THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENTS LEARNING OUTCOMES USING INQUIRY TRAINING MODEL AND DIRECT INSTRUCTION MODEL IN LIGHT TOPIC AT CLASS VIII SMP N 1 TEBING TINGGI.
BIOGRAPHY
Agnesia M Damanik was born in Pematangsiantar at 26 Maret 1990.
Father’s name is J. Damanik and Mother’s name is A. Simatupang, and she is the
first of three children. In 1996, the author entered SD Cinta Rakyat 2
Pematangsiantar and graduate in 2002. In 2002, the author continues her
education in SMP N 4 Pematangsiantar and graduate in 2005. In 2005, the author
continues her education to SMA N 1 Pematangsiantar and graduated 2009. In
2009, the author accepted in Physical Education Studies Program in Department
of Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Science in State University of Medan.
PREFACE
The authors say the praise and gratitude to God Almighty, for all the
graces and blessings that provide health and wisdom to the author that this study
can be completed properly in accordance with the planned time.
Thesis entitled "The Difference of Students’ Learning Outcomes Using
Inquiry Training Model and Direct Instruction Model in Light Topic at Class VIII
SMP N 1 Tebing Tinggi ", prepared to obtain a Bachelor's degree Physical
Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science in State University of
Medan.
On this occasion the authors like to thank Mr Alkhafi Maas Siregar, S.Si,
M.Si as Thesis Advisor who has provided guidance and suggestions to the author
since the beginning of the study until the completion of this thesis writing. Thanks
also to Prof. Dr. Sahyar, M. Si, M.M., Dr. Ridwan A.Sani, M.Si and Drs. Makmur
Sirait, M.Si who have provided input and suggestions from the research plan to
complete the preparation of this thesis. Thanks also presented to Drs. Eidi
Sihombing, M.Si, as the Academic Supervisor and also the entire Lecturer and
Staff in Physics Department FMIPA UNIMED who have helped the
author. Appreciation were also presented to Headmaster and all teacher in SMP N
1 Tebing Tinggi who have helped during this research. I would like to thank
especially to my fathers in heaven St. Drs. J. Damanik and my mother A.
Simatupang, S.Pd and also my brothers, Jonaha V Damanik, S.STP & Andika C
Damanik and all family who have prayed and gave me encouragement and
funding to complete the study in Unimed. Especially thanks to all my friend in
Bilingual Physics Class 2009, Dewi, Evi, Pretty, Carol, Jefri, Adek, Astrid,
Debora, Fetri, Hanna, Hendriko, Janiar, Lucius, Avolen, Mas Andri, Ribka, Rika,
Rita, Rani, Tio, Riris and especially my roommate Gita R A Bangun who have
helped, prayed and gave supported to author. Then i also would thank to UKMKP
UP FMIPA as place to grow me up in spiritually. Also thanks to brother Leybert
Purba for grow me up in “METANOYA”. I also would like to thank to my friend
in kost Pondok Putri Rela Indah, sis Fitri, sis Nova, sis Grace, sis Keasy, sis
The Difference of Students’ Learning Outcomes Using Inquiry Training
Model and Direct Instruction Model in Light Topic at Class VIII
SMP N 1 Tebing Tinggi
Agnesia M Damanik (Reg. Number 409322012)
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research was to find out the difference of students’
learning outcomes using inquiry training model and direct instruction model in
light topic at class VIII SMP N 1 Tebing Tinggi. The research method was quasi
experimental. The population was all students at class VIII semester II consist of 9
classes SMP N 1 Tebing Tinggi. The sample of this research conduct two classes
and consist of 50 students, class VIII-1 as experiment class and class VIII-2 as
control class and define by cluster random sampling. The result that was obtained:
post-test average value of the experiment class was 78.6 and 67.7 was the average
value for control class. Standard deviation for experiment class was 14.0 and 14.3
was the standard deviation for control class. The result that was students’ activity
in experiment class has the average value is 75.9. And the result that was students’
affective in experiment class has the average value is 76.8. Normality of the test
result from the both samples was normal and homogeneous, the testing criterion
was accepted H0 if -2.012< t’ < 2.012 and refuse H0 in other condition. Here, H0
was refused because t’ is 2.75 and Ha was accepted. So it can be concluded that
there was the significant difference of students’ learning outcomes using inquiry
training model and direct instruction model.
