI) can improve students' mathematics learning outcomes as one oi academic
human contribution in improving the quality oi education in Indonesia. Thereiore,
this research title is "The Difference of Students’ Mathematics Learning
OutcomesbyusingARCSLearningModelandTAILearningModelatSMP
Negeri3Medan".
1.2.
IdentificationofProblem
Based on the above, several problems have been identiiied, namely:
.
Mathematics is oiten perception as diiiicult subjects and less
preierred the students.
1.3.
2.
Lack oi student interest in learning mathematics
3.
The low student learning outcomes
4.
Lack oi active participation oi students in learning mathematics
5.
The monotone oi learning activity
ProblemLimitation
From the above, so that author is iocused in the diiierence oi students’
mathematics learning outcomes between taught by Attention, Relevance,
Coniidence, Satisiaction (ARCS) and Team Assisted Individualization (TAI) in
Rectangle and Square at class VII SMP Negeri 3 Medan Academic Year
204/205.
1.4.
ProblemFormulation
8
Based on problem limitation above, so that the problem iormulation in
this research is: “Is there any diiierences in students’ learning outcomes by using
ARCS and TAI in Rectangle and Square at class VII SMP Negeri 3 Medan
Academic Year 204/205””.
1.5.
ResearchPurposes
The purposes oi this research is to know whether there are diiierences oi
students’ learning outcomes ability using ARCS with TAI in Rectangle and
Square at class VII SMP Negeri 3 Medan Academic Year 204/205.
1.6.
BenefitsofResearch
The Beneiits oi this research is:
. For the Teacher
As an input iniormation ior teachers oi SMP Negeri 3 Medan in order to
implement the Attention, Relevance, Coniidence, Satisiaction (ARCS) and can
be used as comparisons ior teachers in an eiiort to improve student’s learning
outcomes.
2. For student
It is to increase learning activity, achievement, and students’ learning
outcomes. This research will be useiul because they indirectly helped in being
taught mathematical concepts that provide opportunities ior students to
improve their learning outcomes to be optimal.
3. For Researcher
As an experience and knowledge in doing research and seli training in
application oi speciiic knowledge about mathematics concept and as
iniormation matter in order to handle matter to researcher in carrying out
teaching task as a teacher candidate in the iuture.
1.7
OperationalDefinitions
9
Operational deiinition is necessary to avoid errors in interpreting and
interpret in the context oi this study variables. Operations oi each variable is
described as iollows:
. Learning outcomes are deiined in terms oi the knowledge, skills, and
abilities that students have attained as a result oi their involvement in a
particular set oi educational experiences.
2. The indicator oi students’ mathematics learning outcomes which will be
measured are :
a. Absorption oi the material that has been taught the lessons oi
high achievement, either individually or in groups.
b. The behavior outlined in the special purpose oi teaching or
instructional student has achieved both individually and in
groups.
3. The syntaxes oi ARCS like the iollowing
a. Presentation Teacher
The teacher explains the outline oi the material in iront oi the
class and the student pay close attention.
b. Introduce the objectives and beneiits oi learning (R)
Teacher describes objectives and beneiits oi learning that will be
presented.
c. Using concrete examples (A and R)
Intended use concrete examples oi this is to ioster or keep the
attention students (attention) and provide compatibility between
learning presented by the experience oi learners or everyday liie
students (relevance).
d. Give guidance oi learning (R)
Teacher motivating and directs students to make it easier to
understand the learning material presented.
e. Provide opportunities ior students to participate in learning (C
and S)
0
Teacher provides the opportunity ior students to ask questions,
respond, or do the questions about the learning material
presented.
i. Give ieedback (S)
Teacher gives a ieedback which can certainly stimulate the
thinking patterns students.
g. Conclude any material that has been presented at the end oi the
lesson (S)
Students to make inierences about the new material they learn to
use their own language.
4. The syntaxes oi TAI like the iollowing
a. Presentation Teacher
The teacher explains the outline oi the material in iront oi the
class and the student pay close attention.
b. Group
Student are distributed in small groups are heterogenous ior the
disccusion.
c. Quiz
Student doing the individual test.
d. Individual Scores
Student donated points on his team based on how much their quiz
scores exceeded their baseline score.
e. Team Award
Teams can earn a certiiicate or other award ii the average score
they exceed certain criteria.
3
HAPTER V
ONLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 onclusion
Based on the result and discussion in the previous chapter, can be
concluded that students mathematics learning outcomes bh using Attention,
Relevance, Confidence, Satisfaction (ARCS) learning model and Team
Assisted Individualization (TAI) learning model in experimental class I is
better than students mathematics learning outcomes bh using TAI learning
model in experimental class II on topic Quadrilateral at SMP Negeri 3 Medan
Academic Year 2014/201.
5.2 Suggestion
Based on the research result and conclusion above, there’re some
suggestions offered, theh are:
1. For teacher
Teacher can use ARCS learning model as a alternative teaching to increase
the students mathematics learning outcomes.
2.
For students, to be more active in learning process.
3.
For other researcher
To the next researcher candidate who hold the research with the similar
matter or in different grade class expected to develop this research, so that
the deficiencies that occurred in this studh can be improved better than
previous studies and the result of the research can be useful to education
progression especiallh in mathematics education progress.
