THE INFLUENCE OF PROBLEM BASED LEARNING MODEL TO INCREASE STUDENTS ACHIEVEMENT AND STUDENTS CHARACTER OF COOPERATION AND RESPONSIBILITY ON THE TEACHING OF SOLUBILITY AND SOLUBILITY PRODUCT IN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL.
iii
THE INFLUENCE OF PROBLEM BASED LEARNING MODEL TO INCREASE
STUDENT’S ACHIEVEMENT AND STUDENT’S CHARACTER
OF COOPERATION AND RESPONSIBILITY ON THE
TEACHING OF SOLUBILITY AND SOLUBILITY
PRODUCT IN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
Lheilamora Astaman Harahap (4103332018)
ABSTRACT
The main objective of this research is to know the influence of problem based
learning model toward student’s achievement and cooperation and responsibility
character. It means to know the average percentage of student’s cooperation and
responsibility character can be developed by applying problem based learning model.
This research was conducted in SMA Panca Budi Medan on the second semester. The
sample that is used are the students in grade XI in two classes, one class as experiment
class and the other as a control class. The research instrument that is used in this
research consist of test instrument (evaluation test) and non test instrument (observation
sheet and questionnaire). The research instrument in this research are 20 multiple choice
questions from 40 questions were validated by validator and students, with rcount > rtable
0.361, state that it was reliable with high category. Research result show that the
average of posttest in experiment class is 86,40±6,21 with gain 0,82 (high) and the
average posttest in control class is 78,20±5,57 with gain is 0,69 (medium). The data of
research had been analyzed by using normality test and homogeneity test, which is
shown that data gain are normal distributed and homogeny. It is a requirement to do
hypothesis test. Based on hypothesis test using t-test was gotten value of
significancecount (0,000) < significance level (0,05) in order that alternative hypothesis
(Ha) is received and null hypothesis (Ho) is refused. It means that the student’s
achievement who learnt using problem based learning model is higher than the student’s
achievement who learnt using direct instructional method. The percentage of student’s
cooperation and responsibility character from observation sheet data were developed
from first meeting up to third meeting. The average of student’s cooperation character
for all meeting is 70,22%, while for student’s responsibility character is 74,59. The
average student’s cooperation character from questionnaire data is 85,11 and student’s
responsibility character is 88,44%. It show that the student’s couldn’t assessed
themselves.
vii
CONTENT
Agreement Sheet
i
Biography
ii
Abstract
iii
Acknowledgment
iv
Content
vii
List of Figure
xi
List of Table
xii
List of Formula
xii
List of Appendix
xiv
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1.
The Background of the Research
1
1.2.
Problem Identification
6
1.3.
Problem Limitation
6
1.4.
Problem Formulation
7
1.5.
Research Objective
7
1.6.
Research Benefit
7
CHAPTER II LITERATURE STUDY
2.1.
Definition of Teaching
8
2.2.
Defenition of Learning
8
2.3.
Student’s Achievement
9
2.4.
Character of Cooperation and Responsibility
11
2.4.1.
Character of Cooperation
12
2.4.2.
Character of Responsibility
13
2.5.
Problem Based Learning Model
14
2.5.1.
Learning Model
14
2.5.2.
Problem Based Learning
15
2.5.3.
Characteristic of Problem Based Learning Model
17
viii
2.5.4.
Advantages and Weaknesses of Problem Based
Learning Model
18
2.5.5.
Stages of Problem Based Learning Model
19
2.6.
Direct Instruction Learning Model
20
2.7.
Solubility and Solubility Product
21
2.7.1
The Definition of Solubility
22
2.7.2.
Solubility Product (Ksp)
22
2.7.3.
The Relationship between Solubility
and Solubility Product (Ksp)
25
2.7.4.
The Effect of a Common Ion and pH on Solubility
25
2.7.5.
The Relationship of Solubility Product (Ksp) and Precipitation
28
2.8.
Hypothesis
29
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODS
3.1.
Research Location and Research Objects
30
3.2.
Population and Sample
30
3.3.
Research Variables and Research Instruments
30
3.3.1.
The Study Variables
30
1. Independent Variable
30
2. Dependent Variable
31
Research Instrument
31
3.3.2.
3.3.2.1. Test Instrument
31
3.3.2.2. Observation sheet
32
3.3.2.3. Questionnaire
34
3.4.
Type and Research Design
34
3.4.1.
Type of Reseach
34
3.4.2.
Reseach Procedures
34
3.4.3.
Research Flow Diagram
36
3.5.
Technique Data Collection
37
3.5.1.
Validity Item Test
37
3.5.2.
Reliability Test
38
ix
3.5.3.
Index Difficulty Test
39
3.5.4.
Index Distinguish Test
40
3.6.
Data Analysis
41
3.6.1.
The Normality Test
41
3.6.2.
The homogeneity of test
41
3.6.3.
Normalized Gain
41
3.6.4.
Hypothesis Test
42
3.6.5.
Calculation of Character Percentage
42
CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1.
Research Result
43
4.1.1.
Data Analysis of Research Instrument
43
4.1.1.1. Validity Test
43
4.1.1.2. Reliability Test
44
4.1.1.3. Index Difficulty Test
44
4.1.1.4. Index Distinguish Test
44
4.1.2.
46
Data Description of Result
4.1.2.1. Student’s Achievement
46
4.1.2.2. Observation Sheet Data of Student’s Character
46
4.1.2.3. Questionnaire Data of Student’s Character
47
4.1.3.
47
Data Analysis of Research Result
4.1.3.1. Normality Test of Data
47
4.1.3.2. Homogeneity Test of Data
48
4.1.3.3. Normalized Gain
49
4.1.3.4. Hypothesis Test
49
4.1.3.5. Instrument Analysis of Experiment and Control Class
50
4.1.3.6. The Relation Between Student’s Achievment and Character
51
4.2.
52
Research Discussion
x
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1.
Conclusion
56
5.2.