vi
CONTENT
Page
Legitimating sheet
i
Biography
ii
Abstract
iii
Preface
iv
Content
vi
List of Figure
ix
List of Table
x
List of Appendix
xi
CHAPTER I
1
1.1 Background
1
1.2 Problem Identification
3
1.3 The Scope of Study
4
1.4 Problem Formulation
4
1.5 Objectives
4
1.6 Benefits
5
CHAPTER II
6
2.1 Theoretical Framework
6
2.1.1 Definitions of Learning
6
2.1.2 Learning Process
6
2.1.3 Learning Outcomes
7
vii
2.1.4 Definitions of Learning Model
8
2.1.5 Inquiry Teaching/Learning Theory
8
2.1.6 Inquiry Training Model
10
2.1.6.1 Syntax of Inquiry Training Model
12
2.1.7 Direct Instruction
15
2.1.7.1 Goals and Assumptions
15
2.1.7.2 Syntax
15
2.2 Conceptual Framework
17
2.3 Hypothesis
18
CHAPTER III
19
3.1 Location and Time of Research
19
3.2 Population and Sample of Research
19
3.2.1 Population of Research
19
3.2.2 Sample of Research
19
3.3 The Research Variable
19
3.4 Type and Design of Research
19
3.4.1 Research Type
19
3.4.2 Research Design
20
3.5
20
The Research Procedure
3.6 Data Collection Technique
23
3.6.1 Pretest
23
3.6.2 Posttest
23
3.7 Research Instruments
23
3.7.1 Content Validity
24
viii
3.7.2 Observation Sheet
24
3.8 Data Analysis Technique
28
3.8.1 To Determine the Mean
29
3.8.2 To Determine the Mean and Standard Deviation
29
3.8.3 Normality Test
29
3.8.4 Homogeneity Test
30
3.8.5 Hypothesis Test
31
CHAPTER IV
34
4.1 Research Result
34
4.1.1 Students’ Learning Outcomes in Cognitive Domain
34
4.1.1.1 Pre-test Data of Experiment and Control Class
34
4.1.1.2. Post-test Data of Experimental and Control Class
35
4.1.2. Testing of Data Analysis
35
4.1.2.1 Normality Test
36
4.1.2.2. Homogeneity Test
36
4.1.2.3. Hypothesis Testing
37
4.1.3. Students’ Learning Outcomes in Psychomotor Domain
37
4.1.4. Students’ Learning Outcomes in Affective Domain
39
4.2. Discussion
40
CHAPTER V
45
5.1 Conclusion
45
5.2 Suggestion
45
REFERENCES
46
x
LIST OF TABLE
Page
Table 2.1
Syntax of Inquiry Training Model
14
Table 3.1
Two Group Pretest-Posttest Design
20
Table 3.2
Specifications achievement test in light topic
23
Table 3.3
Criterion of affective and psychomotor domain
24
Table 3.4
Observation of Students’ Activity in Control Class
25
(Psychomotor)
Table 3.5
Observation of Students’ Activity in
26
Experimental Class (Psychomotor)
Table 3.6
Observation of Students’ Affective in experiment class
27
Table 3.7
Observation of Students’ Affective in control class
28
Table 4.1
Pre-test of Experimental and Control Class
35
Table 4.2
Post-test of Experimental and Control Class
36
Table 4.3
Data Normality Test of Experimental
37
and Control Class
Table 4.4
Data Homogeneity Test of Experimental
37
and Control Class
Table 4.5
Calculation of Hypothesis Test
38
Table 4.6
Criterion of Psychomotor Domain
38
Table 4.7
Students’ Activity in Experiment Class (Psychomotor)
38
Table 4.8
Students’ Activity in Control Class (Psychomotor)
38
Table 4.9
Result Calculation of Psychomotor domain
39
Table 4.10
Criterion of affective domain
40
Table 4.11
Result Calculation of Affective domain
41
ix
LIST OF FIGURE
Page
Figure 2.1
Instructional and Nurturing Effects on Inquiry
14
Training Model
Figure 2.2
Instructional and Nurturing Effects on Direct
17
Instruction Model
Figure 3.1
Research Planning Design
22
Figure 4.1
Bar Chart of Pre-test Data in Experimental
35
and Control Class
Figure 4.2
Bar Chart of Post-test Data in Experimental
36
and Control Class
Figure 4.3
Bar Chart of Students’ Activity in Experimental
39
and Control Class
Figure 4.4
Bar Chart of Students’ Affective in Experimental
and Control Class
41
LIST OF APPENDIX
Page
Appendix 1
Lesson Plan-1
47
Appendix 2
Lesson Plan-2
55
Appendix 3
Test Prediction
64
Appendix 4
Instrument Test
90
Appendix 5
Work Sheet-1
100
Appendix 6
Work Sheet-2
104
Appendix 7
Tabulation of Pre-test Answer in Experiment Class
108
Appendix 8
Tabulation of Pre-test Answer in Control Class
110
Appendix 9
Tabulation of Post-test Answer in Experiment Class
112
Appendix 10 Tabulation of Post-test Answer in Control Class
114
Appendix 11 Mean and Standard Deviation in control
and experiment class
Appendix 12 Calculation of Mean Value and Standard
Deviation in experiment class
116
Appendix 13 Calculation of Mean Value and Standard
Deviation in control class
120
Appendix 14 Normality Test Calculation of Data
122
Appendix 15 Homogenity Test Calculation of Data
126
Appendix 16 Calculation of Hypothesis Test
128
Appendix 17 Table Observation Sheet of Students’ Activity
in Experiment Class (First Meeting)
132
Appendix 18 Table Observation Sheet of Students’ Activity
in Experiment Class (SecondMeeting)
134
Appendix 19 Table Observation Sheet of Students’ Activity
in Control Class (First Meeting)
136
Appendix 20 Table Observation Sheet of Students’ Activity
in Control Class (SecondMeeting)
138
118
Appendix 21 Table Observation Sheet of Students’ Affective
in Experiment Class (First Meeting)
140
Appendix 22 Table Observation Sheet of Students’ Affective
in Experiment Class (Second Meeting)
142
Appendix 23 Table Observation Sheet of Students’ Affective
in Control Class (First Meeting)
144
Appendix 24 Table Observation Sheet of Students’ Affective
in Control Class (Secondt Meeting)
146
Appendix 25 List of Critical Value for Liliefors
148
Appendix 26 List of Percentil Value for Distribution t
149
Appendix 27 Table of Region Under Normal Curve 0 to z
150
Appendix 28 Documentation of Research
151
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Natural science is concerned with how to find out about natural
phenomenon systematically, so that the natural science is not just a collection of
knowledge mastery of facts, concepts, or only principles but also is a process of
discovery. Natural science education expected to become facilities for learners to
learn about human and environment, as well as the prospect of further
development in applying them in daily life. The process of learning places
emphasis on providing on experience to develop competence in order for learners
to explore and understand the natural surrounding scientifically.