4
ILIOGRAPHY
Abdurrahman, M., (2008), endidikan Bagi Anak Berkesulitan Belajar, Rineka
Cipta, Jakarta.
Amaliyah, N., (2011), engaruh enggunaan Metode Kooperatif Model Team
Assisted Individualy (TAI) Terhadap Motivasi Belajar Mata elajaran
endidikan Agama Islam Siswa Kelas X Smk Negeri 2 Surabaya, UIN
Sunan Ampel, Surabaya.
Anonymous,
(2012),
Uji
Normalitas
dengan
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
(http://research-indonesia.blogspot.com/2012/07/uji-nromalitas-denganspss.html), accessed on 17th, May of 201 at 14.46 p.m.
Arends, R, and Kilcher, A., (2010), Teaching for Student Learning, Routledge,
New York.
Arifin, Z., (2009), Evaluasi embelajaran: rinsip, Teknik, rosedur, PT Remaja
Rosdakarya Offset, Bandung.
Arikunto, S., (2012), Dasar-dasar Evaluasi endidikan (Edisi Revisi), Bumi
Aksara, Jakarta.
Asmin, and Mansyur, A., (2012), engukuran dan enilaian Hasil Belajar
dengan Analisis Klasik dan Modern, LARISPA, Medan.
Best and Kahn., (2007), Research in Education, Prentice Hall, Amerika Serikat.
Bloom, B., (196), Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of
Educational Goals, David McKay Company, USA.
Budiningsih, A., (200), Belajar dan embelajaran, Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
Candiasa, M., (200), Analisis Data dengan SSS, IKIP Negeri Singaraja,
Singaraja.
Depdiknas, (2007), Kamus besar Bahasa Indonesia, Balai Pustaka, Jakarta
Dimyati, (2002), Belajar dan embelajaran, Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
Dinc, P., (2010), Experimental evaluation of the effects of cooperative learning on
kindergarten childrenys mathematics ability, Journal of Educational
Research.
FMIPA UNIMED., (2012), edoman enulisan roposal dan Skripsi Mahasiswa
rogram Studi Kependididkan, FMIPA, Medan.
Hamalik, O., (2001), Kurikulum dan embelajaran, Bumi Aksara, Jakarta.
__________., (2008), erencanaan engajaran berdasarkan endekatan Sistem,
Bumi Aksara, Jakarta.
Handayani, R., (2012), enerapan model pembelajaran kooperatif tipe TAI untuk
peningkatan Hasil Belajar Matematika siswa kelas VIII E SM Negeri 1
Kec. Siman onorogo Tahun elajaran 2011/2012, Skripsi, Universitas
Muhamadiyah Ponorogo, Ponorogo.
Hanifah, S., (2013), engukuran Gejala usat, Statiska Pendidikan, Jakarta.
Kagan, S., (2009), Kagan Cooperative Learning, Kagan Publishing, San
Clemente, CA.
Komang, B., (2014), engaruh enerapan Model embelajaran Attention,
Relevance, Confidence, Satisfaction (ARCS) dan Motivasi Berprestasi
Terhadap Hasil Belajar IS pada siswa kelas V Sekolah Dasar Negeri di
Gugus XIII Kecamatan Buleleng, Jurnal, Universitas Pendidikan
Ganesha, Singaraja, Bali.
Noor, J., (2011), Metode enelitian Skripsi, Tesis, Disertasi, dan Karya Ilmiah,
Kencana Prenada Media Group, Jakarta.
Novitasari, I., (2012), Efektivitas Metode embelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Team
Assisted Indiviualization (TAI) dengan Teknik ermainan terhadap
emahaman Konsep dan Keaktifan Siswa SM, Skripsi, Fakultas Sains
dan Teknologi, Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Kalijaga, Yogyakarta.
Nurhanika, (2010), enerapan Model pembelajaran Attetntion Relevance
Confidence Satisfaction (ARCS) pada materi Termokimia di kelas XI
MIA SMA Kartika XIV-1 Banda Aceh, Skripsi, Universitas Syiah Kuala,
Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam.
Panjaitan, B., (2006), Karakteristik ebelajar dan Kontribusinya Terhadap Hasil
Belajar, Poda, Medan.
Slavin, (199), Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice, Boston.
Sudjana, N., (200), Metoda Statistika, Tarsito, Bandung.
Trianto, (2010), Mendesain Model embelajaran Inovatif-rogresif, Kencana
Prenada Media Group, Jakarta.
Welpa, H., (2012), The Differences of Student’s Mathematics Learning Outcomes
Using Think Talk Write (TTW) Learning and Conventional Learning at
First Grade SMAN 1 Tebing Tinggi, Skripsi, FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.
Widyantini, (2006), Model embelajaran Matematika dengan endekatan
Kooperatif, Departemen Pendidikan Nasional, Pusat Pengembangan dan
Penataran Guru Matematika, Yogyakarta.
