THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENTS MATHEMATICS LEARNING OUTCOMES USING THINK TALK WRITE (TTW) LEARNING AND CONVENTIONAL LEARNING AT FIRST GRADE SMAN 1 TEBING TINGGI.

THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENT’S MATHEMATICS LEARNING OUTCOMES USING THINK TALK WRITE (TTW) LEARNING

AND CONVENTIONAL LEARNING AT FIRST GRADE SMA N 1 TEBING TINGGI

By:

Putri Welpa Hutajulu ID 408111089

Mathematics Education Bilingual

THESIS

Submitted to Fulfill the Requirement for Getting the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan

MATHEMATICS DEPARTMENT MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCES FACULTY

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN MEDAN

BIOGRAPHY

Putri Welpa Hutajulu was born in Sei Rampah, Sei Rampah district, Serdang Bedagai on January 23rd, 1991. Father named P. Hutajulu and mother named W. Sinaga, S.Pd, and she is the second of five children. In the 1996, author entry Elementary School No 102016 Sei Rampah, and graduated in 2002, the authors go to school in SMP 1 Sei Rampah in 2002, and graduated in 2008. In 2005. the author of the school to SMA Negeri 1 Sei Rampah, and graduated in 2008. In 2008, the author received in Mathematics Education Studies Program, Department of Mathematics Bilingual Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Medan State University

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and Foremost, the writer would like to thank the Almighty God for the grace and praise that has been given to her until she can complete this thesis entitled “The Difference of Student’s Mathematics Learning Outcomes Using Think Talk Write (TTW) Learning and Conventional Learning At First Grade SMA N 1 Tebing Tinggi” as the fulfillment to get the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan at the Mathematic Bilingual Department, Faculty of Mathematics and Sains, Medan State University.

In the process of finishing this thesis, the writer faced a lot of difficulties, however because of the helping of each side; this thesis finally can be completed. Thus, the writer would like to express her sincere gratitude to many people.

First of all, the writer would like to express her profound gratitude to her consultant, Dr. Esther Nababan, M.Sc for her valuable time in giving the encouragement, guidance, and suggestion until this thesis come o its present form. Her assistance and understanding in the form of academic consultant are very highly appreciated. For Prof. Dian Armanto, M.Sc. Ed, M.Pd, MA, Ph.D, Dr. Hasratuddin M. Pd, and Dr. Edy Syahputra, M.Pd as advisory teachers who has given input from the planning of research to the preparation of this thesis.

Her thanks also due to Prof. Drs. Motlan, M.Sc, Ph.D. The Dean of Mathematics and Sains Faculty, Medan State University. His deepest gratitude also goes to Prof. Dr. Herbert Sipahutar, M.Sc as the coordinator of Bilingual Program and Prof. Dr. Mukhtar, M.Pd., the Head of Mathematics Department and Drs. Syafari, M.Pd, secretary of the Mathematics Education Department, and to all the lecturers who had advised and guided her through academic years at the State University of Medan.

Then, the writer would like to express her greatest thanks and everlasting gratitude to her beloved parents, P. Hutajulu and W. Sinaga, S.Pd and her beloved grandparents J. Sinaga, K. Saragih, and K. Sianturi as the inspirations of her life, for their endless loves, advices, prays, and supports both moral and material. Her deepest indebtedness also goes to her beloved brothers Daniel Pati Jaya Hutajulu

and Wahyu Putra Hutajulu and her beloved sisters Milia F. R Hutajulu, S.Pd and Bela Juliana Hutajulu for their everlasting love. The writer also said thank you for her aunts, uncles, nephews, and nieces because of their support.

Further, many thanks are offered to MHD. Syarif M,Si, M.Pd, The Headmaster of SMA Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi and to the Mathematics’ teacher, Merliana S.Pd., for their kindness and support during the research.

Her sincerely thanks are also addressed for her best friends “SERAPHIM” (B’Rustam, Janna, Togu, Blessing) for the support, pray, solidarity, and endless friendship. Her thanks also go to all friends in Mathematics Bilingual Education 2008 for their encouragement and their kindness during spending time in Medan State University and all people that cannot be mentioned one by one. For their love, support, and pray, may God bless them.