Suggestion
56
REFERENCE
57
xii
LIST OF TABLE
Table 2.1. Stages of Problem Based Learning
20
Table 2.2. Syntax of the Direct Instruction Learning Model
21
Table 2.3. Solubility product constans for several insoluble
salts and bases at 25˚C
24
Table 3.1. Lattice of Test Instrument
32
Table 3.2. The Lattice of character on the service sheet
33
Table 3.3. Research Design
35
Table 4.1. Result Testing of Question That is Used
45
Table 4.2. Student’s Achievment Data
46
Table 4.3. Observation Sheet Data of Student’s Character
47
Table 4.4. Questionnaire Data of Student’s Character
47
Table 4.5. Normality Test Data
48
Table 4.6. Homogeneity Data
48
Table 4.7. Data of Normalized Gain
49
Table 4.8. Data of Hypothesis Data
50
Table 4.9. Instrument Analysis of Experiment and Control Class
51
Table 4.10. Relation Between Student’s Achievment and Character
52
xi
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 2.1. The effect of adding a common ion,
Cl- on the solubility of AgCl
Figure 3.1. Research Design Flow
26
36
xiii
LIST OF FORMULA
Formula 3.1. Validity Test
37
Formula 3.2. Reliability Test
38
Formula 3.3. Index Difficulty Tesr
40
Formula 3.4. Index Distinguish Test
40
Formula 3.5. Calculation of Character Percentage
42
xiv
LIST OF APPENDIX
Appendix 1 Chemistry Subject Syllabus
59
Appendix 2 Lesson Plan (Problem Based Learning Model)
63
Appendix 3 Lesson Plan (Direct Instruction Method)
78
Appendix 4 Test Categories (Have Not Valid)
88
Appendix 5 Test Categories (Valid)
97
Appendix 6 Pretest and Posttest
106
Appendix 7 Observation Sheet of Student’s Character
118
Appendix 8 Quertinaire of Student’s Character
121
Appendix 9 Calculation of Validity Test
122
Appendix 10 Calculation of Reliability Test
124
Appendix 11 Calculation of Index Difficulty Test
126
Appendix 12 Calcultion of Index Distinguish Test
129
Appendix 13 Table of Validity Test
131
Appendix 14 Table of Reliability Test
132
Appendix 15 Table of Index Difficulty Test
133
Appendix 16 Table of Index Distinguish Test
134
Appendix 17 Data of Student’s Achievment
135
Appendix 18 Observation Sheet Data of Student’s Character
138
Appendix 19 Developed Percetage Of Student’s Character
144
Appendix 20 Questionnaire Data of Student’s Charcter
149
Appendix 21Calculation of Normality Test
151
Appendix 22 Calculation of Homogeneity Test
152
Appendix 23 Calculation of Hypothesis
153
Appendix 24 Relationship Between Student’s Achievment and Student’s
155
Character
Appendix 25 Instrument Analysis of Experiment Class and Control Class
156
Appendix 25 Documentation
158
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Background of the Research
The most important thing to increase nation’s progress is human resource.
Indonesia is categorized as a developing country and the quality of National
Education is moving an international standard Education has a very wide meaning
and reach all aspects of human life. With education, people have advantages that
humans have the ability to solve various problems and difficulties of life.
Therefore, the position of education is a builder, shaper, and human development.
Globalization requires people to have adequate education in order to compete.
Unfortunately, Indonesia is still confronted with the facts about the low quality of
education in Indonesia, among these: (1)Every minute, four children out of
school; (2)54% of teachers do not have sufficient qualifications to teach; (3)34%
shortage of school teachers; (4)Uneven distribution of teachers; (5)Education
Development Index (EDI) is at 69th position out of 127 countries. (UNESCO,
2011)
The quality of education is an indicator for development rate of the
country, and therefore the development in education sector is a key for the
development of the nation. Unfortunately, the quality of education in Indonesia is
still low. It caused by learning quality is not optimal. This is shown by the low
student learning outcomes in senior high school, especially in chemistry.
Generally, in SMA Panca Budi Medan, there are many students who failed the
examination. They have value lower than KKM that decided by school, it is about
60%, where KKM in this school is 75 It caused by the method of teacher and
student’s activity. Based on that percentage of average value shown that teaching
of chemistry was not maximal yet to get a good result. Therefore still needed the
improvement to minimize the percentage of students number who have value that
lower that KKM which is have been decided by the school.
2
Nowadays, our government is actively encouraging the education in
Indonesia. It is recognized that education in Indonesia is lagging far behind if we
compare with developed countries in the world. One of the government’s effort
that we can see is curriculum development become curriculum of 2013. This
curriculum requires active students. The curriculum is not only oriented on
knowledge, but also on the affective and psychomotor. If the students shows good
learning achievement (cognitive, affective and psychomotor) it means that the
education process is success. But when student show bad learning achievement,
affective and psychomotor, it means that the education process has failed. It’s
mean that this curriculum will require teachers to measure student's character,
things that were never done, especially in SMA Panca Budi Medan
Teaching activities in schools are part of the general educational activities,
which automatically increases the quality of the students towards the better.
Student success in understanding and mastering the material provided. The more
students who can reach the level of understanding and mastery of the material the
higher success of teaching. Learning model recommended in the 2013 curriculum
is problem-based learning, project based learning and discovery learning. With
these models is expected an increasing of student’s learning outcomes, whether
cognitive, affective and psychomotor.
In the learning process, teachers are required to encourage students to
learn actively so learning become meaningful to students. In line with (Slameto,
2003) argues that: "In the process of teaching and learning, teacher should be
create a lot of student activity in the thinking and doing. Learning activity that do
by students themselves, the impression will not go away, but thought, processed
and then released again in a different form. Or students will ask, ask opinions,
raises discussion with teachers. So students can run the command, carry out a
task, make charts, diagrams, and the essence of the lesson presented by the
teacher. When students become active, then they have a knowledge/ science
well.”
3
Learning chemistry will be meaningful to the student, if the learning is
done in accordance with student’s initial knowledge. From the beginning of
knowledge, teachers provide materials/ learning resources that correspond to the
basic competencies desired, then conditioned with the guidance of the teacher to
make students active in constructing their own knowledge. Learning will be
meaningful if teachers relate new knowledge with experience who has owned one
of the important factors in learning chemistry.