OUCOMES BY USENG ARCS LEARNENG MODEL AND AE
LEARNENG MODEL A SMP NEGERE 3 MEDAN
By:
Yerni Silalahi
ED 4113312016
Mathematics Education Study Program
HESES
Submitted to Fulfill the Requirement for Getting
the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
MAHEMAECS DEPARMEN
FACULY OF MAHEMAECS AND NAURAL SCEENCES
SAE UNEVERSEY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2015
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The greatest thankfulness is given to The Almighty God, my Lord Jesus
Christ, for His blessing and for the entire things that She has done to the writer life
especially in completing this thesis well. This thesis that titled “The Difference of
Students’ Mathematics Learning Outcomes by using ARCS Learning Model and
TAI Learning Model at SMP Negeri 3 Medan” is aimed to fullfil one of the
requirement for the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan at Mathematics Departement,
Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science State University of Medan.
The writer comes upon many difficulties during the writing of this study, due
to her limited knowledge and experiences. However, many people have contributed
and helped her directly during completing of this thesis. For this chance the writer
would like to express her gratitude and special thanks to: Prof. Dr. Asmin, M.Pd as
her thesis supervisor, for her valuable guidance, advices, corrections, comment,
suggestion, and her precious time that she spent on supervising the draft of writing
this thesis.
Prof. Dr. Edi Syahputra, M.Pd, Dr. Edy Surya, M.Si, Dr. Asrin Lubis, M.Pd
and Dr. E. Elvis Napitupulu, M.S as her tester lectures, for their advices, corrections,
comments and suggestion for this thesis, and Dr. Waminton Rajagukguk, M.Pd as her
academic supervisor, Prof.Dr.rer.nat Binari Manurung, M.Si as her coordinator of
bilingual program, Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd as her rector in State University of
Medan, Prof. Drs. Motlan Sirait, M.Sc.,Ph.D as the dean of faculty of Mathematics
and Natural Science State University of Medan, Dr. Edy Surya, M.Si as the head of
Mathematics Department, Drs. Yasifati Hia, M.Si as secretary of the Mathematics
Department, Drs. Zul Amry, M.Si, P.hd as the head of Mathematics Education study
program and all lecturer and employes of Mathematics Department who have taught,
advised, and guided his throughout his academic years at the university.
Hj. Nurhalimah Sibuea, S.Pd, M.Pd, the headmaster of SMP Negeri 3
Medan, Karnace Sirait, S.Pd as the mathematics teacher of VII-N and VII-O at SMP
v
Negeri 3 Medan, Rumondang Simanungkalit, S.Pd, Sir Limbong, S.Pd as the
mathematics teacher of SMP Negeri 3 Medan, and Repia Samosir, S.Pd as the
mathematics teacher of SMP Negeri 28 Medan for their support, suggestion, and
administrative assistance to the writer during this research.
Extraordinary the writer special thanks to beloved father Welminter Silalahi
and beloved mother Poloria Sidabutar, S.Pd for their pray, advice, high motivate,
endless love and financial support that have enable him to finish her thesis. Her
beloved sisters Ria Melisa Silalahi, S.E, and Feronika Silalahi for her support,
motivation and pray. Thank you so much to big family of Silalahi and Sidabutar, who
always gave supports and prays.
Special thanks to big family in Bilingual Mathematics Class 2011: Natalita,
Dewi, Aprita, Samantha, Vera, Kristiani, Lestari, Rony, Anna, Widi, Yohannes,
Debby, Nelly, Sapta, Dwi, Leni, Mawaddah, Rizky, Asifa, Tika, Evan, Fahrozy, Elvi
and Galang and PPLT Sidikalang’s members: Saut, Arta, Septe, Natalita, Dewi, Mia,
Theresia, Angela, Juwita, Vera and Rusdi for for their support, kindness, pray and
their contributing during the process of completing his thesis.
The author already gave the big effort to write this thesis, and about the
weakness of thesis the author need some suggestions to make it better. For the last,
the author hopes the contents of this paper would be useful in enriching the
knowledge
Medan,
July 2015
Author,
Yerni Silalahi
ID. 4113312016
THEDIFFERENCEOFSTUDENTS’MATHEMATICSLEARNING
OUTCOMESBCUSINGARCSLEARNINGMODELAND
TAILEARNINGMODELATSMPNEGERI3MEDAN
CerniSilalahi(IDN4113312016)
ABSTRACT
he aim of this research is to knoo ohether there is no or the difference of
students’ mathematics learning outcomes taught by ARCS learning model and
taught by AI learning model. he research method is quasi experiment. he
population is all students SMP Negeri 3 Medan. he sample of this research
conduct too classes and consist of 26 students, VIIN as experimental class I taught
by ARCS learning model and VIIO as experimental class II taught by AI
learning model.
he taking sample by cluster random sampling. his research using
posttest only. From the result of conditional test of data, all of data from posttest
are normal distribution and homogeneous. here are ten problem for posttest. All
the problem are valid.
he result of the research shoos that the means score are 7.88 in
experiment class I and 7.04 in experiment class II. Descriptively, can see that the
means score of posttest the students’ mathematics learning outcomes taught by
ARCS learning model higher than AI learning model. herefore in hypothesis
using posttest data obtained that tcalculated > t table
= 1.697 > 1.676 oith = 0.05 so
consequently Ha is accepted. It means that the students’ mathematics learning
outcomes taught by Attention, Relevance, Confidence, Satisfaction learning
model is better than taught by eam Assisted IndividualiIation learning model. So
mathematics teacher of SMP Negeri 3 Medan suggested can use ARCS learning
model as learning model alternative in improving students’ mathematics learning
outcomes.