Medan, September 2012 Writer

iii

THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENT’S MATHEMATICS LEARNING

OUTCOMES USING THINK TALK WRITE (TTW) LEARNING AND CONVENTIONAL LEARNING AT FIRST GRADE

SMA N 1 TEBING TINGGI

Putri Welpa Hutajulu (NIM 408111089)

ABSTRACT

Students learning outcome is the result of process that is the work being done by students in achieving the goals of teaching, while the results of learning are skills that the students after they received the learning experience. Based on observation at SMA N 1 Tebing Tinggi, many students does not like to learning mathematics. It because, they assume that mathematic is boring and difficult to understand. So, it needs to be done cooperative learning to increase students learning outcomes even though activity learning process.

The purpose of this research is to know there is the difference of student’s mathematics learning outcomes using Think Talk Write (TTW) learning and conventional learning. Subject in this research is students X-7 as experiment class I and X-8 as experiment class II SMA N 1 Tebing Tinggi with the sum of each class is 34 students. The experiment class I using Think Talk Write (TTW) learning and experiment class II using conventional learning. The type of this research is experiment research.

The result shows that the average of students learning outcomes with TTW learning is higher than that average of students learning outcomes with conventional learning. Based on result of normalized gain towards both of the classes, the achievement of students learning outcomes with using TTW learning is better than that of using conventional learning. The TTW learning (experimental class I) is significantly better in improving student learning outcomes compared to conventional learning (experimental class II). It means there is the difference of students’ mathematics learning outcomes using TTW learning and conventional learning.

Keyword: The Difference Of Student’s Mathematics Learning Outcomes Using Think Talk Write (TTW) Learning And Conventional Learning

vi

CONTENTS

Page

Sheet Agreement i

Biography ii

Abstract iii

Acknowledgement iv

Table of Contents vi

List of Figures viii

List of Tables ix

List of Appendix x

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1. Background 1

1.2. Identification of Problem 5

1.3. Problem Limitation 5

1.4. Problem Formulation 5

1.5. Research Purposes 6

1.6. Benefits of Research 6

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 7

2.1. Theoretical Background 7

2.1.1. Learning and Teaching 7

2.1.2. The Concept of Learning Mathematics 9

2.1.3. Learning Outcomes 10

2.1.4. Cooperative Learning 11

2.1.4.1. Definition of Cooperative Learning 11

2.1.4.2. The Characteristics of Cooperative Learning 12

vii

2.1.4.4. The Advantages and Disadvantages 14

2.1.5. Conventional Learning 15

2.1.5.1. Conventional Learning Process 16

2.1.5.2. Superiority and Weakness of Cooperative Learning 17

2.1.6.Think Talk Write Learning 17

2.1.6.1. Learning Form TTW Learning 19

2.1.7. Distance In Space 25

2.2. Conceptual Framework 26

2.3. Hypothesis 27

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS 28

3.1. Place and Time of research 28

3.2. Population and Sample of Research 28

3.2.1. Population of Research 28

3.2.2. Sample of Research 28

3.3. The Type of Research 28

3.4. Research Design 28

3.5. Variable of Research 28

3.6. Procedure of Research 28

3.7. The Instruments of Research 32

3.7.1. Student Mathematics Ability Test 32

3.7.2. Student Activity Sheet (LAS) 32

3.7.3. Observation Sheet 32

3.8. Data Analysis Techniques 32

3.8.1. Calculate The Average and Standard Deviation 33

3.8.2. Normalized Gain Score Calculation 33

3.8.3. Determine The Average and Standard Deviation 33

3.8.4. Normality Test 34

3.8.5. Homogeneity Test 34

3.8.6. Testing Hypothesis 35

CHAPTER 4: RESULT AND CONCLUSION 37

viii

4.1.1. The Pretest Value of Experiment Class I and Experiment 37

Class II Students Learning Outcomes 4.1.2. The Posttest Values of Experiment Class I and Experiment 38

Class II Student’s Learning 4.1.3. Normalized Gain Student’s Learning Outcomes 38

4.1.4. Normality Test of Students Learning Outcomes 39

4.1.5. Homogeneity of Student Learning Outcomes Test 40

4.1.6. Hypothesis Test 40

4.2. Observation 43

4.3. Discussion of Research Results 43

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTION 48

5.1. Conclusions 48

5.2. Suggestions 48

REFERENCES 49

x

TABLES LIST

Page Table 2.1. The Advantages and Disadvantages of Cooperative 14 Learning Strategy