Physics is one of the sciences that important in education. Studying of
physics can be proven with experiment in the laboratory or in the field.
Historically many experts when study of physics giving inventions and new
concepts are very useful for the development of human life. Experts try to learn
what happens in nature, understand concept, practice the same thing, practicing
the other possibilities of happening and poured it into a masterpiece. This works
in the development of technology that was donated has an effect on the increase of
human civilization.
During in time, physics is one of subjects that are less attractive to
students. It is evident from the low percentage of students' mastery learning. This
is because in addition to the material in these subjects is difficult to understand,
sometimes the delivery of content by teachers lacking attract students. In general,
physics teacher at school more often discussing the theory of the handbook,
providing formulas and provide example problems. This led to a physical science
reading material and students can only imagine.
Learning models like above causing physics to be one of the subjects
which are not interested by the students and paradigm of students who assumes
that physics is difficult. Though physics is a subject that is close to the daily life
and its application can be found directly in our environment. In this case the
teacher has an important role in instilling positive paradigm for students. So
physics is no longer a daunting subject and boring.
Based on preliminary study through the direct observation by
interviewing the physics teacher at SMP N 1 Tebing Tinggi suggests teachers tend
to still use the conventional learning with lecture and question and answer that is
teacher centered. In presenting the subject matter, the teacher explain to the class
and give a summary of the material with notes on the board and the students listen
and record the important things of the material being taught. This leads to students
not directly involved in the learning process and passive. From interviews said
also that the students learning outcomes in physics subject is low. When the value
of KKM 75, approximately 70% of students who did not complete the study in the
field of physics.
Many things can cause low physics student learning outcomes, one of
which is the learning process that is not in favor of the students. Student learning
is just as listeners and teachers are more instrumental or teacher-centered (teacher
centered). Dominance of teachers in this study led to more students waiting for a
dish of knowledge from the teacher rather than finding themselves the knowledge,
skills, and attitudes required in acquiring knowledge.
Based on the observation found that only about 50% students’ in SMP N
1 Tebing Tinggi which like the physics. This is because physics is a subject which
is interesting and challenging. Moreover, if the method of teaching the teacher is
very nice, it will make them more interested in learning physics. In their daily life,
they've responded well to the subjects of physics, this can be seen when teachers
teach, they observe and record things that are important.
From this observation also found that 38% of students prefer to learn
physics when practiced learning how to direct and 36% of students prefer to learn
physics by way of groups. But in reality teachers rarely engage students’ in the
process getting their knowledge and only emphasizes the students to memorize
formulas and does not emphasize on the concept and its application. In fact, many
students are still difficulties in using the formula to solve a given problem. During
the learning process, the teacher invites students rarely conduct experiments for
the material being studied significantly. So in this case the student less directly
involved in the learning activity.
Based on the above conditions should apply an appropriate model of
learning and can improve students’ learning outcomes in physics. Learning model
that suitable for used is inquiry training model. Inquiry training model is designed
to bring students directly into scientific process into small periods of time. The
training has resulted in an increased understanding of science, more creative
thinking, and skills for obtaining and analyzing information as students establish
facts, build concepts, and then generate and test explanations or theories. The
students are active learners involved in exploration, questioning, problem solving,
inductive reasoning, invention, labeling, and discovery.
Researchers previously performed by Rostina Harahap (2009) obtained
an average value of 36.00 after a pretest that is treated with inquiry learning model
of training the student learning outcomes increased with an average value of
77.40, with the title "The Effect of Inquiry Training Model Toward Student
Learning Outcomes in Newton's law Topic at Class VIII SMP N 6 Academic Year
2009/2010 ". The weakness in this study is less able to take advantage of future
researchers in working together so that when collecting assignments, students rush
to do it. And students’ difficulties in the implementation of group work.