Description above reinforce the researchers to conclude learning strategy
in this model is one less variable trigger low student’s learning outcomes. In an
effort to improve student learning outcomes, required innovation in learning
chemistry. One step that can be done by the teacher as mentor learners is to
choose the right learning model. The use of a less precise model of learning can
lead to be bored, lack of understanding of the material, and finally may decrease
the motivation of participants in the study.
The main problem in learning in formal education (schools) is the low
absorptive capacity of learners. This is evident from the result of student’s
learning is very low. Achievement is certainly the result of learning conditions
that are conventional and don’t make the students aware of participants, how to
actually learn it. In other words, the learning process is still dominated by the
teacher and not provide access for students to develop independently through
discovery in the process of thinking (Trianto, 2010). To solve the problems in
teaching and learning, teachers must have a teaching strategy among other such as
CTL (Contextual Teaching and Learning), PBL (Problem Based Learning), each
other model.
Chemistry is one of those subjects that has a very close relationship
between the concepts with their application in everyday life. This means that the
learning is not enough just to teach chemistry conceptually, but students also need
to understand how to use the concept significantly.
The matter of solubility and solubility product is one of the lesson in
senior high school chemistry class XI. Topic solubility and solubility product
4
includes definition and unit of solubility, Constanta of solubility product (ksp), the
relationship between solubility (s) and Constanta of solubility product (ksp), the
effect of common ion toward solubility, solubility and pH, pH and solubility of
base, pH and solubility of salts, and precipitation reaction. Solubility and
solubility product is a concept that adequately represent the abstract of chemistry
lesson so that this subject is difficult to be understood by students.
Disinterest of students to chemistry subject either caused to ignorance of
students about the usefulness of the material being studied chemistry in daily life.
In addition, because of the way teachers teach focuses on books.
A wide range of innovative learning strategies that are considered the
development of student’s cognitive abilities and independence. One model is
Problem Based Learning (PBL). Where PBL is a learning model that engages
students to solve a problem through the stages of the scientific method so that
students can learn the knowledge related to the problem and have skills to solve
problems. Objectives to be achieved by the problem based learning is a student’s
ability to think critically, analysts, systematic and logical to look for an alternative
solution through the exploration of the empirical data in order to develop a
scientific attitude (Sanjaya, 2008). So the learning goals expected to be achieved,
which is to improve student learning outcomes and develop a scientific attitude in
students.
Model of Problem Based Learning begins with a problem, then students
deepen their knowledge about what they already know and what they need to
know to solve the problem. This is supported by (Duch in Riyanto, 2010) states
that: "Problem-based learning is a learning model that exposes learners to the
challenge of 'learning to learn'. Students actively work together in groups to seek
solutions of problems. The problem is as a reference for students to formulate,
analyze, and solve it. Problem Based Leaning model is intended to develop
students' critical thinking, analytical, and to find and use appropriate resources for
learning.”
5
Based on result of research conducted by Napitupulu (2013), student's
achievement are taught with a problem-based learning model is significantly
better than the learning outcomes of students with not using problem-based
learning model that indicated the proportion of the value of p (sig (2-tailed) = 0.00
(value of p> 0.05). This is in line with research conducted by Sitorus (2011). The
average score of student learning outcomes without Problem Based Learning
method amounted to 28.00 (with a standard deviation of 8.29 average standard
error 1.40). These results increased after the Problem Based Learning method
with average learning outcomes become 52.52 (with a standard deviation of 11.64
and a standard deviation of 1.97 on average). Student learning outcomes with the
Problem Based Learning method is better compares with the results of learning
without a Problem Based Learning Methods. It also prove by Hasni in her
research, student learning outcomes are taught using problem based learning
model higher with average pretest = 22.25 and an average post test = 61.25 rather
than student learning outcomes are taught by direct instruction with an average
pretest = 18.5 and average post test = 36.13. This shows that the application of
PBL models have a significant influence on learning outcomes of students to the
concept of chemical reaction rate.
In the learning of problem based learning students are required to
undertake the process of solving problems presented by digging out as much. This
experience is indispensable in everyday of life where the growth of mindset and
work patterns of a person depends on how he positioned himself in the study.
Problem Based Learning is learning using a real problem (the fact) that is
presented at the beginning of learning. First step is understanding of the problem
so that the necessary reasoning abilities, and then probed for known solutions to
these problems. While the role of the teacher is asking problems, provide
encouragement, motivation, and providing teaching materials, as well as
providing the necessary facilities learners in the process of reasoning. In addition,
teachers also provide support in an effort to improve the findings and intellectual
development of students.
6
Based on main problems above, the research was did with the title “The
Influence of Problem Based Learning to Increase Student’s Achievement
and Student’s Character of Cooperation and Responsibility on the Teaching
of Solubility and Solubility Product in Senior High School”.
1.2
Problem Identification
a. Is the quality of education in Indonesia still low?
b. Is student’s achievement in learning chemistry still low?
c. Does teachers measure the character of students?
d. Does teachers use less variation of learning model?
e. Is the learning process still dominated by teacher?
1.3
Problem limitation
Based on the identification problem above, there is a wide scope of issues,
so this research is limited to know the following :
1.
This research will be conducted at the Senior High School (SHS)
class XI using 2013 curriculum, semester 2 T.A. 2013/2014
2.
The subject material that will be taught is solubility and solubility
product
3.
Teaching model that will be applied in this research is problem based
learning model
4.
The character that will be measured in this study are cooperation and
responsibility
5.
Student’s achievement that will be measured in this study is the
cognitive aspect of C1, C2, C3 and C4 level
6.
Student’s character will be measured using observation sheet and
questioners
7
1.4.
Problem Formulation
As for the formulation of the problems in this research are:
1.
Is student’s achievement who had been learnt by using problem based
learning model higher than student’s achievement who had been learnt
by using direct instruction?
2.
