THE EFFECT OF PROBLEM BASED LEARNING MODEL ON STUDENTS LEARNING OUTCOMES IN STATIC FLUID TOPIC OF CLASS X SMA NEGERI 3 MEDAN ACADEMIC YEAR 2013/2014.
THE EFFECT OF PROBLEM BASED LEARNING MODEL
ON STUDENT’S LEARNING OUTCOMES IN
STATIC FLUID TOPIC OF CLASS X
SMA NEGERI 3 MEDAN
ACADEMIC YEAR 2013/2014
By:
Evi Kamelia Simanjuntak
Reg. Number 4103322003
Bilingual Physics Education Program
THESIS
Submitted to Acquires Eligible Sarjana Pendidikan
PHYSICS DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2014
iii
THE EFFECT OF PROBLEM BASED LEARNING MODEL ON STUDENT’S
LEARNING OUTCOMES IN STATIC FLUID TOPIC OF CLASS X SMA
NEGERI 3 MEDAN ACADEMIC YEAR 2013/2014
Evi Kamelia Simanjuntak (Reg. Number 4103322003)
ABSTRACT
The aim of this research was to know the the effect of the problem based
learning model on student’s learning outcomes in static fluids topic.The research
method was quasi experiment. The population were all of students in class X MIA
semester II SMA N. 3 Medan, that consist of 14 classes. The sample of this research
was taken by cluster random sampling technique, class X MIA-4 was experimental
class used problem based learning model that consist of 38 students, and class X
MIA-5 as control class used conventional learning, consist 40 students. Instruments
that used in this research were multiple choose test instrument and psychomotor and
affective observation sheet. The data was got from the test was analyzed by statistical
analysis t-test. Based on observation result by using affective and psychomotor
observation sheet of students shown that there was significant increasing on
experimental class. So, can be conclude that the student’s learning outcomes using
problem based learning model greater than conventional learning on static fluid topic
of class X SMA N.3 Medan academic year 2013/2014.
vi
CONTENTS
Agreement Sheet
i
Biography
ii
Abstract
iii
Preface
iv
Contents
vi
Figure List
x
Table List
xii
Appendix List
xiii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1
1.2 Problem Identification
4
1.3 Problem Limitation
4
1.4 Problem Formulation
5
1.5 Research Objectives
5
1.6 Benefit of Research
5
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Understanding of Learning
6
2.2 Learning Purposes
7
2.3 Learning Outcomes
7
2.3.1 Cognitive Domain
8
2.3.2 Affective Domain
9
2.3.3 Psychomotor Domain
10
2.4 Learning Model
11
2.4.1 Understanding of Learning Model
11
2.4.2 Conventional Learning
12
2.4.3 Problem Based Learning Model
12
2.4.3.1 Special Features of Problem Based Learning
14
2.4.3.2 Syntax for Problem Based Learning
15
vii
2.5 Static Fluid
16
2.5.1 Density
16
2.5.2 Hydrostatic
Pressure
17
2.5.3 Hydrostatic Paradoxical
19
2.5.4 Pascal’s Principle
19
2.5.5 Archimedes’ Principle
21
2.5.5.1 Floating
22
2.5.5.2 Suspending
22
2.5.5.3 Sinking
23
2.6 Conceptual Framework
24
2.7 Research Hypothesis
25
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
3.1 Research Location and Research Time
26
3.1.1 Research Location
26
3.1.2 Research Time
26
3.2 Research Population and Research Sample
26
3.2.1 Research Population
26
3.2.2 Research Sample
26
3.3 Research Variable
27
3.3.1 Independent Variable
27
3.3.2 Dependent Variable
27
3.4 Research Type and Research Design
27
3.4.1 Research Type
27
3.4.2 Research Design
27
3.5 Research Procedure
28
3.6 Research Instrument
29
3.6.1 Instrument of Student's Learning Outcomes
of Cognitive Domain
29
3.6.2 Instrument of Student’s Learning Outcomes
of Affective Domain
31
viii
3.6.3 Instrument of Student’s Learning Outcomes
of Psychomotor Domain
32
3.6.4 Instrument of Student’s Learning Activity
33
3.6.5 Validity Test
34
3.7 Data Analysis Techniques
34
3.7.1 Determine Average Value
34
3.7.2 Determine The Deviation Standard
35
3.7.3 Determine the Homogenity Test
35
3.7.4 Normality Test
36
3.7.5 Hypothesis Test
36
3.7.5.1 Pre-test Ability Test (Two Tail Test)
36
3.7.5.2 Post-test Ability Test
38
CHAPTER IV RESULT OF RESEARCH AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Result of Research
39
4.1.1 Students’ Learning Outcomes in Cognitive Domain
39
4.1.1.1 Pretest Data in Experimental and Control Class
39
4.1.1.2. Posttest Data in Experimental and Control Class
40
4.1.1.3. Data Analysis Test
41
4.1.1.4. Average Value, Deviation Standard and Variant
41
4.1.1.5. Normality Test
42
4.1.1.6. Homogeneity Test
42
4.1.1.7. Hypothesis Test
43
4.1.1.7.1. Hypothesis Test for Pretest Ability
43
4.1.1.7.2. Hypothesis Test for Posttest Ability
43
4.1.2 Student’s Learning Outcomes in Affective Domain
44
4.1.3 Student’s Learning Outcomes in Psychomotor Domain
46
4.1.4 Student’s Learning Activity
47
4.2 Discussion
48
ix
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
57
5.2 Suggestion
58
REFERENCES
