AN EVALUATION OF MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM ON 10TH CLASS AT SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL SUBDISTRICT 3 OF MEDAN WITH KIRK PATRICK APPROACH.

ABSTRACT

Rabukit, An Evaluation Of Mathematics Instructional Program On 10 Th
Class At Senior High School Subdistrict 3 Of Medan With Kirk Patrick
Approach. Thesis: Post graduate, State University ofMedan. 2010.

The purpose of this research is to detennine: ( 1) the higher mastery
level of the teacher's pedagogy competence will make the leaner's; reaction,
learning, behavior, and results be higher too, (2) the higher mastery level of
the teacher's professional competence will make the leaner's; reaction,
learning, behavior, and results be higher too, (3) the higher mastery level of
pedagogy competence and professional competence of the teachers will
make the learner's; reaction, learning, behavior, and results joinly be higher
too.
This research population are teachers of the Senior High school at
Subdistrict 3 of Medan, as many as 14 teachers in mathematics subjects and
the leaners are utilized as population in this research are 258 learners. The
instruments are used to collect data by using the Likert scale questionnaire.
The result of this research shows that professional competence is the
only one that gives significant influence on reaction with canonical load 0.95
and behavior 0.59.

As the implication, in the process of learning or learning
development is not solely dependent on the teacher and the learning process
in schools, but also depends on the learners. Humans are not driven by forces
within, and also not "beaten" by environmental stimuli, but it is a continuous
interaction and feedback from persona] determination and involvement of
parents to educate their children.
Improving the ability of teachers should continue to be developed
through effective training and upgrading so that it will be a positive
motivating factor for improving teachers' perfonnance, particularly in terms
of teacher competence.

AN EVALUATION OF MATHEMATICS
INSTRUCTIONAL PROGR.At"l ON 10 111 CLASS
AT SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL SUBDISTRICT 3 OF
MEDAN WITH KIRK PATRICKAPPROACH

TESIS
Oleh:

RABUKIT

NIM: 0811 8813 0065
Diajukan Guna Memenuhi Salah Satu Syarat
Untuk Memperoleh Gelar Magister Pendidlkan
Program Studi Administrasi Pendidikan

PRO GRAl\'1 STUDI ADMINISTRASI PENDIDIKAN
PROGRAM PASCA SARJANA
UNIVERSJTAS NEGERI MEDAN

MEDAN
2010

THESIS
AN EVALUATION OF MATHEMATICS
INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM ON 10 To CLASS
AT SENIOR IDGH SCHOOL SUBDISTRICT 3 OF
MEDAN WITH KIRK PATRICK APPROACH
P repared and submitted by:
RABUKIT
SRN: 0811 8813 0065

Has been maintained in Front of Thesis Examination Committee
On September, 20Th 2010 And Expressed Past Meet
One of Terms For Getting Master Of Education
Educational Administration Study Program
Medan, September, 20111 2010
Approve:
Advisory Team

First Advisor

~

Second advisor

>

Prof. Dr. H.fyaiful Sagala. M.Pd
NIP : 1958 0509 198611 1 001
Know:

The Chief of Educational
Administration Study Program

~-

-

Prof. Dr. H.Syaiful Sagala. M.Pd
NIP: 1958 050919861 1 1 001

Dr. Sumarno, M.Pd
NIP: 19630320 199102 1 001

Approval Of Examiner Council
Educational Master Thesis Examination
No Name

1.

Prof. Dr. H. Syaiful Sagala. M.Pd

NIP: 195805Q9 198611 1001
First Advisor

2.

Dr. Sumamo, M.Pd
NIP: 19630320 199102 1 001
Second advisor

3.

Prof. Dr. Belferik Manullang
NIP: 19471015 1974121 001
Examiner

4.

Dr. Sukarman Purba. M.Pd
NIP: 19620523 198703 1 002

Signature

~

Examiner
5.