Table 2.2. Think Talk Write Learning Format 21

Table 3.1. Design of Research 28

Table 4.1. The Data of Students Learning Outcomes in Experiment Class I 37 and Experiment Class II Pretest Table 4.2. The Data of Students Learning Outcomes in Experiment Class I 38 and Experiment Class II Pretest

Table 4.3. Normalized Gain Description 39

Table 4.4. Summary of Normality Test Students Learning Outcomes 39 Data Result

Table 4.5. Result Data of Students Learning Outcomes Homogen Test 40 Table 4.6. Summary of The Average Value of The Pretest, Posttest, and 40 Normalized Gain Student’s Learning Outcomes In Two Classes

Table 4.7. Summary of Student’s Learning Outcomes Hypothesis Test 43 Table 4.8. Observation of Learning Process 43

xi

APPENDIX LIST

Page Appendix 1. Lesson Plan No.1 (Experiment Class I) 51 Appendix 2. Lesson Plan No. 2 (Experiment Class I) 56 Appendix 3. Lesson Plan No. 1 (Experiment Class II) 60 Appendix 4. Lesson Plan No. 2 (Experiment Class II) 63

Appendix 5. Student Activity Sheet (SAS) -1 66

Appendix 6. Student Activity Sheet (SAS) -1 69

Appendix 5. The Blueprint of Pre Test 72

Appendix 7. The Questions of Pre Test 73

Appendix 8. The Alternative Answer of Pre Test 74

Appendix 9. The Blueprint of Post Test 77

Appendix 10. The Question of Post Test 80

Appendix 11. The Alternative Answer of Post Test 81 Appendix 12. Validation Assessment Paper of Pre Test 84 Appendix 13. Validation Assessment Paper of Post Test 89 Appendix 14. The Data of Students Learning Outcomes of 94

Experiment Class I

Appendix 15. The Data of Students Learning Outcomes of 95 Experiment Class II

xii

Appendix 16. The Normalized Gain Data of Student’s Learning 96 Outcomes of Experiment Class I

Appendix 17. The Normalized Gain Data of Student’s Learning 97 Outcomes of Experiment Class II

Appendix 18. Calculation of Average, Variance, and Standard Deviation 98 Student’s Learning Outcomes of Experiment Class I

and Experiment Class I

Appendix 19. Calculation of Data Normality Test of Student’s 101 Learning Outcomes

Appendix 20. Calculation of The Homogeneity Test of Student’s 106 Learning Outcomes

Appendix 21. Calculation of Hypothesis Test of Student’s 108 Learning Outcomes

Appendix 22. Observation Sheet of Learning Process-1 110 Appendix 23. Observation Sheet of Learning Process-2 113

1

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

Progress of a country can be measured from the advancement of education in the country. In a variety of electronic media and raised the quality of education in Indonesia is low. Lack of education in Indonesia can be seen based on data from the Education for All (EFA) in Kompas, education development index for all or education for all in Indonesia declined. If last year Indonesia was ranked the 65th, this year's slump in the rank-69.

This further indicates the low quality of education in Indonesia. Ganis (2010) says:

“The cause of the low quality of education in Indonesia, among others, is

a matter of effectiveness, efficiency and standardization of teaching. It is still a problem of education in Indonesia in general. The specific problems in education are (1) poor infrastructure, (2) the low quality of teachers, (3) the low well-being of teachers, (4) the low student achievement, (5) the low educational equity opportunities, (6) the high cost of education”

Education is the basic foundation of human personality and the ability to develop in accordance with the values prevailing in society. Education is also a lifetime requirement. The quality of education is as well as determining the progressing of a nation. Thus, education can be used as a benchmark of quality development of a nation.

Based on Wikipedia that:

"Education is the conscious effort and be planned to create an atmosphere of learning and the learning process so that learners are actively developing the potential for him to have spiritual power, religious, self-control, personality, intelligence, noble character, as well as the necessary skills themselves and society"

Mathematics is one area of study which occupies an important role in education, it can be seen from the time school hours more than other subjects. Mastery of mathematics became the capital or the tools to study other subjects,

2

like physics, chemistry, biology and even social sciences. Mastery of basic knowledge of mathematics would provide for areas of great importance, such as Science and Technology.