59
xii
TABLE LIST
Table 2.1
Syntax of Problem Based Learning Model
According to Arends
Table 2.2
15
Syntax of Problem Based Learning Model
according to Ibrahim and Nur
15
Table 2.3
Density of Substances
17
Table 3.1
Design of Research
27
Table 3.2
The Specification Learning Outcomes Test
(Cognitive Domain)
30
Table 3.3
Rubric of Affective Assessment
31
Table 3.4
Criteria Assessment of Student’s Affective Domain
32
Table 3.5
Rubric of Psychomotor Assessment
32
Table 3.6
Criteria Assessment of Student’s Psychomotor Domain
33
Table 3.7
Rubric of Student’s Learning Activity Assessment
33
Table 3.8
Criteria Assessment of Student’s Learning Activity
34
Table 4.1
Average Value, Deviation Standard and Variant
41
Table 4.2
Normality Test Data in Experimental and Control Class
42
Table 4.5
Homogeneity Test Data in Experimental
and Control Class
Table 4.4
Summary of Calculation Hypothesis Test
for Pretest Ability
Table 4.5
42
43
Summary of Calculation Hypothesis Test
for Post Test Ability
44
Table 4.6
Affective Data In Experimental and Control Class
45
Table 4.7
Psychomotor Data in Experimental and Control Class
46
Table 4.8
Pretest Value, Student’s Learning Activity Value
and Posttest Value
Table 4.9
Table 4.10
47
Grouping of Pretest, Learning Activity
and Posttest Value
51
Tabulation of Students Learning Activity’s Observation
52
x
FIGURE LIST
Figure 2.1
Bloom’s Taxonomy
9
Figure 2.2
Hydrostatic Pressure
18
Figure 2.3
Four Vessel with Different Shapes
Contain The Same Liquid
19
Figure 2.4
Pascal’s Principle Sprayer
20
Figure 2.5
Hydraulic Jack, that Work Based on
Pascal’s Principle
20
Figure 2.6
Archimedes’ Principle
21
Figure 2.7
Floating Body
22
Figure 2.8
Suspending Body
23
Figure 2.9
Sinking Body
23
Figure 3.1
Schema of Research Procedure
29
Figure 4.1
Bar Chart of Pre-test Data in Experiment
and Control Class
Figure 4.2
Bar Chart of Post-Test Data in Experimental
and Control Class
Figure 4.3
46
Chart Bar of Pretest, Learning Activity,
Posttest Category
Figure 4.6
45
Chart of Students’ Psychomotor in Experimental
and Control Class
Figure 4.5
41
Bar Chart of Affective Domain in Experimental
and Control Class
Figure 4.4
40
50
The chart bar of pretes value, learning activities value,
posttes value of experiment class based on lower learning
activity value to the higher learning activity value.
Figure 4.7
The chart bar of pretest, students learning activity,
postest value of experimental class based on lower
53
xi
pretest value to the higher pretest value.
54
Figure 4.8 The chart bar of pretest, students learning activity,
postest value of experimental class based on lower pretest
value group to the higher pretest value group.
55
xiii
APPENDIX LIST
Appendix 1
Lesson Plan 1
61
Appendix 2
Lesson Plan 2
72
Appendix 3
Lesson Plan 3
83
Appendix 4
Student's Worksheet I
96
Appendix 5
Student's Worksheet II
101
Appendix 6
Student's Worksheet III
105
Appendix 7
Lattice of Research Instrument
111
Appendix 8
Cognitive Research Instrument
119
Appendix 9
Pretest and Posttest Data in Experimental Class
124
Appendix 10 Pretest and Posttest Data in Control Class
126
Appendix 11 Calculation of Average Value Deviation Standard
and Variance
128
Appendix 12 The Calculation of Normality of Data
131
Appendix 13 Homogeneity Test
137
Appendix 14 Calculation of Hypothesis Test
140
Appendix 15 Observation Table of Students’ Affective
in Experimental Class
144
Appendix 16 Observation Table of Students’ Affective
in Control Class
146
Appendix 17 Observation Table of Students’ Psychomotor
in Experimental Class
148
Appendix 18 Observation Table of Students’ Psychomotor
in Control Class
150
Appendix 19 Student’s Learning Observation Result
152
Appendix 20 List of Critical Value for Liliefors
158
Appendix 21 List of Percentil Value for Distribution t
159
Appendix 22 Atable of Region Under Norml Curve 0 to z
160
Appendix 23 F Distribution Values
161
Appendix 24 Documentation of Research
163
xiv
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
Education has a very important role to ensure the survival of a nation and
the state, because education can improve and develop the quality of human
resources (HR). In Law Republic Indonesian Number 20 Article 1 of 2003 on
National Education System has determined that: "Education is a conscious and
deliberate effort to create an atmosphere of learning and learning process so that
learners are actively developing their potential to have the spiritual strength of
religious, self-control, personality, intelligence, noble character , as well as the
necessary skills themselves, the community, the nation and the state ". Therefore
education is obliged to prepare a new generation capable of facing the challenges
of the coming age.