Dr. Zulkifli Matondang, M.Si
NIP: 19680713 199303 1 003
Examiner

Student
Nam~
: Rabukit
Student Register Number : 081188130065
Study Program
: Educational Administration
:September. 2011t 201 0
Date of Examination

------

PREFACE

Alhamdulillah writer gratefully turning to Allah SWT, which has
to place science and bestow mercy and guidance so that writer can complete
the course in the Program Administrative Studies Graduate School of
Education, State University of Medan to the completion of this thesis.
This thesis entitled: " An Evaluation Of Mathematics fustructional
Program On 10
With

Kirk

Th

C lass At Senior High School Subdistrict 3 Of Medan

Patrick Approach. On this occasion, the writer expresses

gratitude to Prof. Dr. H. Syaiful Sagala, M.Pd and Dr. Sumarno, M. Pd. as
advisors who have given guidance and suggestions to the writer since the
beginning of the research until the completion of this thesis. Thanks are also
extended to the staffs of Educational Administration Postgraduate State
University of Medan which also have given some suggestions for this thesis
development.
Especially thankgivings to my beloved wife and children: Aifa
Attaillah, Chairun Arrasyid and Fadli Alghani. Thanks advance to my dear
brother Safrijal kind, honest and intelligent who has a lot of help and give
input and suggestions as well, so the writer continue to be motivated to
complete the writing of this thesis.
Thanks goes to the Chief of the Senior High School at Subdistrict 3
of Medan and members who have helped and given pennission to the writer
to make a research in their respective schools.
The writer has been working as closely as possible in the
completion of this thesis, but the writer realizes there are still many
weaknesses in terms of both content and grammar, the writer needs some

11

suggestions and constructive criticism from the readers for the sake of the
thesis perfection. Presumably the contents of this thesis is useful to enrich
educational science.
Medan, September 201 0
Writer

Jl:::

Rabukit

SRl
CHAPTER ll

X

INTRODUCTION
A. Problem Background ............................................

I

B. Problem Identification

9

C. Problem Limitation ............................................... . 10
D. Problem Formulation ............................................. 10
E . Research Objective ................................................ 11
F. Benefit Research ........ ... ..... .. ............. .. .... ... .... ... .. ... 11

RESEARCH THEORETICAL, RELEVANT
RESEARCH, TillNKING FRAMEWORK
AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS ............................ . 13
A. Theoretical Studies ................................................

13

1. Learning Essence ... ...... ...... ........................... ... 21
2. Quality Learning ·············································· 27

3. Factors of affecting the Learning Quality ......... 28

4. Program Evaluation ......................................... 31
5. Evaluation of Decision Theory ......................... 33

iv

6. Evaluation Models -·-····-·····························-·····

34

7. Essence of Pedagogy Competence

38

8. Essence of Pedagogy Competence

39

9. Kirk Patrick Evaluation Model ·············-·····-····· 42

B. Relevant Research

49

C. Thinking Framework ····-····-·-············--··········-······· 53

1. Pedagogy Competence Influence On
Reaction............................................................ 53

2. Pedagogy Competence Influence On
Learning_··-········-······-········································ 54
3. Pedagogy Competence Influence On
Behavior............................................................ 54

4. Pedagogy Competence Influence On
Resu It_ ..................................................... _......... 54

5. Professional Competence Influence On

-z
?

Reaction............................................................ 55

6. Professional Competence Influence On
Learn.m&........................................................... 55

7. Professional Competence Influence On

m
CHAPTER ill

Behavior............ --··········-·-············-···-······-··-····· 55
8. Professional Competence Influence On
Result···-······-···-······-·-···--·-···-············-··-···-······-· 56
D. Research Hypothesis............................................... 56
Research Method····-···-··············-···-·············-·····-······-·· 58
A. Research Design······-···-·····-····-·-·····--······-·····--·····-·· 58

v

I. Type and Research Approach··--------------------------- 58
2. Research Venue_________________________________________________ 58
B. Operasional Defenitions of Research Variables_______ 58
I. Pedagogy Competence_______________________________________ 58

2. Professional Competence___________________________________ 59
3. Reaction

60

4. Learning____________________________________________________________ 60
60
60

C. Population and Research Sample---------------------------- 61
D. Determining of Sample Size----------------------------------- 6 I
E. Indicators of Research Variabie ------------------------------ 62
F. Technique of Instruments Quality Determination____ 64
G. Data Collection Technique______________________________________ 67

H. Data Analysis Technique________________________________________ 67
CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH RESULT AND DISCUSSION

74

A. Overview of Research Subject_______________________________ 74
B. Description of Research Result_____________________________ 74

1. Pedagogy Competence_______________________________________ 74
2. Professional Competence___________________________________ 76

3. Reaction____ ------------------------_________________--------------- 78
4. Learning____________________________________________________________ 80