The background above shows that the issue is very important to
investigate and look for the solution, because if the problem is not resolved then it
is difficult for teachers to achieve the goals of learning and difficult for students to
achieve the competencies expected.
1.2 Problem Identification
Based on the background above can be identified some of issues, namely:
1. Paradigm of students who assumes that physics is difficult
2. Teachers still use conventional learning (teacher centered)
3. Students’ learning outcomes in physics subject is low
4. Students are not directly involved in the learning activity
1.3 The Scope of study
As for the scope of study in this research are:
1.
Research subject is students class VIII SMP N 1 Tebing Tinggi academic
year 2012/ 2013.
2.
The topic will be learn is light by using inquiry training model in
experimental class
3.
Learning outcomes will researched in cognitive, affective and
psychomotoric aspect
1.4 Problem Formulation
Based on the background above, problem identification and the scope of
study above, so the problem formulations in this research are:
1. How the average value of students’ learning outcomes of using inquiry
training model and direct instruction model in light topic at class VIII SMP
N 1 Tebing Tinggi?
2. How the students’ activity and students’ affective using inquiry training
model and direct instruction model in light topic at class VIII SMP N 1
Tebing Tinggi?
3. Is there significant difference of students’ learning outcomes using inquiry
training model and direct instructional model in light topic at class VIII
SMP N 1 Tebing Tinggi?
1.5 Objectives
Based on the problem formulation above so the objectives that will be
achieved in this research are:
1. To know the average value of students’ learning outcomes of using inquiry
training model and direct instruction model in light topic at class VIII SMP
N 1 Tebing Tinggi
2. To know the students’ activity and students’ affective using inquiry
training model and direct instruction model in light topic at class VIII SMP
N 1 Tebing Tinggi
3. To know the significant difference of students’ learning outcomes using
inquiry training model and direct instructional model in light topic at class
VIII SMP N 1 Tebing Tinggi
1.6 Benefits
1. For school : give good contribution to repair learning process and improve
the school quality through raising of student learning achievement and
teachers professionalism
2. For Teacher : as an input to choose appropriate method in physics learning
process
3. For student : students more active in learning process and students get
good value in physics subject
4. For researcher : as reference to implement learning process to be effective
and efficiency in education
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
Based on the research result, data analysis, and discussion so can
be concluded that :
1. The average value of students’ learning outcomes of using inquiry
training model is higher than student who get direct instructional model.
2. Students’ activity as long as using inquiry training model increased, from
the first meeting up to the second meeting. The category of students’
activity is good. And students’ affective as long as using inquiry training
model also increased, from the first meeting up to the second meeting.
The category of students’ affective is good.
3. Based on the results of the analysis of data processing hypothesis testing
using the t test get that tcount > ttable, so it can be stated that there is a
significant difference of students’ learning outcomes using inquiry
training model and direct instructional model in light topic at class VIII
SMP N 1 Tebing Tinggi.
5.2 Suggestion
Based on research result and discussion before, researcher give
suggestions as follows :
1. For the next researcher so that use the time effectively thus the syntax
in inquiry training model can achieved and occurs well.
2. For the next researcher, so that prepare one observer for each of group
to get accurate data and to observe the students’ affective will be better
if researcher take daily notes of students from class teacher.
3. For the next researcher so that give more attention and guidance of
students who are less active in learning proces
REFERENCES
Alberta. 2004. Focus on inquiry: a teacher’s guide to implementing inquiry-based
learning. Learning and Teaching Resources Branch.
Arends, Richard, I., 1998. Learning to Teach (fourth edition). Singapore:
McGraw-Hill International.
Agbarachi, Jacinta, et all. 2011. Instructional Method and the School Science
Currículum. Current Research Journal of Social Sciences , 3(3), 188-198.
Dahar, R., W., 2006. Teori-Teori Belajar dan Pembelajaran. Jakarta: Penerbit
Erlangga.
Joyce, Bruce and Weil, Marsha. 1972. Models of Teaching. New Jersey: PrenticeHall International, Inc.
Joyce, Bruce. 2004. Models of Teaching (fifth edition). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall
International, Inc.
Klein, Stephen, B., 1991. Learning (Second Edition). Singapore :McGraw-Hill,
Inc.
Sanjaya, W., 2006. Kurikulum Pembelajaran Teori dan Praktik Pengembangan
KTSP, Jakarta; Kencana.
Pandey, A., et all. 2011. Effectiveness of Inquiry Training Model over
Conventional Teaching Method on Academic Achievement of Science
Students in India. Journal of Innovative Research in Education, 1(1), 7-20.
Sagala, Syaiful. 2003. Konsep dan Makna Pembelajaran, Bandung; Alfabeta.
Slavin, Robert E., 2006. Educational Psychology: theory and practice (Eight
edition). USA: John Hapkins University.
Sudjana. 2005. Metoda Statistika. Bandung: Tarsito.
Usumartina. 2012. Perbedaan Model Pembelajaran Generatif dan Konvensional
Terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa Pada Sub Bab Materi Tekanan pada Zat Cair di
SMPN 2 Tanjung Pura T. P 2011/2012. Skripsi. FMIPA: Unimed.