How many average percentage of student’s cooperation character that
can be developed by applying problem based learning model?
3.
How many average percentage of student’s responsibility character
that can be developed by applying problem based learning model?
1.5.
Research Objective
1.
The results comparisons of student’s achievement who had been learnt
by using problem based learning method with using direct instruction
2.
The average percentage of student’s cooperation character that
developed by applying problem based learning model
3.
The average percentage of student’s responsibility character that
developed by applying problem based learning model
1.6.
Research Benefit
This research is expected as follows:
1.
Can provide guidelines for teachers of science, especially chemistry
teachers to use problem based learning model in learning process that
can improve student’s achievement.
2.
Can change student’s paradigm that chemistry isn’t a difficult subject,
so it can improve their motivation to learn and also the understanding
about solubility and solubility product
3.
Can provide inputs for next researcher to do similar research in the
future
56
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1.
Conclusion
Based on the research that have been done, can be concluded that :
1. Student’s achievement who is thought with problem based learning
model is higher than students who thought with direct instruction. It
show by the average of gain in two sample class, where experiment class
got 0.82 (high category) and control class is 0.69 (medium category).
2. The percentage of student’s cooperation character that developed by
applying problem based learning model is 70.22%
3. The percentage of student’s responsibility character that developed by
applying problem based learning model is 74.59%
5.2.
Suggestion
1. For chemistry teacher, they should make innovation in teaching of
chemistry, one of the ways is by apply problem based learning model
because this model can improve student’s achievement and character in
chemistry
2. There is innovation to do problem based learning model on the teaching
of other topic in chemistry
57
REFERENCES
Anonimous, (2013), Pengertian Kerjasama, http://www.psychologymania.com/
2013/02/ pengertian-kerja-sama.htm, accessed on January 15th 2014
Arikunto, (2011), Dasar-dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan, Penerbit Bumi Aksara,
Jakarta
Arikunto, S,. dan Suhardjono,. Supardi., (2009), Penelelitian Tindakan Kelas,
Bumi Akasara, Jakarta
Astuti, L.S., (2011), Peningkatan Hasil Belajar Konsep Kesetimbangan Kimia
melalui Model Pembelajaran PBL (Problem Based Learning), FITK, UIN
Syarif Hidayatullah, Jakarta
Baden, M. S., and Major, C. H., (2004), Foundation of Problem Based Learning,
Mmpg Books Ltd, Britain
Djamarah, S dan Aswan, Z., (2006) Strategi Belajar Mengajar, Rineka Cipta,
Jakarta
Duch, B. J., Groh, S. E., Allen, D. E., (2001), The Power of Problem Based
Learning, Stylus Publishing, USA
Hasni, D.R., (2010), Pengaruh Model Problem Based Learning (PBL) Terhadap
Hasil Belajar Kimia Siswa Pada Konsep Laju Reaksi, FITK, UIN Syarif
Hidayatullah, Jakarta
Jaya, I., (2010), Statistik, Cipta Pustaka, Medan
Kazemi, F., and Ghoraishi, M., (2012), Comparison of Problem-based Learning
Approach and Traditional Teaching on Attitude, Misconceptions and
Mathematics Performance of University Students, Journal of Social and
Behavioral Science, -: O’Brien, P.S., (1997), Making Collage Count, Prentice Hall Companies, United
States of America
Pierce, J. W., (-),Problem Based Learning : Learning and Teaching in the Context
of Problem. -, Napitupulu, Minaruli., (2013), Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah
dan Motivasi Belajar Terhadap Hasil Belajar Kimia, Program
Pascasarjana, UNIMED, Medan
58
Poerwadamita, W.J.S., (1991), Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia, Balai Pustaka,
Jakarta
Riyanto, Y., (2010), Paradigma Baru Pembelajaran : Sebagai Refrensi Bagi
Guru/Pendidik dalam Implementasi Pembelajaran yang Efektif dan
Berkualitas, Penerbit Kencana, Jakarta
Sanjaya,W., (2009), Strategi Pembelajaran Berorientasi Standar Proses
Pendidikan, Penerbit Kencana, Jakarta
Sardiman., (2005), Interaksi dan Motivasi Belajar Mengajar.Rajawali Pers,
Jakarta
Slameto., (2003), Belajar dan Faktor-faktor Yang Mempengaruhinya, Rineka
Cipta, Jakarta
Silitonga, (2007), Statistika, Jurusan Kimia, FMIPA, UNIMED, Medan
Sudjana, (2002), Metode Statistik, Edisi Keenam, Tarsito, Bandung
Suharta, and Luthan P. L., (2013), Application of Cooperative Problem-Based
Learning Model to Develop Creativity and Foster Democracy, and
Improve Student Learning Outcomes in Chemistry in High School,
Journal of Education and Practice, 4(25): 55-56
Syafitri, D., (2012), Pengembangan Model Pembelajaran dalam Upaya
Membentuk Kepribadian yang Berkarakter Mulia dan Hasil Belajar yang
Tinggi pada Materi Bentuk Geometri Molekul, Program Pascasarjana,
UNIMED
Tim Pendidikan Kimia, (2011), Dasar-Dasar Pendidikan MIPA, FMIPA,
UNIMED, Medan
Trianto., (2010), Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif Progresif, Kencana
Prenada Media Grup, Jakarta
Unesco, (2011), Fakta Pendidikan, http://indonesiaberkibar.org/id/faktapendidikan, accessed on January 15th 2014
ii
BIOGRAPHY
Lheilamora Astaman was born in Padangsidimpuan on January 3th 1992.
Her father’s name is (Alm) Asrul Astaman Harahap and her mother’s name is
Elitawarni Lubis, S.Sos. The writer is the first child and have 2 brothers. In 1998
the writer entered the Elementary School in SDN 200110 Padangsidimpuan and
graduated in 2004. In 2004 the writer continued her study in SMP Negeri 2
Padangsidimpuan and graduated in 2007. In 2007 the writer continued her study
in SMA Negeri 2 Padangsidimpuan and graduated in 2010. In 2010 the writer was
accepted in Chemistry Department, Bilingual Chemistry Education Study
Program, Mathematics and Natural Sciences Faculty, State University of Medan
and pass the examination in 2014.