5. Behavior____________________________________________________________ 83

86
C. Assumption Test_____________________________________________________ 87
1. Normality Test___________________________________________________ 88

Vl

2. Linearity Relation.............................................. 89
3. MuJticolinearity_________________________________________________ 90
D. Hypothesis Testing................................................. 91
I. The First to the Fourth Hypothesis..................... 91

2. Hypothesis Testing by Manova.......................... 93
3. The Fifth to Eighth Hypothesis.......................... 96
4. Hypothesis Testing by Manova.......................... 97
5. The Ninth Hypothesis......................................... tOO
E. Discussion................................................................ 113
F. Limitation................................................................. l17
CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION

AND SUGGESTION ................................................... 118
A. CONCLUSION ....................................................... l18

B. IMPLICATION....................................................... l19
C. SUGGESTION........................................................ ll9

REFERENCES....................................................................................... 121

Vll

LIST OF TABLES

Page
TABLE 1.1. The Average Score of The National Examination on
The High School ofNorth Sumatera Province_________________ 6
TABLE 2. 1. The Grid Instruments ofProfessional Competence .......... 63
TABEL 3. 1. The Grid Instruments of.Lem:ter's Response ···········----·- --- 64
TABLE 4.1. The Frequency Distribution of Pedagogy Competence
Score .............. ···-----·-·-·········-·-·-----................................... 75
TABLE 4.2. The Frequency Distribution of Professional Competence
Score................................................................................ 77
TABLE 4.3. TheFrequency Distribution of Reaction Score................... 79
TABLE 4.4. The Frequency Distribution of Learning Score................. 81
TABLE 4.5. The Frequency Distribution of Behavior Score................ 84
TABLE 4.6. The Frequency Distribution of Scores Result.................... 86
TABLE 4.7. The Normality Result Test................................................ 88
TABLE 4.8. The Summary of Linearity Result Test............................ 90
TABLE 4.9. The Multicolinearity Result Test....................................... 91
TABLE 4.10. The Levene Equal ofVariance Result Test...................... 92
TABLE 4.11. 1lle Multivariate Result Test of Pedagogy Competence..... 94
TABLE 4.12. The Tests of Between-Subjects Effects............................. 95
T ABEL 4.13. The Result of Levene's Test ofEquality··-·-----·-·--------·--··--· 97
TABLE 4.14. The Result of Multivariate Test of Professional
Competence...................................................................... 98
TABEL 4.15. The Test of Between-Subject Effects................................ 99
TABLE 4.16. The Normality Test Result................................................ 102

Vlll

TABLE 4.17. The Multicolinearity Test Result....................................... 107
TABLE 4.18. The Significance Test Result of Multivariate
cannonical correlation analysis ........................................ 108
TABEL 4.19. The Measurement Of Overall Fit Model On Canonical
Correlation Analysis......................................................... 109
TABLE 4.20. The Eigenvalues and cannonical correlation...................... 109
TABLE 4.21. The Cannonical Weight oflndependent Variable.............. llO
TABEL 4.22. The Cannonical Weight of Dependent Variable................ lll

-z
?

m

IX

LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Figure 3.1. The Model analyzed by Manova analysis............................ 68
Figure 3 .2. The research analyzed by Cannonical Correlation................ 69
Figure 4.1. The Frequency Distribution of Pedagogy Competence
Score................................................................................... 75
Figure 4.2. The Frequency Distribution of Professional Competence
Score__ ... __. ______ . __.... ____ .. __.. _._ ........... __ . ______... _....... _... ________. ____. 78
Figure 4 .3. The Frequency Distribution of Reaction
Score.... _.............................. ____.......... _..................... ______ ..... _ 80
Figure 4.4. The Frequency D istribution of Learning
Score_. ______... __ ............ __ .. _.. _____ ._. ____ ._. ___ ._..... _._._ ... _______ .. ____... _. 82
Figure 4.5. The Frequency Distribution ·ofBehavior
Score______ ._... __ .. __..___ .. __ ... _______. _.. _____......... _...... _. ___ ________ .. _. _. _.. 85
Figure 4.6. The Frequency Distribution of Result
Score................................................................................... 87
Figure 4.7. The Test result of Reaction Heteroscadasticity .................... 103
Figure 4.8. The Test result of Learning Heteroscadasticity ................... 104
Figure 4.9. The Test result of Behavior Heteroscadasticity ................... 105
Figure 4.10. The Test result of Result Heteroscadasticity ....................... 105
Figure 4.11. The Cannonical Correlation Model ..................................... 112

X

LIST OF APPENDIXES

Page
Appendix 1.