Although mathematics is a subject that is considered important, but still many students who learn math results is low. Because mathematics is also a difficult subject to understand. Bambang (2008) said that :

“Many factors that lead to learning mathematics is considered difficult, such as the characteristics of abstract mathematical, logical, systematic, and full of symbols and symbol-confusing formula. In addition, some students do not like math because it is full of matter and poor

communication”

Tinggih (in Hudojo, 2003:40) says: “mathematics is not only related to numbers and operations, but also elements of the space as a target”. However, this

quantity has not met the other goals of mathematics, which is addressed to the relationships, patterns, shapes and structures. In solving math problems need imagination, intuition, problem solving activities and communication activities. So in generally, mathematics is often considered as subjects that are considered difficult or elusive.

Recognizing the importance of mathematics, both in the structuring of thought and attitude formation as well as the use of mathematics itself, the increase in student learning outcomes at every level of education needs to get serious attention. Increasing students 'mathematic skills not only from students who lack skills, but there are factors that also determine the success of students in learning mathematics is learning tailored to the needs of the students' situation. That is the results of teaching and learning process to work well, the need for appropriate methods or strategies in learning and teaching by students and teachers.

When following the Program Pelatihan Lapangan (PPL) in SMA Negeri 1 Lubukpakam, the writer observed that many students pay less attention to follow the process of learning mathematics in the classroom. There are many

3

examination is low. So, we can conclude that learning outcomes is still relatively low.

Based on data from UNESCO, the quality of mathematics education in Indonesia was ranked 34 of 38 countries surveyed. Other data that showed low student math achievement Indonesia can be seen from the results of the survey National Center for Education in Statistics (2003) to 41 countries in mathematics learning, where Indonesia's Rating to 39 below Thailand and Uruguay

We can see that it means, our student’s mathematics learning outcomes is relative low.

Something that led writer to apply cooperative learning is when PPL. Improved student learning outcomes and students are more active when the learning process takes place. The teacher supervisor learning process methods, and be adopted to be applied for the next meeting.

The writer found the same opinion when holding observation in SMA Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi. From interviews with Mrs. Merliana Sitangggang, S.Pd at the school, said that many students who are less active in the learning process. It is possible that the learning process interesting and less monotonous. In the end after a given test, their scores were still quite low. From these statements we can conclude students learn math of SMA Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi is still quite low.

In teaching and learning activities teachers should strive to create conditions for effective learning so that learning is progressing well. Low interest and student achievement in mathematics for understanding the learning process less support students caused by too much note to memorize, poorly equipped learning strategies that can enhance students' learning interest. Thus causing the

student’s boredom or too monotonous that makes to lower learning outcomes of

students in mathematics courses.

Educators must have ability develop or create a learning environment that can improve spirit and motivated students to engage in teaching and learning activities. Competent educators will be better able to create an effective environment, so that learning outcomes are at an optimal level. In creating educative interaction, teachers can choose one of the alternatives if the development of the learning model is cooperative learning.

4

Choosing a teaching method needs to consider several things such as materials to be delivered, goals, time available and the number of students as well

as matters related to teaching and learning process. Siberman (2004), says “what I

hear, I forget. What I hear and see, remember a little. What I hear, see, and ask question about or discuss with someone else, I begin to understand. What I hear, see, discuss, and do, I acquire knowledge and skill. What I teach to another, I

master (Active learning, 15:2004)”. In teaching and learning, teachers should not

only explain it while the students just listen. This causes students to feel bored. But educators should have more invites students to participate in the learning process.

Learning strategies that encourage students to actively participate is in the cooperative learning strategy. According to Slavin learning cooperative learning is done in groups, students in a class made small groups consisting of 4 to 5 people to understand the concept of which was facilitated by the teacher. In cooperative learning there are many different types of learning, learning method among which TTW (Think Talk Write). A learning method that is expected to cultivate communication skills and mathematical understanding of students is a method TTW (Think Talk Write).