Wenning, J., C., et all. 2011. Experimental Inquiry in Introductory Physics
Courses. Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online, 6(2).
Agnesia M Damanik was born in Pematangsiantar at 26 Maret 1990.
Father’s name is J. Damanik and Mother’s name is A. Simatupang, and she is the
first of three children. In 1996, the author entered SD Cinta Rakyat 2
Pematangsiantar and graduate in 2002. In 2002, the author continues her
education in SMP N 4 Pematangsiantar and graduate in 2005. In 2005, the author
continues her education to SMA N 1 Pematangsiantar and graduated 2009. In
2009, the author accepted in Physical Education Studies Program in Department
of Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Science in State University of Medan.
PREFACE
The authors say the praise and gratitude to God Almighty, for all the
graces and blessings that provide health and wisdom to the author that this study
can be completed properly in accordance with the planned time.
Thesis entitled "The Difference of Students’ Learning Outcomes Using
Inquiry Training Model and Direct Instruction Model in Light Topic at Class VIII
SMP N 1 Tebing Tinggi ", prepared to obtain a Bachelor's degree Physical
Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science in State University of
Medan.
On this occasion the authors like to thank Mr Alkhafi Maas Siregar, S.Si,
M.Si as Thesis Advisor who has provided guidance and suggestions to the author
since the beginning of the study until the completion of this thesis writing. Thanks
also to Prof. Dr. Sahyar, M. Si, M.M., Dr. Ridwan A.Sani, M.Si and Drs. Makmur
Sirait, M.Si who have provided input and suggestions from the research plan to
complete the preparation of this thesis. Thanks also presented to Drs. Eidi
Sihombing, M.Si, as the Academic Supervisor and also the entire Lecturer and
Staff in Physics Department FMIPA UNIMED who have helped the
author. Appreciation were also presented to Headmaster and all teacher in SMP N
1 Tebing Tinggi who have helped during this research. I would like to thank
especially to my fathers in heaven St. Drs. J. Damanik and my mother A.
Simatupang, S.Pd and also my brothers, Jonaha V Damanik, S.STP & Andika C
Damanik and all family who have prayed and gave me encouragement and
funding to complete the study in Unimed. Especially thanks to all my friend in
Bilingual Physics Class 2009, Dewi, Evi, Pretty, Carol, Jefri, Adek, Astrid,
Debora, Fetri, Hanna, Hendriko, Janiar, Lucius, Avolen, Mas Andri, Ribka, Rika,
Rita, Rani, Tio, Riris and especially my roommate Gita R A Bangun who have
helped, prayed and gave supported to author. Then i also would thank to UKMKP
UP FMIPA as place to grow me up in spiritually. Also thanks to brother Leybert
Purba for grow me up in “METANOYA”. I also would like to thank to my friend
in kost Pondok Putri Rela Indah, sis Fitri, sis Nova, sis Grace, sis Keasy, sis
The Difference of Students’ Learning Outcomes Using Inquiry Training
Model and Direct Instruction Model in Light Topic at Class VIII
SMP N 1 Tebing Tinggi
Agnesia M Damanik (Reg. Number 409322012)
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research was to find out the difference of students’
learning outcomes using inquiry training model and direct instruction model in
light topic at class VIII SMP N 1 Tebing Tinggi. The research method was quasi
experimental. The population was all students at class VIII semester II consist of 9
classes SMP N 1 Tebing Tinggi. The sample of this research conduct two classes
and consist of 50 students, class VIII-1 as experiment class and class VIII-2 as
control class and define by cluster random sampling. The result that was obtained:
post-test average value of the experiment class was 78.6 and 67.7 was the average
value for control class. Standard deviation for experiment class was 14.0 and 14.3
was the standard deviation for control class. The result that was students’ activity
in experiment class has the average value is 75.9. And the result that was students’
affective in experiment class has the average value is 76.8. Normality of the test
result from the both samples was normal and homogeneous, the testing criterion
was accepted H0 if -2.012< t’ < 2.012 and refuse H0 in other condition. Here, H0
was refused because t’ is 2.75 and Ha was accepted. So it can be concluded that
there was the significant difference of students’ learning outcomes using inquiry
training model and direct instruction model.