Education also plays an important role in nation building, because
education is the foundation of nation building. Success of development in the field
of education will affect development in other field. The development of education
will influence the development of science and technology (science and
technology). This can be seen with the rapid development of science and
technology. All of this, can’t be separated from the progress of physics that
produce a lot of new findings in the field of science and technology. Therefore,
physics is placed as one of important subjects.
Physics as part of Natural Sciences that studies the phenomena and
natural phenomena, is one of the interest subjects and require more understanding
than memorization. When studying physics, students will be introduced to the
materials, concepts, theories, and laws and physics formulas. In addition, students
will also be taught to perform experiments in the laboratory and outside the
laboratory for more understand the physics subject.
2
But in fact, the students feel bored when studying physics, since most
teachers teach by lecture method (conventional learning) and tend to be
monotonous and teachers-centered, which resulted in students becoming passive
and bored when learning physics. Teacher
more emphasis on students to
memorize theories especially the formulas that can be used by students in
answering general tests or national exams, without emphasizing the understanding
and application of concepts in their daily lives. Thus, students will further assume
that the learning physics has no meaning for their life, abstract and hard to
understand.
Similarly in SMA Negeri 3 Medan when doing observations there, by
giving the questionnaire instrument
to the students class X which have 40
respondents and interview the physics teachers, the observation results indicate
that: 44.4% of students stated that learning physics in classroom is difficult to
understand and boring, 33.3% stated that learning physics ordinary, and 22.2%
stated that teaching physics in class is interesting and challenging. Based on the
questionnaire also found that before the physics material taught in class, 10% said
students are studying at home and notes what they don’t understood, 25% said
sometimes learn at home, 35% just look at the topic title, and 30% did not learn
and open physics book (nothing their preparation). Through a questionnaire
instrument is also known that almost all respondents said that the usual way of
teaching by physics teacher is lecturing, note and give the question to do.
From the interviews with 6 physics teachers at the school, said that when
students are taught the theory with the direct instruction in class the students'
interest towards physics lessons are less. Meanwhile, when the students were
taken to the laboratory for experiment it takes a lot time, and laboratorium facility
is also incomplete, so the learning model used is a direct learning with lectures,
notes, do the problems, and sometimes making demonstration. Minimum
competency standart in the school for physics subjects is 75. However, 52.5% of
students do not achieve the minimum competency standart at the end of semester
exams.
3
Therefore, to overcome the low physics student learning outcomes, it is
necessary to use an approach or method or model of learning that can drive the
spirit of each student to be actively involved in the learning experience. One of
the learning model is suitable for that purpose is Problem Based Learning. This
model is chosen because in learning process, the student faced to the really daily
lives problem. So, student able to solve the problem and get the knowledge and
important concept by their selves (L. A. Kharida, A. Rusilowati, K. Pratiknyo,
2009). Problem based learning aims improve students’ ability to work in a team,
showing their coordinated abilities to access information and turn it into viable
knowledge (Ibrahim Bilgin, Erdal Senocak, Mustafa Sozbilir, 2009). Problem
based learning is an effective method for improving students’ problem-solving
skills. Students will make strong connections between concepts when they learn
facts and skills by actively working with information rather than by passively
receiving information (Valerie Ross, 2001).
Problem-based learning model begins by presented a problem to the
learners. The students will search for, collect and process data logically related to
the problems encountered, either through discussion or through guided practice
and facilitated by the teacher,
in this learning model students are expected
actively to find answers or solutions to these problems. The use of problem-based
learning model is expected to improve student learning outcomes. Learning
activities that involve thinking, problem solving, and understanding often have
more positive effects on student achievement than do more traditional teaching
methods Brown & Palincsar (in Arends and Ann Kilcher, 2010).
Based on research conducted by Nurjannah Sitanggang (2012) in MAN 1
Medan in the subject matter of rigid body equilibrium using PBL, obtained an
increase value of pre-test to post-test in the experimental class is 44.29 and 37.68
at controls class. Avolen Berly Siahaan (2013) also conducted a research in SMP
N.1 Tebing Tinggi using PBL in subject matter is light in class VIII, the increase
of the average pretest to posttest value in experiment class is 46.04 and in control
class is 12.9. And the research also conducted by Janiar Satrini Gultom (2013) in
SMA N. 3 Medan for topic static fluid using PBL that conducted in the second
4
class, had the increase of value pretest to posttest in experiment class is 38,95 and
in control class is 35.744. From these studies it can be seen that, there is the effect
between problem based learning model and student learning outcomes.
Based on the explanation above, the researcher want to do a research
with the title “The Effect of Problem Based Learning Model on Student’s
Learning Outcomes in Static Fluid Topic of Class X SMA Negeri 3 Medan
Academic Year 2013/2014”.
1.2. Problem Identification
Based on the background described above, some problems can be
identified as follows:
1. Teaching and learning process in school is still teacher-centered.
2. Learning model still not variated that used by teacher
3. Learning physics is boring and monotonous
4. Low of student’s learning outcomes for physics
5. Students are not actively in learning process.
1.3. Problem Limitation
In order to keep this research become more focused and directed, the
researcher limit the problems as the following:
1. Students that observe are high school students grade X in SMA Negeri 3
Medan Academic Year 2013/2014
2. Learning model used is a problem based learning model on the experimental
class and conventional learning on the control class.