Introduced by Huinker and Laughlin is basically built through thinking, speaking and writing. Think Talk Write is one of the cooperative learning has four steps - an important step in the implementation. Four steps - it is an important step as follows:

1. Step 1 - Thinking. Students are given the opportunity to think about the material or the opportunity to answer questions - the questions asked by teachers in the form of worksheets and done individually.

2. Step 2 - Talking. Once organized into groups, students are directed to engage actively in discussion groups on a worksheet that has been provided, the interaction is expected at this stage students are able to share the answers and opinions of the members of each group - each.

3. Step 3 - Writing. At this stage students are asked to write in language and thought itself the result of study and discussion groups are obtained.

5

4. Students' writing exhibited to show in front of friends as well as providing an opportunity for students to correct the work of other groups.

The flow advances TTW strategy (Think Talk Write) starting from the involvement of students in thinking or talking to himself after the reading process, then talk and share ideas (sharing) with his friend before writing. This atmosphere is more effective if done in a heterogeneous group with 4-5 students.

Based on above, in order to improve students' mathematics learning outcomes, especially on the subject of Three Dimensional Space. Researchers picked the title "The Difference of Student Mathematics Learning Outcomes Using Think Talk Write (TTW) Learning and Conventional Learning at First Grade SMA Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi".

1.2. Identification of Problem

Based on the above, it is defined there can be some problems, namely: 1. Lack of student interest in learning mathematics

2. The low student learning outcomes

3. Lack of active participation of students in learning mathematics 4. The monotone of learning activity

5. No strategy that teacher used

1.3. Problem Limitation

The research will be orientated to discuss about the difference of

student’s learning outcomes on the subject "Three Dimension Space" in the

section "Distance In Space especially In Cube" using Thing Talk Write (TTW) learning and conventional learning at First Grade SMA Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi. 1.4. Problem Formulation

Based on the above formulation of the problem, then the formulation of the problem is: Is there the difference of student’s learning outcomes using Thing Talk Write (TTW) learning and conventional learning at First Grade SMA Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi?

6

1.5. Research Purposes

The purposes of this research is to see whether there is the difference of student’s mathematics learning outcomes using Thing Talk Write (TTW) learning and conventional learning at First Grade SMA Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi.

1.6. Benefits of Research

The benefits of this research are:

1. For teachers, as input for teachers in general, especially the teaching of mathematics in order to implement the Think Talk Write (TTW) to improve student learning outcomes.

2. For students, to increase learning activity, achievement, and students learning outcomes.

3. For author, as reference material for further research and train author to implement and develop research skills.

48

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclusion

Based on the results obtained that the average of normalized gain using TTW learning is greater than the average of normalized gain using conventional

learning. It means that there is the significant difference of student’s mathematics

learning outcomes using Think Talk Write (TTW) learning and conventional learning.

5.2 Suggestion

Related to the writer’s research, some suggestions are pointed out as follows:

a. For mathematics teacher, in teaching the material distance in space or other appropriate topics, it is recommended to use TTW learning as one way of improving student learning outcomes.

b. Further improve the learning process, we must know the student’s self with the purpose students will enjoy when the learning process is ongoing. c. For the readers who are interested with this study must explore the further

49

REFERENCES

Arikunto, S. 2010. Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik. Jakarta. Rineka Cipta

Basarab, J and K. Parcell, 1992, The Training Evaluation Process, http://books.google.co.id , accessed on July 2012

Cooney, et al, 2002. Open-Ended Assessment In Math a Search Collection of

450+ Question, http://books.heinemann.com/math.index.cfm, accessed

on July 2012

Cresweel, J. W. 2008. Educational Research (Planning, Conducting, and

Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research), Pearson

Education, Inc., The Unite State of America

Ganis, 2010, Masalah Pendidikan di Indonesia, http://ganis.student.umm.ac.id/ 2010/01/26/mahalnya-biaya-sekulah-di-masa-sekarang/, accessed on February 2012

Hudojo, H.2003. Pengembangan Kurikulum dan Pembelajaran Matematika. Malang. Universitas Negeri Malang.