vi
CONTENT
Page
Legitimating sheet
i
Biography
ii
Abstract
iii
Preface
iv
Content
vi
List of Figure
ix
List of Table
x
List of Appendix
xi
CHAPTER I
1
1.1 Background
1
1.2 Problem Identification
3
1.3 The Scope of Study
4
1.4 Problem Formulation
4
1.5 Objectives
4
1.6 Benefits
5
CHAPTER II
6
2.1 Theoretical Framework
6
2.1.1 Definitions of Learning
6
2.1.2 Learning Process
6
2.1.3 Learning Outcomes
7
vii
2.1.4 Definitions of Learning Model
8
2.1.5 Inquiry Teaching/Learning Theory
8
2.1.6 Inquiry Training Model
10
2.1.6.1 Syntax of Inquiry Training Model
12
2.1.7 Direct Instruction
15
2.1.7.1 Goals and Assumptions
15
2.1.7.2 Syntax
15
2.2 Conceptual Framework
17
2.3 Hypothesis
18
CHAPTER III
19
3.1 Location and Time of Research
19
3.2 Population and Sample of Research
19
3.2.1 Population of Research
19
3.2.2 Sample of Research
19
3.3 The Research Variable
19
3.4 Type and Design of Research
19
3.4.1 Research Type
19
3.4.2 Research Design
20
3.5
20
The Research Procedure
3.6 Data Collection Technique
23
3.6.1 Pretest
23
3.6.2 Posttest
23
3.7 Research Instruments
23
3.7.1 Content Validity
24
viii
3.7.2 Observation Sheet
24
3.8 Data Analysis Technique
28
3.8.1 To Determine the Mean
29
3.8.2 To Determine the Mean and Standard Deviation
29
3.8.3 Normality Test
29
3.8.4 Homogeneity Test
30
3.8.5 Hypothesis Test
31
CHAPTER IV
34
4.1 Research Result
34
4.1.1 Students’ Learning Outcomes in Cognitive Domain
34
4.1.1.1 Pre-test Data of Experiment and Control Class
34
4.1.1.2. Post-test Data of Experimental and Control Class
35
4.1.2. Testing of Data Analysis
35
4.1.2.1 Normality Test
36
4.1.2.2. Homogeneity Test
36
4.1.2.3. Hypothesis Testing
37
4.1.3. Students’ Learning Outcomes in Psychomotor Domain
37
4.1.4. Students’ Learning Outcomes in Affective Domain
39
4.2. Discussion
40
CHAPTER V
45
5.1 Conclusion
45
5.2 Suggestion
45
REFERENCES
46
x
LIST OF TABLE
Page
Table 2.1
Syntax of Inquiry Training Model
14
Table 3.1
Two Group Pretest-Posttest Design
20
Table 3.2
Specifications achievement test in light topic
23
Table 3.3
Criterion of affective and psychomotor domain
24
Table 3.4
Observation of Students’ Activity in Control Class
25
(Psychomotor)
Table 3.5
Observation of Students’ Activity in
26
Experimental Class (Psychomotor)
Table 3.6
Observation of Students’ Affective in experiment class
27
Table 3.7
Observation of Students’ Affective in control class
28
Table 4.1
Pre-test of Experimental and Control Class
35
Table 4.2
Post-test of Experimental and Control Class
36
Table 4.3
Data Normality Test of Experimental
37
and Control Class
Table 4.4
Data Homogeneity Test of Experimental
37
and Control Class
Table 4.5
Calculation of Hypothesis Test
38
Table 4.6
Criterion of Psychomotor Domain
38
Table 4.7
Students’ Activity in Experiment Class (Psychomotor)
38
Table 4.8
Students’ Activity in Control Class (Psychomotor)
38
Table 4.9
Result Calculation of Psychomotor domain
39
Table 4.10
Criterion of affective domain
40
Table 4.11
Result Calculation of Affective domain
41
ix
LIST OF FIGURE
Page
Figure 2.1
Instructional and Nurturing Effects on Inquiry
14
Training Model
Figure 2.2
Instructional and Nurturing Effects on Direct
17
Instruction Model
Figure 3.1
Research Planning Design
22
Figure 4.1
Bar Chart of Pre-test Data in Experimental
35
and Control Class
Figure 4.2
Bar Chart of Post-test Data in Experimental
36
and Control Class
Figure 4.3
Bar Chart of Students’ Activity in Experimental
39
and Control Class
Figure 4.4
Bar Chart of Students’ Affective in Experimental
and Control Class
41
LIST OF APPENDIX
Page
Appendix 1
Lesson Plan-1
47
Appendix 2
Lesson Plan-2
55
Appendix 3
Test Prediction
64
Appendix 4
Instrument Test
90
Appendix 5
Work Sheet-1
100
Appendix 6
Work Sheet-2
104
Appendix 7
Tabulation of Pre-test Answer in Experiment Class
108
Appendix 8
Tabulation of Pre-test Answer in Control Class
110
Appendix 9
Tabulation of Post-test Answer in Experiment Class
112
Appendix 10 Tabulation of Post-test Answer in Control Class
114
Appendix 11 Mean and Standard Deviation in control
and experiment class
Appendix 12 Calculation of Mean Value and Standard
Deviation in experiment class
116
Appendix 13 Calculation of Mean Value and Standard
Deviation in control class
120
Appendix 14 Normality Test Calculation of Data
122
Appendix 15 Homogenity Test Calculation of Data
126
Appendix 16 Calculation of Hypothesis Test
128
Appendix 17 Table Observation Sheet of Students’ Activity
in Experiment Class (First Meeting)
132
Appendix 18 Table Observation Sheet of Students’ Activity
in Experiment Class (SecondMeeting)
134
Appendix 19 Table Observation Sheet of Students’ Activity
in Control Class (First Meeting)
136
Appendix 20 Table Observation Sheet of Students’ Activity
in Control Class (SecondMeeting)
138
118
Appendix 21 Table Observation Sheet of Students’ Affective
in Experiment Class (First Meeting)
140
Appendix 22 Table Observation Sheet of Students’ Affective
in Experiment Class (Second Meeting)
142
Appendix 23 Table Observation Sheet of Students’ Affective
in Control Class (First Meeting)
144
Appendix 24 Table Observation Sheet of Students’ Affective
in Control Class (Secondt Meeting)
146
Appendix 25 List of Critical Value for Liliefors
148
Appendix 26 List of Percentil Value for Distribution t
149
Appendix 27 Table of Region Under Normal Curve 0 to z
150
Appendix 28 Documentation of Research
151
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Natural science is concerned with how to find out about natural
phenomenon systematically, so that the natural science is not just a collection of
knowledge mastery of facts, concepts, or only principles but also is a process of
discovery. Natural science education expected to become facilities for learners to
learn about human and environment, as well as the prospect of further
development in applying them in daily life. The process of learning places
emphasis on providing on experience to develop competence in order for learners
to explore and understand the natural surrounding scientifically.