THE INFLUENCE OF PROBLEM BASED LEARNING MODEL TO INCREASE
STUDENT’S ACHIEVEMENT AND STUDENT’S CHARACTER
OF COOPERATION AND RESPONSIBILITY ON THE
TEACHING OF SOLUBILITY AND SOLUBILITY
PRODUCT IN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
Lheilamora Astaman Harahap (4103332018)
ABSTRACT
The main objective of this research is to know the influence of problem based
learning model toward student’s achievement and cooperation and responsibility
character. It means to know the average percentage of student’s cooperation and
responsibility character can be developed by applying problem based learning model.
This research was conducted in SMA Panca Budi Medan on the second semester. The
sample that is used are the students in grade XI in two classes, one class as experiment
class and the other as a control class. The research instrument that is used in this
research consist of test instrument (evaluation test) and non test instrument (observation
sheet and questionnaire). The research instrument in this research are 20 multiple choice
questions from 40 questions were validated by validator and students, with rcount > rtable
0.361, state that it was reliable with high category. Research result show that the
average of posttest in experiment class is 86,40±6,21 with gain 0,82 (high) and the
average posttest in control class is 78,20±5,57 with gain is 0,69 (medium). The data of
research had been analyzed by using normality test and homogeneity test, which is
shown that data gain are normal distributed and homogeny. It is a requirement to do
hypothesis test. Based on hypothesis test using t-test was gotten value of
significancecount (0,000) < significance level (0,05) in order that alternative hypothesis
(Ha) is received and null hypothesis (Ho) is refused. It means that the student’s
achievement who learnt using problem based learning model is higher than the student’s
achievement who learnt using direct instructional method. The percentage of student’s
cooperation and responsibility character from observation sheet data were developed
from first meeting up to third meeting. The average of student’s cooperation character
for all meeting is 70,22%, while for student’s responsibility character is 74,59. The
average student’s cooperation character from questionnaire data is 85,11 and student’s
responsibility character is 88,44%. It show that the student’s couldn’t assessed
themselves.
vii
CONTENT
Agreement Sheet
i
Biography
ii
Abstract
iii
Acknowledgment
iv
Content
vii
List of Figure
xi
List of Table
xii
List of Formula
xii
List of Appendix
xiv
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1.
The Background of the Research
1
1.2.
Problem Identification
6
1.3.
Problem Limitation
6
1.4.
Problem Formulation
7
1.5.
Research Objective
7
1.6.
Research Benefit
7
CHAPTER II LITERATURE STUDY
2.1.
Definition of Teaching
8
2.2.
Defenition of Learning
8
2.3.
Student’s Achievement
9
2.4.
Character of Cooperation and Responsibility
11
2.4.1.
Character of Cooperation
12
2.4.2.
Character of Responsibility
13
2.5.
Problem Based Learning Model
14
2.5.1.
Learning Model
14
2.5.2.
Problem Based Learning
15
2.5.3.
Characteristic of Problem Based Learning Model
17
viii
2.5.4.
Advantages and Weaknesses of Problem Based
Learning Model
18
2.5.5.
Stages of Problem Based Learning Model
19
2.6.
Direct Instruction Learning Model
20
2.7.
Solubility and Solubility Product
21
2.7.1
The Definition of Solubility
22
2.7.2.
Solubility Product (Ksp)
22
2.7.3.
The Relationship between Solubility
and Solubility Product (Ksp)
25
2.7.4.
The Effect of a Common Ion and pH on Solubility
25
2.7.5.
The Relationship of Solubility Product (Ksp) and Precipitation
28
2.8.
Hypothesis
29
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODS
3.1.
Research Location and Research Objects
30
3.2.
Population and Sample
30
3.3.
Research Variables and Research Instruments
30
3.3.1.
The Study Variables
30
1. Independent Variable
30
2. Dependent Variable
31
Research Instrument
31
3.3.2.
3.3.2.1. Test Instrument
31
3.3.2.2. Observation sheet
32
3.3.2.3. Questionnaire
34
3.4.
Type and Research Design
34
3.4.1.
Type of Reseach
34
3.4.2.
Reseach Procedures
34
3.4.3.
Research Flow Diagram
36
3.5.
Technique Data Collection
37
3.5.1.
Validity Item Test
37
3.5.2.
Reliability Test
38
ix
3.5.3.
Index Difficulty Test
39
3.5.4.
Index Distinguish Test
40
3.6.
Data Analysis
41
3.6.1.
The Normality Test
41
3.6.2.
The homogeneity of test
41
3.6.3.
Normalized Gain
41
3.6.4.
Hypothesis Test
42
3.6.5.
Calculation of Character Percentage
42
CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1.
Research Result
43
4.1.1.
Data Analysis of Research Instrument
43
4.1.1.1. Validity Test
43
4.1.1.2. Reliability Test
44
4.1.1.3. Index Difficulty Test
44
4.1.1.4. Index Distinguish Test
44
4.1.2.
46
Data Description of Result
4.1.2.1. Student’s Achievement
46
4.1.2.2. Observation Sheet Data of Student’s Character
46
4.1.2.3. Questionnaire Data of Student’s Character
47
4.1.3.
47
Data Analysis of Research Result
4.1.3.1. Normality Test of Data
47
4.1.3.2. Homogeneity Test of Data
48
4.1.3.3. Normalized Gain
49
4.1.3.4. Hypothesis Test
49
4.1.3.5. Instrument Analysis of Experiment and Control Class
50
4.1.3.6. The Relation Between Student’s Achievment and Character
51
4.2.
52
Research Discussion
x
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1.
Conclusion
56
5.2.