Angket Penelitian.........................................................

129

Appendix 2.

Instruments Data of Each Variables..............................

155

Appendix 3

R e~ch

Appendix 4.

Normality Test That is Processed by SPSS Output

Data

200

Nonnality on Reaction, Learning, Behavior and Result

204
Appendix 5.

SPSS Output of Normality Tesy ................................ 205

Appendix 6.

SPSS Output Through Heteroscadasticity............. ........ 208

Appendix 7.

SPSS Output ofMulticolinearity Test........................... 212

Appendix 8.

SPSS Output of the Independent Variable Test
Through Manova ...... ............................. ....................

Appendix 9.

2 13

SPSS Output of Cannonical Analysis........................... 216

xi

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCfiON

A. Problem Background
The education problems in Indonesia are still around the low quality
in; relevance, efficiency, productivity and effectiveness. The reason is; (1)
the educator availability and educational staffs who are not yet sufficient in
quantity and quality, (2) educator walfare that is not adequate yet, (3) laking
infrastructure and has not been optimally utilized, (4) education cost is not
yet sufficient to support learning quality. The one of problem root is the
educational staffs in low quality (Renstra Depdiknas 2005 dalam Gultom.
2007).
The Indonesia education quality is so poor. It is evidenced among
others by UNESCO data (2000) in Human Development Index ranking
(Human Development Index), which is the composition of the ranking
educational atinme
n~

health, and income per head is shown that Indonesia

human development index decline. Among 174 countries around the world
Indonesia ranks number is 102 tb (1996), 99th ( 1997), to-105
109

tb (

tb

(1998) and

1999). The Survey of Political and Economic Risk Consultants

(PERC) the quality of education in Indonesia is in ranked 12

tb

of 12

countries in Asia. Indonesia's position is under Vietnamese. The data which
is reported by the World Economic Forum in Sweden (2000), Indonesia has
a low competitiveness, which ranked is only 37th of 57 countries surveyed
in the world. And still According to a survey in the same institution in
Indonesia only as a predicate as the follower rather than technology leaders

1

from 53 countries worldwide http: //www.idonbiu.com /2009 /10 /latarbelakang-masalab-pendidikan.btml.
The Indonesia low education quality is also shown by the research
and Development Center data (2003) that is out of 146.052 elementary
schools in Indonesia turned out to be only eight schools that are received by
world recognition in the category of The Primary Years Programme (PYP).
From 20.918 high schools in Indonesia are a lso only eight schools that are
received by world recognition in the category of The Middle Years
Programme (MYP) and the 8.036 High School are turned out to be only
seven schools that are received by world recognition in the category of the
Diploma Programme (DP).
The education quality in Indonesia is considered by many opinions
are stilllow.lt can be seen from the several indicators as follows:
Schools graduates or universities that are not ready to enter the working
world cause lacking of competence. According to economic analysts
Berry Priyono skills that is supplied and obtained from education
institutions is not sufficient to be used independently, because what is
taught in educational institutions is often j ust focused on theory
therefore learners are less innovative and creative;
Indonesia Human Development Index (HDI) is still low and it's rankin!
is the position 111 th of 117 lh countries in 2004 and 111 th of 117
countries in 2005 but Vietnam's ranking is 1101h.
The report of International Educational Achievement (lEA) that the
Indonesia's leaners reading ability of elementary school is in the
ranking position of 38th out of 39 countries surveyed;
Academic quality among countries through the Programme for
International Leaner Assessment (PWASA) in 2003 shows that 41
countries surveyed for the field of Natural Sciences, Indonesia is
ranked 38fjJ. While for the field of mathematics and reading ability is
ranked 39th when compared with South Korea, the ranked is so far, to
the field of Natural Science the ranked is 87th; , reading rating and
Mathematics is the ranked 7!h;

2

5.
6.

7.