3. The material that will be taught is static fluid topic.
5
1.4. Problem Formulation
The problem formulation of this research are:
1. How does the student’s learning outcomes after teaching use problem based
learning model in Static Fluid topic of Class X SMA Negeri 3 Medan
Academic Year 2013/2014?
2. How does the student’s learning outcomes after teaching use conventional
learning in Static Fluid topic of Class X SMA Negeri 3 Medan Academic
Year 2013/2014?
3. Is the student’s learning outcomes in the Static Fluid topic using problem
based learning model greater than conventional learning?
1.5. Research Objectives
The research objectives as follows:
1. To know the student’s learning outcomes after teaching use problem based
learning model in Static Fluid topic in SMA Negeri 3 Medan Class X
Academic Year 2013/2014?
2. To know the student’s learning outcomes after teaching use conventional
learning in Static Fluid topic in SMA Negeri 3 Medan Class X Academic Year
2013/2014?
3. To know is the student’s learning outcomes in Static Fluid topic using
problem based learning model greater than Conventional Learning in Class X
SMA Negeri 3 Medan, Academic Year 2013/2014.
1.6. Benefits of Research
The expected benefits of this research are:
1. Adding the experience of researchers in improving student’s learning
outcomes based problem based learning model that can be used in the future.
2. Opening teachers thinking conception in developing teaching and learning
model on using problem based learning.
59
REFERENCES
Arends, L., R., (2009), Learning to Teach, Mc.Graw-Hill, New York
Arends, L., R., Kilcher, A., (2010, Teaching for Student Learning
Becoming an Accomplished Teacher, Routledge, New York
Arikunto, S., (2007), Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan, Penerbit Bumi Aksara,
Jakarta.
Bilgin, I., Senocak, E., Sozbilir, M., (2009) The Effects of Problem Based
Learning Instruction on University Students’ Performance of Conceptual and
Quantitative Problems in Gas Concepts, Eurasia Journal of Mathematics,
Science & Technology Education 5: 153-164
Djamarah, S., and Zain, A., (2002), Strategi Belajar Mengajar, Penerbit Rineka
Cipta, Jakarta.
Gultom, J. S. (2013), The Effect Of Problem Based Learning Outcomes In Static
Fluid Topic For Class XI At SMA Negeri 3 Medan Academic Year 2012/2013.,
Skripsi, FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.
Hewitt, P., G., (2006), Conceptual Physics, Tenth Edition, Pearson Addison
Wesley, San Fransisco
Joyce, B., and Weil, M., (1967), Models of Teaching, Prentice/Hall
International, Inc, New Jersey.
Kanginan, M., (2013), Fisika untuk SMA/MA Kelas X, Penerbit Erlangga, Jakarta.
Kharida, L. A., Rusilowati, A., Pratiknyo, K., (2009), Penerapam Model
Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah Untuk Peningkatan Hasil Belajar Siswa Pada
Pokok Bahasan Elastisitas Bahan, Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Indonesia 5: 83-89
Lestari, N.N.S., (2012), Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah
(Problembased Learning) dan Motivasi Belajar Terhadap Prestasi Belajar
Fisika, Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Indonesia
Masek, A., and Yamin, S., (2008), Problem Based Learning: Adapting Model of
Monitoring and Assessment Towards Changing to Student Centered Learning,
Journal of Technical Education and Training
Rusman, (2010), Model-Model Pembelajaran: Mengembangkan Profesionalisme
Guru, Penerbit Rajawali Pers, Jakarta.
60
Ross, V., (2001), Problem-Based Learning, Stanford University Newsletter on
Teaching, CTL Journal Teaching and Learning 11: 1
Sanjaya, W., (2008), Kurikulum Pembelajaran , Penerbit Kencana, Jakarta.
Sardiman, A.M., (2010), Interaksi dan Motivasi Belajar Mengajar, Penerbit
Rajawali Pers, Jakarta.
Siahaan, A.B. (2013), The Effect Of Problem Based Learning Model On Student’s
Achievement At Light Topic In 8 th Grade SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi A.Y
2012/2013., Skripsi, FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.
Sitanggang, N. (2012), Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah
Terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa Pada Materi Pokok Kesetimbangan Benda
Tegar Di Kelas XI MAN 1 Medan., Skripsi, FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.
Slameto, (2003), Belajar Dan Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhinya, Penerbit
Rineka Cipta, Jakarta
Sudjana, (2005), Metoda Statistika, Penerbit Tarsito, Bandung.
Sudjana, (2009), Penilaian Hasil Proses Belajar Mengajar, Penerbit Remaja
Rosdakarya, Bandung.
Sugiyono, (2010), Metode Penelitian Kuantatif Kualitatif Dan R & D, Penerbit
Alfabeta, Bandung.
Trianto, (2010), Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif-Progesif, Penerbit
Prenada Media, Jakarta.