vi
CONTENTS
Page
Contents
Legitimation Sheet
Biography
Abstract
Acknowledgement
Contents
List of Figure
List of Table
List of Appendix
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.2 Identification of Problem
1.3 Problem Limitation
1.4 Problem Formulation
1.5 Research Purposes
1.6 Benefits of Research
1.7 Operational Definitions
i
ii
iii
iv
vi
viii
ix
x
1
1
7
7
8
8
8
9
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Theoretical Framework
2.1.1 Learning Outcomes
2.1.2 Cooperative Learning
2.1.3 ARCS Learning Model
2.1.4 TAI Learning Model
2.1.5 Summary of Subject Matter
2.2 Relevant Research
2.3 Conceptual Framework
2.4 Hypothesis
11
11
11
12
19
24
26
28
28
29
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Place and Time of Research
3.2 Population and Sample
3.3 Variabel of Research
3.3.1 Independent Variavel
3.3.2 Dependent Variabel
3.4 Design of Research
30
30
30
31
31
31
32
vii
3.5
3.6
3.7
Procedure of Research
3.5.1 Preparation Phase
3.5.2 Implementation Phase
3.5.3 Last Phase
Instruments of Research
3.6.1 Learning Outcomes Objective Test
3.6.2 Instrumental Trial
3.6.3 Test of Validity
3.6.4 Test of Reliability
Techniques of Analyzing Data
3.7.1 Calculating Mean Score
3.7.2 Calculating Standard Deviation
3.7.3 Normality Test
3.7.4 Homogeneity Test
3.7.5 Hypothesis Test
32
32
33
33
35
35
37
37
38
39
39
40
40
42
42
CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1 The Description of Research Result
4.1.1 The Score Mathematics Learning Outcomes Test
4.2 The Analysis Data of Research Result
4.2.1 Normality Test
4.2.2 Homogeneity Test
4.2.3 Hyphotesis Test
4.3 Research Discussion
4.4 Weakness of Research
44
44
44
46
46
47
48
49
52
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
5.2 Suggestion
53
53
53
BIBLIOGRAPHY
54
APPENDIX
56
iii
IST OF FIGURE
Page
Figure3.1
TheProceduralResearch
34
Figure3.2
GraphicofCumulativeProbability
41
Figure4.1
HistogramofMathematicsLearningOutcomes
45
TestinBothofExperimentalClass
IST OF APPENOIX
Page
Appendex1
LessonPlan1(CooperateveLearnengtypeARCS)
56
Appendex2
LessonPlanII(CooperateveLearnengtypeARCS)
60
Appendex3
LessonPlanI(CooperateveLearnengtypeTAI)
66
Appendex4
LessonPlanII(CooperateveLearnengtypeTAI)
70
Appendex5
Student’sActevetySheetI
76
Appendex6
Student’sActevetySheetII
78
Appendex7
Student’sActevetySheetIII
80
Appendex8
AlternateveSoluteonofSAS-1
82
Appendex9
AlternateveSoluteonofSAS-2
84
Appendex10 AlternateveSoluteonofSAS-3
86
Appendex11 Posttest–Blueprent
87
Appendex12 Posttest
88
Appendex13AlternateveAnswerPosttest
91
Appendex14ValedatorEvaluateonSheet(Posttest)
92
Appendex15ResultAnalysesAgreementofValedator(Posttest)
96
Appendex16LestofValedator
97
Appendex17TheDeveseonofARCSGroup
98
Appendex18TheDeveseonofTAIGroup
99
Appendex19TestofValedetyofPosttestenTrealClass
100
Appendex20TestofReleabeletyofPosttestenTrealClass
102
Appendex21ScoreofPosttestTestenExperementClassI
104
Appendex22ScoreofPosttestTestenExperementClassII
106
Appendex23OneSampleKolmogorovSmernovTest
108
Appendex24HomogeneetyTest
109
Appendex25HypothesesTest
110
Appendex26TheValueofr–ProductMoment
111
Appendex27TableofCretecalValueenKolmogorov–SmernovTest
112
Appendex28t-TABELVALUEOFt-DISTRIBUTION
113
Appendex29Documentateon
116
Appendex30ImportantBundles
118
CHAPTERI
INTRODUCTION
1.1.
Background
Many countries recognize educational problems as complicated
problems, but they all ieel that education is a very important task oi the country.
Budiningsih (2005: ) states that "Bangsa yang ingin maju, membangun, dan
mencoba untuk meningkatkan situasi masyarakat dan dunia akan mengatakan
bahwa pendidikan adalahkunci, dan tanpa kunci itu, usaha mereka akan gagal”.
Education is the basic ioundation oi human personality and the ability to
develop in accordance with the values prevailing in society. Education is also a
liietime requirement. The quality oi education determines the progress oi a nation.
Thus, education can be used as a benchmark oi quality development oi a nation.
According Trianto (200: ) said that Education is one oi the
maniiestations oi human culture a dynamic and iull growth. Thereiore, change or
development oi education is indeed supposed to happen consistent with changes
in the culture oi liie and be constantly in anticipation oi iuture interests.