World Competitiveness Year book Report 2000, Indonesia's
competitiveness in the Human Resources is located at the position 46
tb of 47lh countries surveyed;
Indonesia Higher Education position which are considered as favorite,
such as the University of Indonesia and Gadjah Mada University are in
the position 61 tb and 68 lh of 77th Higher Education in Asia (Asia
Week, 2000); and
Indonesia is lagging in the field of Science and Technology compared
to
countries
like
Malaysia,
Singapore,
and
Thailand
http://arisonOO l.wordpress.com
I
2009/0 111 2/guru-dan-tantanganglobalisasi.
The poor quality indicators in Indonesia's education are over more

concerned with the data of Youth Ministry and Sport which states that as
many as 37.06 percent of the Indonesia youth just graduated of elementary
school. From 217 million Indonesia population are estimated to total 97
million young people. It is assumed to be young people aged 15-35 years.
Under these conditions is difficult to expect them to become social change
agents, as expected by widely society (Media Indonesia, October 4, 2009).
Regarding to teacher's condition as curriculum implementers, Fatah
(Harlan Umum Pikiran Rakyat, edisi 15 Desember 2005) gives the following
p icture: most teachers in Indonesia are not worth teaching. For elementary
school teachers who are not eligible to teach as many as 605.217 people

(49.3%), Junior High School 167.643 people (35.94'/o), High School 75 684
people (32.911/o), Vocational High School 63.961 people (43,3%). With
regard to the teachers suitability to teach, 15% of teachers do not t ~h

in

accordance to their expertise. Consequently there is no compatibility
between expertise with the material taught The impact of this fact is
impacted on the education quality.
The serious problem improves the Indonesia education quality is the
low education quality at various education levels both fonnal and informal

3

education. The low education quality may hinder the human resources
provision who has the expertise and skills to meet the nation development in
various fields. The cause of Indonesia education low quality among others is
a matter of effectiveness, efficiency and standardization of teaching. It is
still education general problem in Indonesia The special problems in
education are: (1) low physical facilities, (2) the low quality of teachers (3)
the low welfare of teachers, (4) the low leaner achievement, (5) The low
distribution of educational opportunities, (6) The low educational relevance
needs, and (7) the high cost of education http: //uses.wordpress.com
lkualitas-pendidikan-di-indonesia.
One indicator that makes the education quality poor especially in
mathematics is the reports result of Third International Mathematics and
Science Research {TIMSS) which explains that the average score in eight
levels of mathematics leaners {level II Junior High School in Indonesia) is
far below the average of mathematics learner for International $COres and

mathematics learners ranking is 34lh of 38 lh countries (Suharta, 2004:2).
This occurs as the mathematics lesson is often considered difficult to
understand and most hated.
Mathematics has a characteristic and an abstract object The abstract
nature causes many leaners have difficulties in mathematics. Those
difficulties are evident from the average of mathematics score that are much
lower than other subjects. As national and International mathematics
achievement has not been encouraging yet.
As disclosed by Sujono (1988:81) in his book:" ....... apparently a lot
of people are afraid of mathematics and as far as possible try to avoid the
numbers. " In line with that Ruseffendi (200 1: 15) also fmds that: "The lesson
mathematics and science for children is general an unwelcome lesson if it is

4

not the most hated." They consider mathematics is a difficult lesson,
unpleasant and frightening.

In this case, Andi Hakim also syas "there is a mathematics teacher
who used it to punish the naughty pupil. More woe again, Part of people do
not give mathematics as a positive appreciation. " The assumption and this
condition has not changed up to this time. (Http: I I www.JS.Brinkster.com
/Smun21 /mainshowfull.asp?id:83).
Even the notion of mathematics subject is difficult

seems to be

reinforced increasingly by the emergence of a new regulation from the
government in recent years which is established that the mathematics is one
determinant of whether or not graduate leaners in a graduate education level

that is decided by the government through the Minister of Education
(Permendiknas Nomor. 22 Talmo 2006).
Despite of effort from all aspects pertaining to mathematics
education has been carried 9Ut continuously, but here and there, there are
still barriers and the lack or failure. The most alarming thing that could
instantly see the quaJity of education in mathematics who has not achieved
the expected result. The average value of mathematics leaners at school is
ve.ry low and still far lower than the other subjects value (Kamasih in
Sianipar, 200 l :2).
According to Subennan and Winatapura (1993:120) state that
mathematics is not knowledge that could be perfect solitude for himself, but
mathematics is primarily to assist people in understanding and mastering the
social issues, economy and nature. Then Hutauruk. (2000: 1) states that
mathematics is the one of the top intellectual glory. Besides, as science,
mathematics also provides the

language, process and mathematics

calculation theory that fonn the basis for engineering design. Even the rise

5

and fall of a country depends on the mathematics field progress. Besides,
mathematics also has a very dominant role in educating leaners by the way
to develop the ability to think logically, critically, analytically and
systematically as proposed by several mathematics (Soedjadi, 1999:7).
Table 1.1. The Average Score of 1be National Examination on The High
School ofNorth Sumatera Province.

lila

I

J
J

--

......