Physics is one of the sciences that important in education. Studying of
physics can be proven with experiment in the laboratory or in the field.
Historically many experts when study of physics giving inventions and new
concepts are very useful for the development of human life. Experts try to learn
what happens in nature, understand concept, practice the same thing, practicing
the other possibilities of happening and poured it into a masterpiece. This works
in the development of technology that was donated has an effect on the increase of
human civilization.
During in time, physics is one of subjects that are less attractive to
students. It is evident from the low percentage of students' mastery learning. This
is because in addition to the material in these subjects is difficult to understand,
sometimes the delivery of content by teachers lacking attract students. In general,
physics teacher at school more often discussing the theory of the handbook,
providing formulas and provide example problems. This led to a physical science
reading material and students can only imagine.
Learning models like above causing physics to be one of the subjects
which are not interested by the students and paradigm of students who assumes
that physics is difficult. Though physics is a subject that is close to the daily life
and its application can be found directly in our environment. In this case the
teacher has an important role in instilling positive paradigm for students. So
physics is no longer a daunting subject and boring.
Based on preliminary study through the direct observation by
interviewing the physics teacher at SMP N 1 Tebing Tinggi suggests teachers tend
to still use the conventional learning with lecture and question and answer that is
teacher centered. In presenting the subject matter, the teacher explain to the class
and give a summary of the material with notes on the board and the students listen
and record the important things of the material being taught. This leads to students
not directly involved in the learning process and passive. From interviews said
also that the students learning outcomes in physics subject is low. When the value
of KKM 75, approximately 70% of students who did not complete the study in the
field of physics.
Many things can cause low physics student learning outcomes, one of
which is the learning process that is not in favor of the students. Student learning
is just as listeners and teachers are more instrumental or teacher-centered (teacher
centered). Dominance of teachers in this study led to more students waiting for a
dish of knowledge from the teacher rather than finding themselves the knowledge,
skills, and attitudes required in acquiring knowledge.
Based on the observation found that only about 50% students’ in SMP N
1 Tebing Tinggi which like the physics. This is because physics is a subject which
is interesting and challenging. Moreover, if the method of teaching the teacher is
very nice, it will make them more interested in learning physics. In their daily life,
they've responded well to the subjects of physics, this can be seen when teachers
teach, they observe and record things that are important.
From this observation also found that 38% of students prefer to learn
physics when practiced learning how to direct and 36% of students prefer to learn
physics by way of groups. But in reality teachers rarely engage students’ in the
process getting their knowledge and only emphasizes the students to memorize
formulas and does not emphasize on the concept and its application. In fact, many
students are still difficulties in using the formula to solve a given problem. During
the learning process, the teacher invites students rarely conduct experiments for
the material being studied significantly. So in this case the student less directly
involved in the learning activity.
Based on the above conditions should apply an appropriate model of
learning and can improve students’ learning outcomes in physics. Learning model
that suitable for used is inquiry training model. Inquiry training model is designed
to bring students directly into scientific process into small periods of time. The
training has resulted in an increased understanding of science, more creative
thinking, and skills for obtaining and analyzing information as students establish
facts, build concepts, and then generate and test explanations or theories. The
students are active learners involved in exploration, questioning, problem solving,
inductive reasoning, invention, labeling, and discovery.
Researchers previously performed by Rostina Harahap (2009) obtained
an average value of 36.00 after a pretest that is treated with inquiry learning model
of training the student learning outcomes increased with an average value of
77.40, with the title "The Effect of Inquiry Training Model Toward Student
Learning Outcomes in Newton's law Topic at Class VIII SMP N 6 Academic Year
2009/2010 ". The weakness in this study is less able to take advantage of future
researchers in working together so that when collecting assignments, students rush
to do it. And students’ difficulties in the implementation of group work.
The background above shows that the issue is very important to
investigate and look for the solution, because if the problem is not resolved then it
is difficult for teachers to achieve the goals of learning and difficult for students to
achieve the competencies expected.