Zaelani, A., Cunayah, C., Irawan, E.I., (2006), 1700 BANK SOAL Bimbingan
Pemantapan FISIKA untuk SMA/MA, Penerbit Yrama Widya, Bandung
UPI(2008),http://file.upi.edu/Direktori/FPMIPA/JUR._PEND._FISIKA/IKA_M
TIKA_SARI/EVALUASI_PENDIDIKAN/BAHAN_AJAR_%28MINGGU_K
3%29_TAKSONOMI_BLOOM.pdf
ON STUDENT’S LEARNING OUTCOMES IN
STATIC FLUID TOPIC OF CLASS X
SMA NEGERI 3 MEDAN
ACADEMIC YEAR 2013/2014
By:
Evi Kamelia Simanjuntak
Reg. Number 4103322003
Bilingual Physics Education Program
THESIS
Submitted to Acquires Eligible Sarjana Pendidikan
PHYSICS DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2014
iii
THE EFFECT OF PROBLEM BASED LEARNING MODEL ON STUDENT’S
LEARNING OUTCOMES IN STATIC FLUID TOPIC OF CLASS X SMA
NEGERI 3 MEDAN ACADEMIC YEAR 2013/2014
Evi Kamelia Simanjuntak (Reg. Number 4103322003)
ABSTRACT
The aim of this research was to know the the effect of the problem based
learning model on student’s learning outcomes in static fluids topic.The research
method was quasi experiment. The population were all of students in class X MIA
semester II SMA N. 3 Medan, that consist of 14 classes. The sample of this research
was taken by cluster random sampling technique, class X MIA-4 was experimental
class used problem based learning model that consist of 38 students, and class X
MIA-5 as control class used conventional learning, consist 40 students. Instruments
that used in this research were multiple choose test instrument and psychomotor and
affective observation sheet. The data was got from the test was analyzed by statistical
analysis t-test. Based on observation result by using affective and psychomotor
observation sheet of students shown that there was significant increasing on
experimental class. So, can be conclude that the student’s learning outcomes using
problem based learning model greater than conventional learning on static fluid topic
of class X SMA N.3 Medan academic year 2013/2014.
vi
CONTENTS
Agreement Sheet
i
Biography
ii
Abstract
iii
Preface
iv
Contents
vi
Figure List
x
Table List
xii
Appendix List
xiii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1
1.2 Problem Identification
4
1.3 Problem Limitation
4
1.4 Problem Formulation
5
1.5 Research Objectives
5
1.6 Benefit of Research
5
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Understanding of Learning
6
2.2 Learning Purposes
7
2.3 Learning Outcomes
7
2.3.1 Cognitive Domain
8
2.3.2 Affective Domain
9
2.3.3 Psychomotor Domain
10
2.4 Learning Model
11
2.4.1 Understanding of Learning Model
11
2.4.2 Conventional Learning
12
2.4.3 Problem Based Learning Model
12
2.4.3.1 Special Features of Problem Based Learning
14
2.4.3.2 Syntax for Problem Based Learning
15
vii
2.5 Static Fluid
16
2.5.1 Density
16
2.5.2 Hydrostatic
Pressure
17
2.5.3 Hydrostatic Paradoxical
19
2.5.4 Pascal’s Principle
19
2.5.5 Archimedes’ Principle
21
2.5.5.1 Floating
22
2.5.5.2 Suspending
22
2.5.5.3 Sinking
23
2.6 Conceptual Framework
24
2.7 Research Hypothesis
25
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
3.1 Research Location and Research Time
26
3.1.1 Research Location
26
3.1.2 Research Time
26
3.2 Research Population and Research Sample
26
3.2.1 Research Population
26
3.2.2 Research Sample
26
3.3 Research Variable
27
3.3.1 Independent Variable
27
3.3.2 Dependent Variable
27
3.4 Research Type and Research Design
27
3.4.1 Research Type
27
3.4.2 Research Design
27
3.5 Research Procedure
28
3.6 Research Instrument
29
3.6.1 Instrument of Student's Learning Outcomes
of Cognitive Domain
29
3.6.2 Instrument of Student’s Learning Outcomes
of Affective Domain
31
viii
3.6.3 Instrument of Student’s Learning Outcomes
of Psychomotor Domain
32
3.6.4 Instrument of Student’s Learning Activity
33
3.6.5 Validity Test
34
3.7 Data Analysis Techniques
34
3.7.1 Determine Average Value
34
3.7.2 Determine The Deviation Standard
35
3.7.3 Determine the Homogenity Test
35
3.7.4 Normality Test
36
3.7.5 Hypothesis Test
36
3.7.5.1 Pre-test Ability Test (Two Tail Test)
36
3.7.5.2 Post-test Ability Test
38
CHAPTER IV RESULT OF RESEARCH AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Result of Research
39
4.1.1 Students’ Learning Outcomes in Cognitive Domain
39
4.1.1.1 Pretest Data in Experimental and Control Class
39
4.1.1.2. Posttest Data in Experimental and Control Class
40
4.1.1.3. Data Analysis Test
41
4.1.1.4. Average Value, Deviation Standard and Variant
41
4.1.1.5. Normality Test
42
4.1.1.6. Homogeneity Test
42
4.1.1.7. Hypothesis Test
43
4.1.1.7.1. Hypothesis Test for Pretest Ability
43
4.1.1.7.2. Hypothesis Test for Posttest Ability
43
4.1.2 Student’s Learning Outcomes in Affective Domain
44
4.1.3 Student’s Learning Outcomes in Psychomotor Domain
46
4.1.4 Student’s Learning Activity
47
4.2 Discussion
48
ix
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