~

-..

A _ __ , _ _

-----

..._

y-

~

---

~

'.6'

6.'111

4..11

I.Z9
7,34

'·"
~

1,11

6.'J4

6,93

"'

,_.,.

..,..
.._
"'
U6

7,11

.w..
I,IJ

...,..., =- '-

~

7,96

1,al

,,
,,

7 .~

l,)t

I,'Ill

Sodolov
1JIO
6.16

.
.

"·"
,..

.
.

. ~CJ

.......
~

...,
5.12

f/if

..,,.

~)li

6,10

Soun:e:Education Service of North Sumatc:ra Provmce

The low mathematics learning result is caused of two factors: ( 1)
leaner's internal factors that include failure or psycho-physical inability such
as: intellectual I leaner low intelligence, emotional instability and attitude
also means vision and disorders hearing, (2) External factors such as leaner
self: situation and environmental conditions that do not support, low family
economy, teacher's conditions and learning tools are in low quality, the
naughty friends and the bad building location (
Sh~

2003 : 183).

According to Muljani in Pasaribu (2005:5) suggests that based on
the research in various countries show the factors that affect the educational
result quality significantly include teachers, books, laboratories and
management.
While Rezeki (2004:2) argues, cause of the gradute being low
quality or does not meet expectations viz: (1) lack of good-quality inputs, (2)
teachers' personal and Jess precise, (3) material is not or less suitable, ( 4)

6

teaching method and evaluation system are

inadequate, (5) lack of

supporting infrastructure and (6) lack of appropriate administrative systems.
Hamalik (2001 :57) there are five major components that play a role
of learning process on human elements (leaners' consisting, teachers and
other staff such as laboratory personnel), materials (including: books,
blackboard and chalk. photography, slides and films, audio and audio tapes),
facilities and equipment (consisting of classrooms, audio-visual equipment is
also a computer) and procedures (included: scheduling and informat ion
delivery method, practices, research, exams and so on) that influence each
other in achievement learning goals. Of all these factors the teachers play in
role.
There are three functions that could be played by teachers in
teaching those are as a designer, manager, as an education evaluator,
teachers' ability in understanding the function of the curriculum, principles
o f teaching and learning (Suyanto, 1999: 15). There are still many teachers
who have not mastered in learning process (Wardiman, 1996:23).
There are several factors that cause of teacher does not master in
learning process. Most teachers have difficulties in:
(1 )learning plan include: formulating a comprehensive Specific

Learning Objectives, Speciftc Learning Objectives formulated
referring to the General Learning Objectives and Outlines of the
Principal Learning, considering the time and provided by the
Principal Lines of Learning with materials and so forth; (2)
implementation of learning include: providing a tool/medium of
learning, to encourage leaners to think differently, encouraging

multiditection and so PPIN-Batan Digital Library. (online),
(http://j iptumm/gdl/sl I 2009/trisnawat
The competencies are required by the

teachers to implement

learning (specific mathematics subjects) viz; pedagogy competence,
professional competence, personality competence, and social competence.

7

There is line with the Law of the Republic of Indonesia number 14 year
2005 about the teachers and lecturers, demanding the improvement of
education quality in line with the increased of teacher's professionalism.
Professional teachers must have academic qualification, competence, and
educators' certification.
According to Alma (2008: 17) a professional teacher should have
the capacity or a set of competence capibilities and so should professional
performance. The ability must be owned by the teachers in fulfilling their

primary duty are:
(l)pedagogy competence to manage learning. That includes concept
of teaching and the readiness that is shown by knowledge mastery
and teaching skills, (2) the competence of personality, namely the
ability of stable, mature, dignified, role model and morality, (3)
professional competence is the ability of mastering subject which
matter is widely and depth, as well as teaching method, appropriate
techniques and understood by leaners, easy to grasp, does not cause
difficulties and doubts, (4) social competence is teachers' ability to
communicate and interact effectively with in-out school
environment.
According to Kamars (2005:25) management also consists of being
meaning that there are a series of sequential events. If the tasks in
organization could be done by the people in accordance with the order then
it means that management has functioned.
Experts have different opinions and many kinds of management
functions. Other experts include the functions such as ( 1) planning, (2)
budgetting, (3) staffing, (4) organizing, (5), actuating, (6) superving, (7)
controlling, (8), evaluating

and (9) Communicating.