1.2 Problem Identification
Based on the background above can be identified some of issues, namely:
1. Paradigm of students who assumes that physics is difficult
2. Teachers still use conventional learning (teacher centered)
3. Students’ learning outcomes in physics subject is low
4. Students are not directly involved in the learning activity
1.3 The Scope of study
As for the scope of study in this research are:
1.
Research subject is students class VIII SMP N 1 Tebing Tinggi academic
year 2012/ 2013.
2.
The topic will be learn is light by using inquiry training model in
experimental class
3.
Learning outcomes will researched in cognitive, affective and
psychomotoric aspect
1.4 Problem Formulation
Based on the background above, problem identification and the scope of
study above, so the problem formulations in this research are:
1. How the average value of students’ learning outcomes of using inquiry
training model and direct instruction model in light topic at class VIII SMP
N 1 Tebing Tinggi?
2. How the students’ activity and students’ affective using inquiry training
model and direct instruction model in light topic at class VIII SMP N 1
Tebing Tinggi?
3. Is there significant difference of students’ learning outcomes using inquiry
training model and direct instructional model in light topic at class VIII
SMP N 1 Tebing Tinggi?
1.5 Objectives
Based on the problem formulation above so the objectives that will be
achieved in this research are:
1. To know the average value of students’ learning outcomes of using inquiry
training model and direct instruction model in light topic at class VIII SMP
N 1 Tebing Tinggi
2. To know the students’ activity and students’ affective using inquiry
training model and direct instruction model in light topic at class VIII SMP
N 1 Tebing Tinggi
3. To know the significant difference of students’ learning outcomes using
inquiry training model and direct instructional model in light topic at class
VIII SMP N 1 Tebing Tinggi
1.6 Benefits
1. For school : give good contribution to repair learning process and improve
the school quality through raising of student learning achievement and
teachers professionalism
2. For Teacher : as an input to choose appropriate method in physics learning
process
3. For student : students more active in learning process and students get
good value in physics subject
4. For researcher : as reference to implement learning process to be effective
and efficiency in education
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
Based on the research result, data analysis, and discussion so can
be concluded that :
1. The average value of students’ learning outcomes of using inquiry
training model is higher than student who get direct instructional model.
2. Students’ activity as long as using inquiry training model increased, from
the first meeting up to the second meeting. The category of students’
activity is good. And students’ affective as long as using inquiry training
model also increased, from the first meeting up to the second meeting.
The category of students’ affective is good.
3. Based on the results of the analysis of data processing hypothesis testing
using the t test get that tcount > ttable, so it can be stated that there is a
significant difference of students’ learning outcomes using inquiry
training model and direct instructional model in light topic at class VIII
SMP N 1 Tebing Tinggi.
5.2 Suggestion
Based on research result and discussion before, researcher give
suggestions as follows :
1. For the next researcher so that use the time effectively thus the syntax
in inquiry training model can achieved and occurs well.
2. For the next researcher, so that prepare one observer for each of group
to get accurate data and to observe the students’ affective will be better
if researcher take daily notes of students from class teacher.
3. For the next researcher so that give more attention and guidance of
students who are less active in learning proces
REFERENCES
Alberta. 2004. Focus on inquiry: a teacher’s guide to implementing inquiry-based
learning. Learning and Teaching Resources Branch.
Arends, Richard, I., 1998. Learning to Teach (fourth edition). Singapore:
McGraw-Hill International.
Agbarachi, Jacinta, et all. 2011. Instructional Method and the School Science
Currículum. Current Research Journal of Social Sciences , 3(3), 188-198.
Dahar, R., W., 2006. Teori-Teori Belajar dan Pembelajaran. Jakarta: Penerbit
Erlangga.
Joyce, Bruce and Weil, Marsha. 1972. Models of Teaching. New Jersey: PrenticeHall International, Inc.
Joyce, Bruce. 2004. Models of Teaching (fifth edition). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall
International, Inc.
Klein, Stephen, B., 1991. Learning (Second Edition). Singapore :McGraw-Hill,
Inc.
Sanjaya, W., 2006. Kurikulum Pembelajaran Teori dan Praktik Pengembangan
KTSP, Jakarta; Kencana.
Pandey, A., et all. 2011. Effectiveness of Inquiry Training Model over
Conventional Teaching Method on Academic Achievement of Science
Students in India. Journal of Innovative Research in Education, 1(1), 7-20.
Sagala, Syaiful. 2003. Konsep dan Makna Pembelajaran, Bandung; Alfabeta.
Slavin, Robert E., 2006. Educational Psychology: theory and practice (Eight
edition). USA: John Hapkins University.
Sudjana. 2005. Metoda Statistika. Bandung: Tarsito.
Usumartina. 2012. Perbedaan Model Pembelajaran Generatif dan Konvensional
Terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa Pada Sub Bab Materi Tekanan pada Zat Cair di
SMPN 2 Tanjung Pura T. P 2011/2012. Skripsi. FMIPA: Unimed.
Wenning, J., C., et all. 2011. Experimental Inquiry in Introductory Physics
Courses. Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online, 6(2).