57
5.2 Suggestion
58
REFERENCES
59
xii
TABLE LIST
Table 2.1
Syntax of Problem Based Learning Model
According to Arends
Table 2.2
15
Syntax of Problem Based Learning Model
according to Ibrahim and Nur
15
Table 2.3
Density of Substances
17
Table 3.1
Design of Research
27
Table 3.2
The Specification Learning Outcomes Test
(Cognitive Domain)
30
Table 3.3
Rubric of Affective Assessment
31
Table 3.4
Criteria Assessment of Student’s Affective Domain
32
Table 3.5
Rubric of Psychomotor Assessment
32
Table 3.6
Criteria Assessment of Student’s Psychomotor Domain
33
Table 3.7
Rubric of Student’s Learning Activity Assessment
33
Table 3.8
Criteria Assessment of Student’s Learning Activity
34
Table 4.1
Average Value, Deviation Standard and Variant
41
Table 4.2
Normality Test Data in Experimental and Control Class
42
Table 4.5
Homogeneity Test Data in Experimental
and Control Class
Table 4.4
Summary of Calculation Hypothesis Test
for Pretest Ability
Table 4.5
42
43
Summary of Calculation Hypothesis Test
for Post Test Ability
44
Table 4.6
Affective Data In Experimental and Control Class
45
Table 4.7
Psychomotor Data in Experimental and Control Class
46
Table 4.8
Pretest Value, Student’s Learning Activity Value
and Posttest Value
Table 4.9
Table 4.10
47
Grouping of Pretest, Learning Activity
and Posttest Value
51
Tabulation of Students Learning Activity’s Observation
52
x
FIGURE LIST
Figure 2.1
Bloom’s Taxonomy
9
Figure 2.2
Hydrostatic Pressure
18
Figure 2.3
Four Vessel with Different Shapes
Contain The Same Liquid
19
Figure 2.4
Pascal’s Principle Sprayer
20
Figure 2.5
Hydraulic Jack, that Work Based on
Pascal’s Principle
20
Figure 2.6
Archimedes’ Principle
21
Figure 2.7
Floating Body
22
Figure 2.8
Suspending Body
23
Figure 2.9
Sinking Body
23
Figure 3.1
Schema of Research Procedure
29
Figure 4.1
Bar Chart of Pre-test Data in Experiment
and Control Class
Figure 4.2
Bar Chart of Post-Test Data in Experimental
and Control Class
Figure 4.3
46
Chart Bar of Pretest, Learning Activity,
Posttest Category
Figure 4.6
45
Chart of Students’ Psychomotor in Experimental
and Control Class
Figure 4.5
41
Bar Chart of Affective Domain in Experimental
and Control Class
Figure 4.4
40
50
The chart bar of pretes value, learning activities value,
posttes value of experiment class based on lower learning
activity value to the higher learning activity value.
Figure 4.7
The chart bar of pretest, students learning activity,
postest value of experimental class based on lower
53
xi
pretest value to the higher pretest value.
54
Figure 4.8 The chart bar of pretest, students learning activity,
postest value of experimental class based on lower pretest
value group to the higher pretest value group.
55
xiii
APPENDIX LIST
Appendix 1
Lesson Plan 1
61
Appendix 2
Lesson Plan 2
72
Appendix 3
Lesson Plan 3
83
Appendix 4
Student's Worksheet I
96
Appendix 5
Student's Worksheet II
101
Appendix 6
Student's Worksheet III
105
Appendix 7
Lattice of Research Instrument
111
Appendix 8
Cognitive Research Instrument
119
Appendix 9
Pretest and Posttest Data in Experimental Class
124
Appendix 10 Pretest and Posttest Data in Control Class
126
Appendix 11 Calculation of Average Value Deviation Standard
and Variance
128
Appendix 12 The Calculation of Normality of Data
131
Appendix 13 Homogeneity Test
137
Appendix 14 Calculation of Hypothesis Test
140
Appendix 15 Observation Table of Students’ Affective
in Experimental Class
144
Appendix 16 Observation Table of Students’ Affective
in Control Class
146
Appendix 17 Observation Table of Students’ Psychomotor
in Experimental Class
148
Appendix 18 Observation Table of Students’ Psychomotor
in Control Class
150
Appendix 19 Student’s Learning Observation Result
152
Appendix 20 List of Critical Value for Liliefors
158
Appendix 21 List of Percentil Value for Distribution t
159
Appendix 22 Atable of Region Under Norml Curve 0 to z
160
Appendix 23 F Distribution Values
161
Appendix 24 Documentation of Research
163
xiv
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
Education has a very important role to ensure the survival of a nation and
the state, because education can improve and develop the quality of human
resources (HR). In Law Republic Indonesian Number 20 Article 1 of 2003 on
National Education System has determined that: "Education is a conscious and
deliberate effort to create an atmosphere of learning and learning process so that
learners are actively developing their potential to have the spiritual strength of
religious, self-control, personality, intelligence, noble character , as well as the
necessary skills themselves, the community, the nation and the state ". Therefore
education is obliged to prepare a new generation capable of facing the challenges
of the coming age.