Suggestion
56
REFERENCE
57
xii
LIST OF TABLE
Table 2.1. Stages of Problem Based Learning
20
Table 2.2. Syntax of the Direct Instruction Learning Model
21
Table 2.3. Solubility product constans for several insoluble
salts and bases at 25˚C
24
Table 3.1. Lattice of Test Instrument
32
Table 3.2. The Lattice of character on the service sheet
33
Table 3.3. Research Design
35
Table 4.1. Result Testing of Question That is Used
45
Table 4.2. Student’s Achievment Data
46
Table 4.3. Observation Sheet Data of Student’s Character
47
Table 4.4. Questionnaire Data of Student’s Character
47
Table 4.5. Normality Test Data
48
Table 4.6. Homogeneity Data
48
Table 4.7. Data of Normalized Gain
49
Table 4.8. Data of Hypothesis Data
50
Table 4.9. Instrument Analysis of Experiment and Control Class
51
Table 4.10. Relation Between Student’s Achievment and Character
52
xi
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 2.1. The effect of adding a common ion,
Cl- on the solubility of AgCl
Figure 3.1. Research Design Flow
26
36
xiii
LIST OF FORMULA
Formula 3.1. Validity Test
37
Formula 3.2. Reliability Test
38
Formula 3.3. Index Difficulty Tesr
40
Formula 3.4. Index Distinguish Test
40
Formula 3.5. Calculation of Character Percentage
42
xiv
LIST OF APPENDIX
Appendix 1 Chemistry Subject Syllabus
59
Appendix 2 Lesson Plan (Problem Based Learning Model)
63
Appendix 3 Lesson Plan (Direct Instruction Method)
78
Appendix 4 Test Categories (Have Not Valid)
88
Appendix 5 Test Categories (Valid)
97
Appendix 6 Pretest and Posttest
106
Appendix 7 Observation Sheet of Student’s Character
118
Appendix 8 Quertinaire of Student’s Character
121
Appendix 9 Calculation of Validity Test
122
Appendix 10 Calculation of Reliability Test
124
Appendix 11 Calculation of Index Difficulty Test
126
Appendix 12 Calcultion of Index Distinguish Test
129
Appendix 13 Table of Validity Test
131
Appendix 14 Table of Reliability Test
132
Appendix 15 Table of Index Difficulty Test
133
Appendix 16 Table of Index Distinguish Test
134
Appendix 17 Data of Student’s Achievment
135
Appendix 18 Observation Sheet Data of Student’s Character
138
Appendix 19 Developed Percetage Of Student’s Character
144
Appendix 20 Questionnaire Data of Student’s Charcter
149
Appendix 21Calculation of Normality Test
151
Appendix 22 Calculation of Homogeneity Test
152
Appendix 23 Calculation of Hypothesis
153
Appendix 24 Relationship Between Student’s Achievment and Student’s
155
Character
Appendix 25 Instrument Analysis of Experiment Class and Control Class
156
Appendix 25 Documentation
158
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Background of the Research
The most important thing to increase nation’s progress is human resource.
Indonesia is categorized as a developing country and the quality of National
Education is moving an international standard Education has a very wide meaning
and reach all aspects of human life. With education, people have advantages that
humans have the ability to solve various problems and difficulties of life.
Therefore, the position of education is a builder, shaper, and human development.
Globalization requires people to have adequate education in order to compete.
Unfortunately, Indonesia is still confronted with the facts about the low quality of
education in Indonesia, among these: (1)Every minute, four children out of
school; (2)54% of teachers do not have sufficient qualifications to teach; (3)34%
shortage of school teachers; (4)Uneven distribution of teachers; (5)Education
Development Index (EDI) is at 69th position out of 127 countries. (UNESCO,
2011)
The quality of education is an indicator for development rate of the
country, and therefore the development in education sector is a key for the
development of the nation. Unfortunately, the quality of education in Indonesia is
still low. It caused by learning quality is not optimal. This is shown by the low
student learning outcomes in senior high school, especially in chemistry.
Generally, in SMA Panca Budi Medan, there are many students who failed the
examination. They have value lower than KKM that decided by school, it is about
60%, where KKM in this school is 75 It caused by the method of teacher and
student’s activity. Based on that percentage of average value shown that teaching
of chemistry was not maximal yet to get a good result. Therefore still needed the
improvement to minimize the percentage of students number who have value that
lower that KKM which is have been decided by the school.
2
Nowadays, our government is actively encouraging the education in
Indonesia. It is recognized that education in Indonesia is lagging far behind if we
compare with developed countries in the world. One of the government’s effort
that we can see is curriculum development become curriculum of 2013. This
curriculum requires active students. The curriculum is not only oriented on
knowledge, but also on the affective and psychomotor. If the students shows good
learning achievement (cognitive, affective and psychomotor) it means that the
education process is success. But when student show bad learning achievement,
affective and psychomotor, it means that the education process has failed. It’s
mean that this curriculum will require teachers to measure student's character,
things that were never done, especially in SMA Panca Budi Medan
Teaching activities in schools are part of the general educational activities,
which automatically increases the quality of the students towards the better.
Student success in understanding and mastering the material provided. The more
students who can reach the level of understanding and mastery of the material the
higher success of teaching. Learning model recommended in the 2013 curriculum
is problem-based learning, project based learning and discovery learning. With
these models is expected an increasing of student’s learning outcomes, whether
cognitive, affective and psychomotor.
In the learning process, teachers are required to encourage students to
learn actively so learning become meaningful to students. In line with (Slameto,
2003) argues that: "In the process of teaching and learning, teacher should be
create a lot of student activity in the thinking and doing. Learning activity that do
by students themselves, the impression will not go away, but thought, processed
and then released again in a different form. Or students will ask, ask opinions,
raises discussion with teachers. So students can run the command, carry out a
task, make charts, diagrams, and the essence of the lesson presented by the
teacher. When students become active, then they have a knowledge/ science
well.”
3
Learning chemistry will be meaningful to the student, if the learning is
done in accordance with student’s initial knowledge. From the beginning of
knowledge, teachers provide materials/ learning resources that correspond to the
basic competencies desired, then conditioned with the guidance of the teacher to
make students active in constructing their own knowledge. Learning will be
meaningful if teachers relate new knowledge with experience who has owned one
of the important factors in learning chemistry.