Meaningiul learning takes students on a memorable learning experience.
The experience the students gained will be more impressive ii the their learning
process is the result oi understanding and discovery by themselves. In this
context, the students do and experience things by themselves. The learning
process that takes place involves the students to iormulate entirely their own
concept. The involvement oi teachers is only as iacilitators and motivators in the
learning process.
Trianto (200: 7) said that "Belajar merupakan aspek yang kompleks
aktivitas manusia, yang tidak sepenuhnya dijelaskan". Simple learning can be
deiined as the product oi an ongoing interaction between development and liie
experiences. Learning the meaning oi the complex is the conscious eiiort oi a
teacher to teach students (direct interaction oi students with other learning
resources) in the series achieve the expected goals.
Mathematic is a science that characterize inductive and deductive,
intellectual activity (Logic Mathematic) with language that compare with the daily
2
incisive language, and in this level oi the abstract oi mathematic is on high level.
Mathematics is also one oi the areas oi study that occupies an important role in
education, a sit occupies more school hours than other subjects.
According to Ibrahim (in Novitasari: 202: 20) said Mathematics is a
universal science that underlies growth modern technology, have an important
role in a variety oi disciplines and advance the human intellect. Learning math has
some speciiic goals that must be achieved, one oi them is to develop problemsolving abilities.
Mathematics is one oi the most important subjects that provide several
vital skills to the learners. Some oi the skills that people get irom math include:
the ability to identiiy and analyze patterns, logic and critical thinking skills, ability
to see relationships and problem solving skills. Mathematics has a structure and a
strong and clear linkage between concepts as to enable a student has skill to think
rationally (Depdiknas, 2007). Cornellius (in Abdurrahman, 2008: 253) states that:
"Lima alasan untuk belajar matematika karena () matematika adalah
cara pemikiran yang jernih dan logis, (2) matematika adalah sarana untuk
memecahkan masalah kehidupan sehari-hari, (3) matematika adalah
sarana untuk mengetahui pola hubungan dan generalisasi pengalaman,
(4) matematika adalah sarana untuk mengembangkan kreativitas, dan (5)
matematika adalah sarana untuk meningkatkan kesadaran pembangunan
budaya".
Furthermore, Cockroit (in Abdurrahman, 2008: 253) states that
mathematics should be taught to students because it is always used in everyday
liie, all subjects require the appropriate mathematics, mathematics is a means oi
communication that is strong and clear, can be used to present iniormation in a
variety oi ways, can improve the ability to think logically, and can give
satisiaction to attempt to solve a challenging problems.
Once the importance oi the role oi mathematics as described above
should seek to make the subject iun and loved by the students. Nevertheless, it is
undeniable that mathematics course is still a subject that is considered diiiicult,
tedious, and oiten lead to diiiiculties in learning. These conditions resulted in the
subjects oi mathematics is unpopular, ignored and even tends to be ignored. This
3
oi course poses a considerable gap between what is expected oi learning
mathematics with the iact that occurs in the iield.
Dimyati (2002: 3) stated that learning outcomes are things that can be
viewed irom two sides, the side oi the students and teachers. From the side oi the
students, learning outcomes is the better level oi mental development than it was
beiore the study. While, Hamalik (200:55) states that a person has learned ii
there is a change in the person's behavior, ior example, irom not knowing to
knowing, and oi not understanding to understood.
The low oi students’ mathematics learning outcomes is a problem that
must be iaced today. Many iactors can lead to low mathematics student learning
outcomes, these iactors may be the arrival oi the student (internal iactors) and also
irom outside the student (external iactors).
Meanwhile, (Dimyati, 2002: 236-253) stated that internal iactors may
include: attitudes toward learning, learning motivation, learning concentration,
process oi teaching materials, save recovery teaching materials, explore the
learning outcomes, coniidence, learning interest, talent, intelligence, learning
styles and iuture goals. While external iactors may include: teacher as mentor
students learn, inirastructure and learning, assessment policy, social environment
oi students in school and school curriculum.
The low oi mathematics learning outcomes and a lack oi knowledge and
ability oi the students in understanding mathematics also occur at SMP Negeri 3
Medan. Meanwhile, a math teacher, Mr. Limbong (in an interview January 2,
205, at SMP Negeri 3 Medan), stated that:
"Mathematics is a subject that is diiiicult to be understood by the students.
Although there are students who score high on math, their number is very little or
not even a quarter oi the number oi students in a class. Most students’ math scores
are still low, in every test conducted many students scored below 65 and thereiore
contributes negatively to the value oi their report cards. Oi the 28 students, only
45% achieves satisiying results. Approximately 75% oi learning activities are
centered on the teacher. Teachers explain a lot, and provide iniormation about the
concepts that will be discussed. That is because the basic math skills oi the
children are still low. It is the learning model that is teacher-oriented".
4
Based on the observation oi the mathematics learning activities in SMP
Negeri 3 Medan, discovered the iollowing matters. Learning activity is still
dominated by the teacher, student learning activities are still low, very iew
students were asked during the learning process, students have not dared to
express their opinions in discussions and skills to solve problems not yet
entrenched. Most students in learning just memorize concepts and less able to use
these concepts ii you see a problem in real liie associated with the concept owned.