Education also plays an important role in nation building, because
education is the foundation of nation building. Success of development in the field
of education will affect development in other field. The development of education
will influence the development of science and technology (science and
technology). This can be seen with the rapid development of science and
technology. All of this, can’t be separated from the progress of physics that
produce a lot of new findings in the field of science and technology. Therefore,
physics is placed as one of important subjects.
Physics as part of Natural Sciences that studies the phenomena and
natural phenomena, is one of the interest subjects and require more understanding
than memorization. When studying physics, students will be introduced to the
materials, concepts, theories, and laws and physics formulas. In addition, students
will also be taught to perform experiments in the laboratory and outside the
laboratory for more understand the physics subject.
2
But in fact, the students feel bored when studying physics, since most
teachers teach by lecture method (conventional learning) and tend to be
monotonous and teachers-centered, which resulted in students becoming passive
and bored when learning physics. Teacher
more emphasis on students to
memorize theories especially the formulas that can be used by students in
answering general tests or national exams, without emphasizing the understanding
and application of concepts in their daily lives. Thus, students will further assume
that the learning physics has no meaning for their life, abstract and hard to
understand.
Similarly in SMA Negeri 3 Medan when doing observations there, by
giving the questionnaire instrument
to the students class X which have 40
respondents and interview the physics teachers, the observation results indicate
that: 44.4% of students stated that learning physics in classroom is difficult to
understand and boring, 33.3% stated that learning physics ordinary, and 22.2%
stated that teaching physics in class is interesting and challenging. Based on the
questionnaire also found that before the physics material taught in class, 10% said
students are studying at home and notes what they don’t understood, 25% said
sometimes learn at home, 35% just look at the topic title, and 30% did not learn
and open physics book (nothing their preparation). Through a questionnaire
instrument is also known that almost all respondents said that the usual way of
teaching by physics teacher is lecturing, note and give the question to do.
From the interviews with 6 physics teachers at the school, said that when
students are taught the theory with the direct instruction in class the students'
interest towards physics lessons are less. Meanwhile, when the students were
taken to the laboratory for experiment it takes a lot time, and laboratorium facility
is also incomplete, so the learning model used is a direct learning with lectures,
notes, do the problems, and sometimes making demonstration. Minimum
competency standart in the school for physics subjects is 75. However, 52.5% of
students do not achieve the minimum competency standart at the end of semester
exams.
3
Therefore, to overcome the low physics student learning outcomes, it is
necessary to use an approach or method or model of learning that can drive the
spirit of each student to be actively involved in the learning experience. One of
the learning model is suitable for that purpose is Problem Based Learning. This
model is chosen because in learning process, the student faced to the really daily
lives problem. So, student able to solve the problem and get the knowledge and
important concept by their selves (L. A. Kharida, A. Rusilowati, K. Pratiknyo,
2009). Problem based learning aims improve students’ ability to work in a team,
showing their coordinated abilities to access information and turn it into viable
knowledge (Ibrahim Bilgin, Erdal Senocak, Mustafa Sozbilir, 2009). Problem
based learning is an effective method for improving students’ problem-solving
skills. Students will make strong connections between concepts when they learn
facts and skills by actively working with information rather than by passively
receiving information (Valerie Ross, 2001).
Problem-based learning model begins by presented a problem to the
learners. The students will search for, collect and process data logically related to
the problems encountered, either through discussion or through guided practice
and facilitated by the teacher,
in this learning model students are expected
actively to find answers or solutions to these problems. The use of problem-based
learning model is expected to improve student learning outcomes. Learning
activities that involve thinking, problem solving, and understanding often have
more positive effects on student achievement than do more traditional teaching
methods Brown & Palincsar (in Arends and Ann Kilcher, 2010).
Based on research conducted by Nurjannah Sitanggang (2012) in MAN 1
Medan in the subject matter of rigid body equilibrium using PBL, obtained an
increase value of pre-test to post-test in the experimental class is 44.29 and 37.68
at controls class. Avolen Berly Siahaan (2013) also conducted a research in SMP
N.1 Tebing Tinggi using PBL in subject matter is light in class VIII, the increase
of the average pretest to posttest value in experiment class is 46.04 and in control
class is 12.9. And the research also conducted by Janiar Satrini Gultom (2013) in
SMA N. 3 Medan for topic static fluid using PBL that conducted in the second
4
class, had the increase of value pretest to posttest in experiment class is 38,95 and
in control class is 35.744. From these studies it can be seen that, there is the effect
between problem based learning model and student learning outcomes.
Based on the explanation above, the researcher want to do a research
with the title “The Effect of Problem Based Learning Model on Student’s
Learning Outcomes in Static Fluid Topic of Class X SMA Negeri 3 Medan
Academic Year 2013/2014”.
1.2. Problem Identification
Based on the background described above, some problems can be
identified as follows:
1. Teaching and learning process in school is still teacher-centered.
2. Learning model still not variated that used by teacher
3. Learning physics is boring and monotonous
4. Low of student’s learning outcomes for physics
5. Students are not actively in learning process.
1.3. Problem Limitation
In order to keep this research become more focused and directed, the
researcher limit the problems as the following:
1. Students that observe are high school students grade X in SMA Negeri 3
Medan Academic Year 2013/2014
2. Learning model used is a problem based learning model on the experimental
class and conventional learning on the control class.