Description above reinforce the researchers to conclude learning strategy
in this model is one less variable trigger low student’s learning outcomes. In an
effort to improve student learning outcomes, required innovation in learning
chemistry. One step that can be done by the teacher as mentor learners is to
choose the right learning model. The use of a less precise model of learning can
lead to be bored, lack of understanding of the material, and finally may decrease
the motivation of participants in the study.
The main problem in learning in formal education (schools) is the low
absorptive capacity of learners. This is evident from the result of student’s
learning is very low. Achievement is certainly the result of learning conditions
that are conventional and don’t make the students aware of participants, how to
actually learn it. In other words, the learning process is still dominated by the
teacher and not provide access for students to develop independently through
discovery in the process of thinking (Trianto, 2010). To solve the problems in
teaching and learning, teachers must have a teaching strategy among other such as
CTL (Contextual Teaching and Learning), PBL (Problem Based Learning), each
other model.
Chemistry is one of those subjects that has a very close relationship
between the concepts with their application in everyday life. This means that the
learning is not enough just to teach chemistry conceptually, but students also need
to understand how to use the concept significantly.
The matter of solubility and solubility product is one of the lesson in
senior high school chemistry class XI. Topic solubility and solubility product
4
includes definition and unit of solubility, Constanta of solubility product (ksp), the
relationship between solubility (s) and Constanta of solubility product (ksp), the
effect of common ion toward solubility, solubility and pH, pH and solubility of
base, pH and solubility of salts, and precipitation reaction. Solubility and
solubility product is a concept that adequately represent the abstract of chemistry
lesson so that this subject is difficult to be understood by students.
Disinterest of students to chemistry subject either caused to ignorance of
students about the usefulness of the material being studied chemistry in daily life.
In addition, because of the way teachers teach focuses on books.
A wide range of innovative learning strategies that are considered the
development of student’s cognitive abilities and independence. One model is
Problem Based Learning (PBL). Where PBL is a learning model that engages
students to solve a problem through the stages of the scientific method so that
students can learn the knowledge related to the problem and have skills to solve
problems. Objectives to be achieved by the problem based learning is a student’s
ability to think critically, analysts, systematic and logical to look for an alternative
solution through the exploration of the empirical data in order to develop a
scientific attitude (Sanjaya, 2008). So the learning goals expected to be achieved,
which is to improve student learning outcomes and develop a scientific attitude in
students.
Model of Problem Based Learning begins with a problem, then students
deepen their knowledge about what they already know and what they need to
know to solve the problem. This is supported by (Duch in Riyanto, 2010) states
that: "Problem-based learning is a learning model that exposes learners to the
challenge of 'learning to learn'. Students actively work together in groups to seek
solutions of problems. The problem is as a reference for students to formulate,
analyze, and solve it. Problem Based Leaning model is intended to develop
students' critical thinking, analytical, and to find and use appropriate resources for
learning.”
5
Based on result of research conducted by Napitupulu (2013), student's
achievement are taught with a problem-based learning model is significantly
better than the learning outcomes of students with not using problem-based
learning model that indicated the proportion of the value of p (sig (2-tailed) = 0.00
(value of p> 0.05). This is in line with research conducted by Sitorus (2011). The
average score of student learning outcomes without Problem Based Learning
method amounted to 28.00 (with a standard deviation of 8.29 average standard
error 1.40). These results increased after the Problem Based Learning method
with average learning outcomes become 52.52 (with a standard deviation of 11.64
and a standard deviation of 1.97 on average). Student learning outcomes with the
Problem Based Learning method is better compares with the results of learning
without a Problem Based Learning Methods. It also prove by Hasni in her
research, student learning outcomes are taught using problem based learning
model higher with average pretest = 22.25 and an average post test = 61.25 rather
than student learning outcomes are taught by direct instruction with an average
pretest = 18.5 and average post test = 36.13. This shows that the application of
PBL models have a significant influence on learning outcomes of students to the
concept of chemical reaction rate.
In the learning of problem based learning students are required to
undertake the process of solving problems presented by digging out as much. This
experience is indispensable in everyday of life where the growth of mindset and
work patterns of a person depends on how he positioned himself in the study.
Problem Based Learning is learning using a real problem (the fact) that is
presented at the beginning of learning. First step is understanding of the problem
so that the necessary reasoning abilities, and then probed for known solutions to
these problems. While the role of the teacher is asking problems, provide
encouragement, motivation, and providing teaching materials, as well as
providing the necessary facilities learners in the process of reasoning. In addition,
teachers also provide support in an effort to improve the findings and intellectual
development of students.
6
Based on main problems above, the research was did with the title “The
Influence of Problem Based Learning to Increase Student’s Achievement
and Student’s Character of Cooperation and Responsibility on the Teaching
of Solubility and Solubility Product in Senior High School”.
1.2
Problem Identification
a. Is the quality of education in Indonesia still low?
b. Is student’s achievement in learning chemistry still low?
c. Does teachers measure the character of students?
d. Does teachers use less variation of learning model?
e. Is the learning process still dominated by teacher?
1.3
Problem limitation
Based on the identification problem above, there is a wide scope of issues,
so this research is limited to know the following :
1.
This research will be conducted at the Senior High School (SHS)
class XI using 2013 curriculum, semester 2 T.A. 2013/2014
2.
The subject material that will be taught is solubility and solubility
product
3.
Teaching model that will be applied in this research is problem based
learning model
4.
The character that will be measured in this study are cooperation and
responsibility
5.
Student’s achievement that will be measured in this study is the
cognitive aspect of C1, C2, C3 and C4 level
6.
Student’s character will be measured using observation sheet and
questioners
7
1.4.
Problem Formulation
As for the formulation of the problems in this research are:
1.
Is student’s achievement who had been learnt by using problem based
learning model higher than student’s achievement who had been learnt
by using direct instruction?
2.
How many average percentage of student’s cooperation character that
can be developed by applying problem based learning model?
3.
How many average percentage of student’s responsibility character
that can be developed by applying problem based learning model?
1.5.