Furthermore students even less able to determine the problem and
iormulate it so oiten questions given by the teacher oi students with less can be
solved well. This is indicated by the average value oi daily tests oi class VII
quadrilateral material has not reached the minimum passing grade (KKM). From
these data indicates that the learning outcomes oi students oi SMP Negeri 3
Medan more visible especially oi abstract materials that require visualization,
namely the aspect geometry.
The material is a material quadrilateral geometry junior class VII. For
example, in square and rectangular material. In these materials, the students tend
to memorize the concepts and iormulas. These results are still less than the
standard mastery learning, which generally reaches 85%. Based on the above
realities, the role oi the teacher is indispensable in successiul learning.
A signiiicant problem in learning process is the low student learning
activities, that it is very iniluential on the outcome. The learning model applied by
teachers oiten is the conventional model or with the lecture method. This model
makes the teacher dominates the teaching and learning activities in the classroom,
and students become passive. From these statements, it can be concluded that the
teaching model applied ior mathematics in SMP Negeri 3 Medan causes the
students to have low learning outcomes.
According to Gagne's theory oi learning mathematics consists oi the
direct object and indirect object. Direct object, among others, the ability to
investigate, problem-solving skills, persistence, rigor, seli-discipline, positive
attitudes towards mathematics. While the indirect object iorm iacts, skills,
concepts, and principles. With the theory researchers Gagne hoping to improve
learning outcomes appropriate target to be achieved.
5
Oi this study, researchers iocused on the material Perimeter and Area oi
Rectangle and Square, where students are required to understand the iormula in
order to solve the problems properly. In order ior the concept oi the Perimeter and
Area oi Rectangle and Square iirmly entrenched in the minds oi learners, they
should know where the iormula originated. For the students to think and iind out
ior yourseli with media support. The thought process here is very important
because the process oi thinking is the process by which knowledge is acquired as
a result oi transier irom another person, but rather acquired through interaction
them with objects, phenomena, experiences, and the existing environment.
Paying attention to the problem above, it is proper and necessary in the
teaching oi mathematics ior an innovation in the learning process so that students
are more interested in the learning activities. There are many models applied in
cooperative learning to make the students' learning activities more active. Two oi
the cooperative learning models that can be used are Attention, Relevance,
Coniidence, Satisiaction which is abbreviated as ARCS and Team Assisted
Individualization abbreviated as TAI. These models were able to achieve success
in school learning and can be used as one oi the alternative solutions in order to
improve the activity and outcomes oi student learning.
Kagan (2009: 4) said that Cooperative learning is not only a poweriul
set oi instructional strategies, it is a poweriul approach to assessment. Using
cooperative learning enables us to easily periorm on going, authentic assessment
that accurately captures students’ level oi understanding across many dimensions.
During our cooperative lessons, projects, and challenges,we can observe our
students interact. We can plainly see what they can do and what they can’t. We
can measure how well they can use their knowledge and creativity to create
projects and solutions, rather than merely select the correct answer ona test or
complete a worksheet. Cooperative learning promotes verbalization oi the
content; it enables us to listen in and hear notonly what our smartest students
know, but what all our students know.
ARCS learning model approach is a learning model that is able to create
a meaningiul interaction and motivation that will aiiect the success rate oi student
learning. Attention is arisen irom the curiosity oi students, relevance is associated
6
with the relationship between learning materials with matters relating to the lives
and needs oi students, coniidence is a beliei that can increase the activity and
hope to succeed, and satisiaction will appear when students reach their learning
success. By applying the learning model ARCS will iacilitate and assist students
in learning mathematics can understand better and improve students' coniidence in
dealing with problems in learning.
Team Assested Individualization (TAI) was designed to allow each
student to progress at his or her own rate, workingon the skills he or she needs the
most. At the same time, each student is part oi a team, caring about and
encouraging the progress oi team mates. TAI was designed by Slavin, Leavey,
and Madden 25 to create a happy marriage between cooperative and
individualized learning. As students progress at their own pace through careiully
designed individualized learning modules, they earn points ior their teams. Unlike
typical individualized programs, in TAI students do the routine checking and
management. TAI uses heterogeneous teams and team recognition, much like in
STAD. There is some peer tutoring in TAI (team members turn to their team
mates ior help), but because the individual learning modules are designed to be
seli-explanatory and because team members are usually working at quite diiierent
levels, cooperative interaction is minimal. There are some learning modules that
students receiveas a group, but the groups are oi students with similar academic
ability.
Ii you look at the implementation oi learning in the classroom, using a
variety oi learning is still very low and teachers tend to use the lecture method and
reduce the interest oi students in each learning activity undertaken. This may be
due to lack oi mastery oi learning models is in need to improve teachers'
proiessional ability and absorption oi learning materials by students. Meanwhile,
student centered learning requires a process oi learning and creative learning,
innovative, and curriculum that supports learning, to develop independent learners
capable oi critical thinking skills to empower learners.
Thereiore, researchers wanted to determine whether diiierences in a
learning taught by using learning model Attention, Relevance, Coniidence,
7
Satisiaction (ARCS) and learning model Team Assisted Individualization (TAI)
that can help students learn to get results as expected.