Hake, R. R, Relationship of Individual Student Normalized Learning Gains in

Mechanics with Gender, High-School Physics, and Pretest Scores on Mathematics and Spatial Visualization, Indiana University (Emeritus),

Woodland Hills. rrhake@earthlink.net date of accessed September 2012

Huinker and Laughin, Comunication in Mathematics,

http://elemmath.wiki.educ.msu.edu/file/view/huinker%26Laughlin_Yrbk Ch12_ write.pdf, date of accessed on May 2012

Rilis, Mutu Pendidikan Matematika di Indonesia Masih Rendah, Universitas Gajah Mada, (http://ugm.ac.id/index.php?page=rilis&artikel=4467) date of accessed on June 2012

Sudirman. 1992. Ilmu Pendidikan. Bandung : PT. Remaja Rosdakarya. Sadiman, A. S.2008. Media Pendidikan. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.

Sanjaya,W. 2008. Strategi Pembelajaran Berorientasi Standar Proses

50

Sembiring, S, dkk. 2009. Matematika Bilingual. Bandung: Ymara Widya

Slameto. 2010. Belajar dan Faktor-faktor yang Mempengaruhinya. Jakarta : Rineka Cipta

Slavin, R. E. 2008. Cooperative Learning Teori, Riset, dan Praktik. Bandung: Nusa Media

Soejadi, R.2000. Kiat Pendidikan Matematika di Indonesia. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan Nasional

Steel, R., G., D., and Torrie, J.H., Introduction to Statistics, Mc Graw Hill Tokyo: Kogakusha

Sudjana, N. 2009. Penilaian Hasil Proses Belajar Mengajar. Remaja Bandung: Rosdakarya

Sudjana. 2005. Metode Statstika. Bandung: Tarsito

Sugiono. 2009. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan. Bandung: Alfabeta Sukino. 2006. Matematika untuk Kelas X Semester 2. Jakarta: Erlangga

Choosing a teaching method needs to consider several things such as materials to be delivered, goals, time available and the number of students as well as matters related to teaching and learning process. Siberman (2004), says “what I hear, I forget. What I hear and see, remember a little. What I hear, see, and ask question about or discuss with someone else, I begin to understand. What I hear, see, discuss, and do, I acquire knowledge and skill. What I teach to another, I master (Active learning, 15:2004)”. In teaching and learning, teachers should not only explain it while the students just listen. This causes students to feel bored. But educators should have more invites students to participate in the learning process.

Learning strategies that encourage students to actively participate is in the cooperative learning strategy. According to Slavin learning cooperative learning is done in groups, students in a class made small groups consisting of 4 to 5 people to understand the concept of which was facilitated by the teacher. In cooperative learning there are many different types of learning, learning method among which TTW (Think Talk Write). A learning method that is expected to cultivate communication skills and mathematical understanding of students is a method TTW (Think Talk Write).

Introduced by Huinker and Laughlin is basically built through thinking, speaking and writing. Think Talk Write is one of the cooperative learning has four steps - an important step in the implementation. Four steps - it is an important step as follows:

1. Step 1 - Thinking. Students are given the opportunity to think about the material or the opportunity to answer questions - the questions asked by teachers in the form of worksheets and done individually.

2. Step 2 - Talking. Once organized into groups, students are directed to engage actively in discussion groups on a worksheet that has been provided, the interaction is expected at this stage students are able to share the answers and opinions of the members of each group - each.

3. Step 3 - Writing. At this stage students are asked to write in language and thought itself the result of study and discussion groups are obtained.

4. Students' writing exhibited to show in front of friends as well as providing an opportunity for students to correct the work of other groups.

The flow advances TTW strategy (Think Talk Write) starting from the involvement of students in thinking or talking to himself after the reading process, then talk and share ideas (sharing) with his friend before writing. This atmosphere is more effective if done in a heterogeneous group with 4-5 students.

Based on above, in order to improve students' mathematics learning outcomes, especially on the subject of Three Dimensional Space. Researchers picked the title "The Difference of Student Mathematics Learning Outcomes Using Think Talk Write (TTW) Learning and Conventional Learning at First Grade SMA Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi".

1.2. Identification of Problem

Based on the above, it is defined there can be some problems, namely: 1. Lack of student interest in learning mathematics

2. The low student learning outcomes

3. Lack of active participation of students in learning mathematics 4. The monotone of learning activity

5. No strategy that teacher used

1.3. Problem Limitation

The research will be orientated to discuss about the difference of student’s learning outcomes on the subject "Three Dimension Space" in the section "Distance In Space especially In Cube" using Thing Talk Write (TTW) learning and conventional learning at First Grade SMA Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi. 1.4. Problem Formulation

Based on the above formulation of the problem, then the formulation of the problem is: Is there the difference of student’s learning outcomes using Thing Talk Write (TTW) learning and conventional learning at First Grade SMA Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi?