Research Objective
1.
The results comparisons of student’s achievement who had been learnt
by using problem based learning method with using direct instruction
2.
The average percentage of student’s cooperation character that
developed by applying problem based learning model
3.
The average percentage of student’s responsibility character that
developed by applying problem based learning model
1.6.
Research Benefit
This research is expected as follows:
1.
Can provide guidelines for teachers of science, especially chemistry
teachers to use problem based learning model in learning process that
can improve student’s achievement.
2.
Can change student’s paradigm that chemistry isn’t a difficult subject,
so it can improve their motivation to learn and also the understanding
about solubility and solubility product
3.
Can provide inputs for next researcher to do similar research in the
future
56
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1.
Conclusion
Based on the research that have been done, can be concluded that :
1. Student’s achievement who is thought with problem based learning
model is higher than students who thought with direct instruction. It
show by the average of gain in two sample class, where experiment class
got 0.82 (high category) and control class is 0.69 (medium category).
2. The percentage of student’s cooperation character that developed by
applying problem based learning model is 70.22%
3. The percentage of student’s responsibility character that developed by
applying problem based learning model is 74.59%
5.2.
Suggestion
1. For chemistry teacher, they should make innovation in teaching of
chemistry, one of the ways is by apply problem based learning model
because this model can improve student’s achievement and character in
chemistry
2. There is innovation to do problem based learning model on the teaching
of other topic in chemistry
57
REFERENCES
Anonimous, (2013), Pengertian Kerjasama, http://www.psychologymania.com/
2013/02/ pengertian-kerja-sama.htm, accessed on January 15th 2014
Arikunto, (2011), Dasar-dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan, Penerbit Bumi Aksara,
Jakarta
Arikunto, S,. dan Suhardjono,. Supardi., (2009), Penelelitian Tindakan Kelas,
Bumi Akasara, Jakarta
Astuti, L.S., (2011), Peningkatan Hasil Belajar Konsep Kesetimbangan Kimia
melalui Model Pembelajaran PBL (Problem Based Learning), FITK, UIN
Syarif Hidayatullah, Jakarta
Baden, M. S., and Major, C. H., (2004), Foundation of Problem Based Learning,
Mmpg Books Ltd, Britain
Djamarah, S dan Aswan, Z., (2006) Strategi Belajar Mengajar, Rineka Cipta,
Jakarta
Duch, B. J., Groh, S. E., Allen, D. E., (2001), The Power of Problem Based
Learning, Stylus Publishing, USA
Hasni, D.R., (2010), Pengaruh Model Problem Based Learning (PBL) Terhadap
Hasil Belajar Kimia Siswa Pada Konsep Laju Reaksi, FITK, UIN Syarif
Hidayatullah, Jakarta
Jaya, I., (2010), Statistik, Cipta Pustaka, Medan
Kazemi, F., and Ghoraishi, M., (2012), Comparison of Problem-based Learning
Approach and Traditional Teaching on Attitude, Misconceptions and
Mathematics Performance of University Students, Journal of Social and
Behavioral Science, -: O’Brien, P.S., (1997), Making Collage Count, Prentice Hall Companies, United
States of America
Pierce, J. W., (-),Problem Based Learning : Learning and Teaching in the Context
of Problem. -, Napitupulu, Minaruli., (2013), Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah
dan Motivasi Belajar Terhadap Hasil Belajar Kimia, Program
Pascasarjana, UNIMED, Medan
58
Poerwadamita, W.J.S., (1991), Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia, Balai Pustaka,
Jakarta
Riyanto, Y., (2010), Paradigma Baru Pembelajaran : Sebagai Refrensi Bagi
Guru/Pendidik dalam Implementasi Pembelajaran yang Efektif dan
Berkualitas, Penerbit Kencana, Jakarta
Sanjaya,W., (2009), Strategi Pembelajaran Berorientasi Standar Proses
Pendidikan, Penerbit Kencana, Jakarta
Sardiman., (2005), Interaksi dan Motivasi Belajar Mengajar.Rajawali Pers,
Jakarta
Slameto., (2003), Belajar dan Faktor-faktor Yang Mempengaruhinya, Rineka
Cipta, Jakarta
Silitonga, (2007), Statistika, Jurusan Kimia, FMIPA, UNIMED, Medan
Sudjana, (2002), Metode Statistik, Edisi Keenam, Tarsito, Bandung
Suharta, and Luthan P. L., (2013), Application of Cooperative Problem-Based
Learning Model to Develop Creativity and Foster Democracy, and
Improve Student Learning Outcomes in Chemistry in High School,
Journal of Education and Practice, 4(25): 55-56
Syafitri, D., (2012), Pengembangan Model Pembelajaran dalam Upaya
Membentuk Kepribadian yang Berkarakter Mulia dan Hasil Belajar yang
Tinggi pada Materi Bentuk Geometri Molekul, Program Pascasarjana,
UNIMED
Tim Pendidikan Kimia, (2011), Dasar-Dasar Pendidikan MIPA, FMIPA,
UNIMED, Medan
Trianto., (2010), Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif Progresif, Kencana
Prenada Media Grup, Jakarta
Unesco, (2011), Fakta Pendidikan, http://indonesiaberkibar.org/id/faktapendidikan, accessed on January 15th 2014
ii
BIOGRAPHY
Lheilamora Astaman was born in Padangsidimpuan on January 3th 1992.
Her father’s name is (Alm) Asrul Astaman Harahap and her mother’s name is
Elitawarni Lubis, S.Sos. The writer is the first child and have 2 brothers. In 1998
the writer entered the Elementary School in SDN 200110 Padangsidimpuan and
graduated in 2004. In 2004 the writer continued her study in SMP Negeri 2
Padangsidimpuan and graduated in 2007. In 2007 the writer continued her study
in SMA Negeri 2 Padangsidimpuan and graduated in 2010. In 2010 the writer was
accepted in Chemistry Department, Bilingual Chemistry Education Study
Program, Mathematics and Natural Sciences Faculty, State University of Medan
and pass the examination in 2014.