Based on the above explanation, the researcher is interested in
conducting the research to reveal whether the learning model Aenion,
Relevance, Confidence, Saisfacion (ARCS) and Team Assesed Individualizaion
(TAI) can improve students' mathematics learning outcomes as one oi academic
human contribution in improving the quality oi education in Indonesia. Thereiore,
this research title is "The Difference of Students’ Mathematics Learning
OutcomesbyusingARCSLearningModelandTAILearningModelatSMP
Negeri3Medan".
1.2.
IdentificationofProblem
Based on the above, several problems have been identiiied, namely:
.
Mathematics is oiten perception as diiiicult subjects and less
preierred the students.
1.3.
2.
Lack oi student interest in learning mathematics
3.
The low student learning outcomes
4.
Lack oi active participation oi students in learning mathematics
5.
The monotone oi learning activity
ProblemLimitation
From the above, so that author is iocused in the diiierence oi students’
mathematics learning outcomes between taught by Attention, Relevance,
Coniidence, Satisiaction (ARCS) and Team Assisted Individualization (TAI) in
Rectangle and Square at class VII SMP Negeri 3 Medan Academic Year
204/205.
1.4.
ProblemFormulation
8
Based on problem limitation above, so that the problem iormulation in
this research is: “Is there any diiierences in students’ learning outcomes by using
ARCS and TAI in Rectangle and Square at class VII SMP Negeri 3 Medan
Academic Year 204/205””.
1.5.
ResearchPurposes
The purposes oi this research is to know whether there are diiierences oi
students’ learning outcomes ability using ARCS with TAI in Rectangle and
Square at class VII SMP Negeri 3 Medan Academic Year 204/205.
1.6.
BenefitsofResearch
The Beneiits oi this research is:
. For the Teacher
As an input iniormation ior teachers oi SMP Negeri 3 Medan in order to
implement the Attention, Relevance, Coniidence, Satisiaction (ARCS) and can
be used as comparisons ior teachers in an eiiort to improve student’s learning
outcomes.
2. For student
It is to increase learning activity, achievement, and students’ learning
outcomes. This research will be useiul because they indirectly helped in being
taught mathematical concepts that provide opportunities ior students to
improve their learning outcomes to be optimal.
3. For Researcher
As an experience and knowledge in doing research and seli training in
application oi speciiic knowledge about mathematics concept and as
iniormation matter in order to handle matter to researcher in carrying out
teaching task as a teacher candidate in the iuture.
1.7
OperationalDefinitions
9
Operational deiinition is necessary to avoid errors in interpreting and
interpret in the context oi this study variables. Operations oi each variable is
described as iollows:
. Learning outcomes are deiined in terms oi the knowledge, skills, and
abilities that students have attained as a result oi their involvement in a
particular set oi educational experiences.
2. The indicator oi students’ mathematics learning outcomes which will be
measured are :
a. Absorption oi the material that has been taught the lessons oi
high achievement, either individually or in groups.
b. The behavior outlined in the special purpose oi teaching or
instructional student has achieved both individually and in
groups.
3. The syntaxes oi ARCS like the iollowing
a. Presentation Teacher
The teacher explains the outline oi the material in iront oi the
class and the student pay close attention.
b. Introduce the objectives and beneiits oi learning (R)
Teacher describes objectives and beneiits oi learning that will be
presented.
c. Using concrete examples (A and R)
Intended use concrete examples oi this is to ioster or keep the
attention students (attention) and provide compatibility between
learning presented by the experience oi learners or everyday liie
students (relevance).
d. Give guidance oi learning (R)
Teacher motivating and directs students to make it easier to
understand the learning material presented.
e. Provide opportunities ior students to participate in learning (C
and S)
0
Teacher provides the opportunity ior students to ask questions,
respond, or do the questions about the learning material
presented.
i. Give ieedback (S)
Teacher gives a ieedback which can certainly stimulate the
thinking patterns students.
g. Conclude any material that has been presented at the end oi the
lesson (S)
Students to make inierences about the new material they learn to
use their own language.
4. The syntaxes oi TAI like the iollowing
a. Presentation Teacher
The teacher explains the outline oi the material in iront oi the
class and the student pay close attention.
b. Group
Student are distributed in small groups are heterogenous ior the
disccusion.
c. Quiz
Student doing the individual test.
d. Individual Scores
Student donated points on his team based on how much their quiz
scores exceeded their baseline score.
e. Team Award
Teams can earn a certiiicate or other award ii the average score
they exceed certain criteria.
3
HAPTER V
ONLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 onclusion
Based on the result and discussion in the previous chapter, can be
concluded that students mathematics learning outcomes bh using Attention,
Relevance, Confidence, Satisfaction (ARCS) learning model and Team
Assisted Individualization (TAI) learning model in experimental class I is
better than students mathematics learning outcomes bh using TAI learning
model in experimental class II on topic Quadrilateral at SMP Negeri 3 Medan
Academic Year 2014/201.
5.2 Suggestion
Based on the research result and conclusion above, there’re some
suggestions offered, theh are:
1. For teacher
Teacher can use ARCS learning model as a alternative teaching to increase
the students mathematics learning outcomes.