1.5. Research Purposes

The purposes of this research is to see whether there is the difference of student’s mathematics learning outcomes using Thing Talk Write (TTW) learning and conventional learning at First Grade SMA Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi.

1.6. Benefits of Research

The benefits of this research are:

1. For teachers, as input for teachers in general, especially the teaching of mathematics in order to implement the Think Talk Write (TTW) to improve student learning outcomes.

2. For students, to increase learning activity, achievement, and students learning outcomes.

3. For author, as reference material for further research and train author to implement and develop research skills.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclusion

Based on the results obtained that the average of normalized gain using TTW learning is greater than the average of normalized gain using conventional learning. It means that there is the significant difference of student’s mathematics learning outcomes using Think Talk Write (TTW) learning and conventional learning.

5.2 Suggestion

Related to the writer’s research, some suggestions are pointed out as

follows:

a. For mathematics teacher, in teaching the material distance in space or other appropriate topics, it is recommended to use TTW learning as one way of improving student learning outcomes.

b. Further improve the learning process, we must know the student’s self with the purpose students will enjoy when the learning process is ongoing.

c. For the readers who are interested with this study must explore the further

REFERENCES

Arikunto, S. 2010. Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik. Jakarta. Rineka Cipta

Basarab, J and K. Parcell, 1992, The Training Evaluation Process, http://books.google.co.id , accessed on July 2012

Cooney, et al, 2002. Open-Ended Assessment In Math a Search Collection of 450+ Question, http://books.heinemann.com/math.index.cfm, accessed on July 2012

Cresweel, J. W. 2008. Educational Research (Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research), Pearson Education, Inc., The Unite State of America

Ganis, 2010, Masalah Pendidikan di Indonesia, http://ganis.student.umm.ac.id/ 2010/01/26/mahalnya-biaya-sekulah-di-masa-sekarang/, accessed on February 2012

Hudojo, H.2003. Pengembangan Kurikulum dan Pembelajaran Matematika. Malang. Universitas Negeri Malang.

Hake, R. R, Relationship of Individual Student Normalized Learning Gains in Mechanics with Gender, High-School Physics, and Pretest Scores on Mathematics and Spatial Visualization, Indiana University (Emeritus), Woodland Hills. rrhake@earthlink.net date of accessed September 2012 Huinker and Laughin, Comunication in Mathematics,

http://elemmath.wiki.educ.msu.edu/file/view/huinker%26Laughlin_Yrbk Ch12_ write.pdf, date of accessed on May 2012

Rilis, Mutu Pendidikan Matematika di Indonesia Masih Rendah, Universitas Gajah Mada, (http://ugm.ac.id/index.php?page=rilis&artikel=4467) date of accessed on June 2012

Sudirman. 1992. Ilmu Pendidikan. Bandung : PT. Remaja Rosdakarya. Sadiman, A. S.2008. Media Pendidikan. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.

Sanjaya,W. 2008. Strategi Pembelajaran Berorientasi Standar Proses Pendidikan. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media

Sembiring, S, dkk. 2009. Matematika Bilingual. Bandung: Ymara Widya

Slameto. 2010. Belajar dan Faktor-faktor yang Mempengaruhinya. Jakarta : Rineka Cipta

Slavin, R. E. 2008. Cooperative Learning Teori, Riset, dan Praktik. Bandung: Nusa Media

Soejadi, R.2000. Kiat Pendidikan Matematika di Indonesia. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan Nasional

Steel, R., G., D., and Torrie, J.H., Introduction to Statistics, Mc Graw Hill Tokyo: Kogakusha

Sudjana, N. 2009. Penilaian Hasil Proses Belajar Mengajar. Remaja Bandung: Rosdakarya

Sudjana. 2005. Metode Statstika. Bandung: Tarsito

Sugiono. 2009. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan. Bandung: Alfabeta Sukino. 2006. Matematika untuk Kelas X Semester 2. Jakarta: Erlangga