3. The material that will be taught is static fluid topic.
5
1.4. Problem Formulation
The problem formulation of this research are:
1. How does the student’s learning outcomes after teaching use problem based
learning model in Static Fluid topic of Class X SMA Negeri 3 Medan
Academic Year 2013/2014?
2. How does the student’s learning outcomes after teaching use conventional
learning in Static Fluid topic of Class X SMA Negeri 3 Medan Academic
Year 2013/2014?
3. Is the student’s learning outcomes in the Static Fluid topic using problem
based learning model greater than conventional learning?
1.5. Research Objectives
The research objectives as follows:
1. To know the student’s learning outcomes after teaching use problem based
learning model in Static Fluid topic in SMA Negeri 3 Medan Class X
Academic Year 2013/2014?
2. To know the student’s learning outcomes after teaching use conventional
learning in Static Fluid topic in SMA Negeri 3 Medan Class X Academic Year
2013/2014?
3. To know is the student’s learning outcomes in Static Fluid topic using
problem based learning model greater than Conventional Learning in Class X
SMA Negeri 3 Medan, Academic Year 2013/2014.
1.6. Benefits of Research
The expected benefits of this research are:
1. Adding the experience of researchers in improving student’s learning
outcomes based problem based learning model that can be used in the future.
2. Opening teachers thinking conception in developing teaching and learning
model on using problem based learning.
59
REFERENCES
Arends, L., R., (2009), Learning to Teach, Mc.Graw-Hill, New York
Arends, L., R., Kilcher, A., (2010, Teaching for Student Learning
Becoming an Accomplished Teacher, Routledge, New York
Arikunto, S., (2007), Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan, Penerbit Bumi Aksara,
Jakarta.
Bilgin, I., Senocak, E., Sozbilir, M., (2009) The Effects of Problem Based
Learning Instruction on University Students’ Performance of Conceptual and
Quantitative Problems in Gas Concepts, Eurasia Journal of Mathematics,
Science & Technology Education 5: 153-164
Djamarah, S., and Zain, A., (2002), Strategi Belajar Mengajar, Penerbit Rineka
Cipta, Jakarta.
Gultom, J. S. (2013), The Effect Of Problem Based Learning Outcomes In Static
Fluid Topic For Class XI At SMA Negeri 3 Medan Academic Year 2012/2013.,
Skripsi, FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.
Hewitt, P., G., (2006), Conceptual Physics, Tenth Edition, Pearson Addison
Wesley, San Fransisco
Joyce, B., and Weil, M., (1967), Models of Teaching, Prentice/Hall
International, Inc, New Jersey.
Kanginan, M., (2013), Fisika untuk SMA/MA Kelas X, Penerbit Erlangga, Jakarta.
Kharida, L. A., Rusilowati, A., Pratiknyo, K., (2009), Penerapam Model
Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah Untuk Peningkatan Hasil Belajar Siswa Pada
Pokok Bahasan Elastisitas Bahan, Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Indonesia 5: 83-89
Lestari, N.N.S., (2012), Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah
(Problembased Learning) dan Motivasi Belajar Terhadap Prestasi Belajar
Fisika, Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Indonesia
Masek, A., and Yamin, S., (2008), Problem Based Learning: Adapting Model of
Monitoring and Assessment Towards Changing to Student Centered Learning,
Journal of Technical Education and Training
Rusman, (2010), Model-Model Pembelajaran: Mengembangkan Profesionalisme
Guru, Penerbit Rajawali Pers, Jakarta.
60
Ross, V., (2001), Problem-Based Learning, Stanford University Newsletter on
Teaching, CTL Journal Teaching and Learning 11: 1
Sanjaya, W., (2008), Kurikulum Pembelajaran , Penerbit Kencana, Jakarta.
Sardiman, A.M., (2010), Interaksi dan Motivasi Belajar Mengajar, Penerbit
Rajawali Pers, Jakarta.
Siahaan, A.B. (2013), The Effect Of Problem Based Learning Model On Student’s
Achievement At Light Topic In 8 th Grade SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi A.Y
2012/2013., Skripsi, FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.
Sitanggang, N. (2012), Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah
Terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa Pada Materi Pokok Kesetimbangan Benda
Tegar Di Kelas XI MAN 1 Medan., Skripsi, FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.
Slameto, (2003), Belajar Dan Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhinya, Penerbit
Rineka Cipta, Jakarta
Sudjana, (2005), Metoda Statistika, Penerbit Tarsito, Bandung.
Sudjana, (2009), Penilaian Hasil Proses Belajar Mengajar, Penerbit Remaja
Rosdakarya, Bandung.
Sugiyono, (2010), Metode Penelitian Kuantatif Kualitatif Dan R & D, Penerbit
Alfabeta, Bandung.
Trianto, (2010), Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif-Progesif, Penerbit
Prenada Media, Jakarta.
Zaelani, A., Cunayah, C., Irawan, E.I., (2006), 1700 BANK SOAL Bimbingan
Pemantapan FISIKA untuk SMA/MA, Penerbit Yrama Widya, Bandung
UPI(2008),http://file.upi.edu/Direktori/FPMIPA/JUR._PEND._FISIKA/IKA_M
TIKA_SARI/EVALUASI_PENDIDIKAN/BAHAN_AJAR_%28MINGGU_K
3%29_TAKSONOMI_BLOOM.pdf