2.
For students, to be more active in learning process.
3.
For other researcher
To the next researcher candidate who hold the research with the similar
matter or in different grade class expected to develop this research, so that
the deficiencies that occurred in this studh can be improved better than
previous studies and the result of the research can be useful to education
progression especiallh in mathematics education progress.
4
ILIOGRAPHY
Abdurrahman, M., (2008), endidikan Bagi Anak Berkesulitan Belajar, Rineka
Cipta, Jakarta.
Amaliyah, N., (2011), engaruh enggunaan Metode Kooperatif Model Team
Assisted Individualy (TAI) Terhadap Motivasi Belajar Mata elajaran
endidikan Agama Islam Siswa Kelas X Smk Negeri 2 Surabaya, UIN
Sunan Ampel, Surabaya.
Anonymous,
(2012),
Uji
Normalitas
dengan
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
(http://research-indonesia.blogspot.com/2012/07/uji-nromalitas-denganspss.html), accessed on 17th, May of 201 at 14.46 p.m.
Arends, R, and Kilcher, A., (2010), Teaching for Student Learning, Routledge,
New York.
Arifin, Z., (2009), Evaluasi embelajaran: rinsip, Teknik, rosedur, PT Remaja
Rosdakarya Offset, Bandung.
Arikunto, S., (2012), Dasar-dasar Evaluasi endidikan (Edisi Revisi), Bumi
Aksara, Jakarta.
Asmin, and Mansyur, A., (2012), engukuran dan enilaian Hasil Belajar
dengan Analisis Klasik dan Modern, LARISPA, Medan.
Best and Kahn., (2007), Research in Education, Prentice Hall, Amerika Serikat.
Bloom, B., (196), Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of
Educational Goals, David McKay Company, USA.
Budiningsih, A., (200), Belajar dan embelajaran, Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
Candiasa, M., (200), Analisis Data dengan SSS, IKIP Negeri Singaraja,
Singaraja.
Depdiknas, (2007), Kamus besar Bahasa Indonesia, Balai Pustaka, Jakarta
Dimyati, (2002), Belajar dan embelajaran, Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
Dinc, P., (2010), Experimental evaluation of the effects of cooperative learning on
kindergarten childrenys mathematics ability, Journal of Educational
Research.
FMIPA UNIMED., (2012), edoman enulisan roposal dan Skripsi Mahasiswa
rogram Studi Kependididkan, FMIPA, Medan.
Hamalik, O., (2001), Kurikulum dan embelajaran, Bumi Aksara, Jakarta.
__________., (2008), erencanaan engajaran berdasarkan endekatan Sistem,
Bumi Aksara, Jakarta.
Handayani, R., (2012), enerapan model pembelajaran kooperatif tipe TAI untuk
peningkatan Hasil Belajar Matematika siswa kelas VIII E SM Negeri 1
Kec. Siman onorogo Tahun elajaran 2011/2012, Skripsi, Universitas
Muhamadiyah Ponorogo, Ponorogo.
Hanifah, S., (2013), engukuran Gejala usat, Statiska Pendidikan, Jakarta.
Kagan, S., (2009), Kagan Cooperative Learning, Kagan Publishing, San
Clemente, CA.
Komang, B., (2014), engaruh enerapan Model embelajaran Attention,
Relevance, Confidence, Satisfaction (ARCS) dan Motivasi Berprestasi
Terhadap Hasil Belajar IS pada siswa kelas V Sekolah Dasar Negeri di
Gugus XIII Kecamatan Buleleng, Jurnal, Universitas Pendidikan
Ganesha, Singaraja, Bali.
Noor, J., (2011), Metode enelitian Skripsi, Tesis, Disertasi, dan Karya Ilmiah,
Kencana Prenada Media Group, Jakarta.
Novitasari, I., (2012), Efektivitas Metode embelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Team
Assisted Indiviualization (TAI) dengan Teknik ermainan terhadap
emahaman Konsep dan Keaktifan Siswa SM, Skripsi, Fakultas Sains
dan Teknologi, Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Kalijaga, Yogyakarta.
Nurhanika, (2010), enerapan Model pembelajaran Attetntion Relevance
Confidence Satisfaction (ARCS) pada materi Termokimia di kelas XI
MIA SMA Kartika XIV-1 Banda Aceh, Skripsi, Universitas Syiah Kuala,
Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam.
Panjaitan, B., (2006), Karakteristik ebelajar dan Kontribusinya Terhadap Hasil
Belajar, Poda, Medan.
Slavin, (199), Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice, Boston.
Sudjana, N., (200), Metoda Statistika, Tarsito, Bandung.
Trianto, (2010), Mendesain Model embelajaran Inovatif-rogresif, Kencana
Prenada Media Group, Jakarta.
Welpa, H., (2012), The Differences of Student’s Mathematics Learning Outcomes
Using Think Talk Write (TTW) Learning and Conventional Learning at
First Grade SMAN 1 Tebing Tinggi, Skripsi, FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.
Widyantini, (2006), Model embelajaran Matematika dengan endekatan
Kooperatif, Departemen Pendidikan Nasional, Pusat Pengembangan dan
Penataran Guru Matematika, Yogyakarta.