But out of nine

functions by several experts agree that the function of: ( 1) planning, (2)
actuating I executing and (3) controlling /evaluating are the main functions
that must not be left (Kamars, 2005:26).

8

Controlling is determination whether the plan has been completed
as the performance assessment result by applying the measure of inspection
therefore the performance is in accordance with the plan (in Kamars Terry,
2005:86). Furthermore, Robinson, 2000:443) traditional approach oversees
the actual result of the comparison with the standard. After doing the
activities the leader has to evaluate them to carried out as input for more
detailed monitorings and evaluations tailored to the atmosphere.
This research aims to detennine mathematics learning quality with
Kirkpatrick approach.
B. P roblem Identifiaation
From the result of various theories which are mentioned above
about learning there are many things which contribute to learning. Between
theory and other theories are different in terms of affecting leaner learning.
There is a number of factors that is contributed to learn. These differences
led to a number of questions of following variables: (I) how extent is the
school principal's role to motivate teachers to obtain learning quality?; (2)
how is the influence on teacher's competence on learning quality?; (3) how
are the influence on facilities and infrastructure on learning quality?; (4) how
is the climate role on learning quality?; (5) how is the school committee's
role to provide and support the teachers in implementing the learning? and
(6) how is the influence on self-control on learning quality?.
Evaluation is development of controlling and controlling is one
function of management. In implementation of controlling has to use
instrument. Then it's data must be analyzed. Analysis activity is an
evaluation.

Evaluation

in

administration

conteld

and

educational

management is program evalution therefore learning must be evaluated.

9

One main activity

at school is learning program to determine

it has been implemented correctly in accordance with the

whether

competencies possessed by the teachers and need to be evaluated. Teacher
competencies are (1 ) pedagogy competence, (2) professional competence,
(3) personality competence and ( 4) social competence.
Because of competence field largemeot and researcher limitation,
this research is limited to pedagogy competence and professional
competence.
C. Problem Limitation
This evaluation research is focused on teacher's competence of

mathematics teacher of class X with the Kirkpatrick model approach which
examine teacher's pedagogy competence and professional competence.

D. Problem Formulation
The problem will be investigated in this research. can be formulated
as follows:
1.

How extensive does pedagogy competence influence reaction?

2.

How extensive does pedagogy competence influence learning?

3.

How extensive does pedagogy competence influence behavior?

4.

How extensive does pedagogy competence influence result?

5.

How extensive does professional competence influence reaction?

6.

How extensive does professionalcompetence influence learning?

7.

How extensive does professional competence influence behavior?

8.

How extensive does professional competence influence result?

10

E. Research Objective
This research aim is going to detect:
I.

The Influence of pedagogy competence on reaction, learning, behavior,
and result.

2.

The

Influence

of professional competence on reaction, learning,

behavior, and result.
F. Research Benefit

5

1. Theoretical
a. With obtained the outcome will be described aspects the role of both
teachers'components

(pedagogy

competence

and

professional

competence) in developing, reaction, learning, behavior and result.
Provided the relation between aspects of pedagogy competence and
professional competence on

reaction, learning, behavior, and result

during learning.
b. Develop a repertoire of knowledge about the influence on pedagogy
competence and professional competence on reaction, learning, behavior
and result in accordance with development of the situation and demands
quality.

3. P ractical
a. Having in mind the relation between variables could be used for teacher
training related to pedagogy competence and professional competence.
b. For the information and comparative material; (a) Head of North
Sumatera Province Education Department in formulating policies
regarding to develop teachers' pedagogy competence and professional
competence development therefore will have great influence on reaction,

11

learning, behavior and result, (b) For the school principal as an input to
improve teacher's learning, (c) for observer's repertoire of education
management add the infonnation for

human resources development,

especially in tenns of improving the quality of teacher's pedagogy
competence and professional competence on learning in which impact on
competence quality.

z

?

m
12

CHAPTERV

CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION AND SUGGESTION

A. Conclusion

Based on data and analysis result that have been described above
could be concluded as follows:
I. Pedagogy competence and professional competence of teachers are
simultaneous

influence on mastery reaction and behavior, while for

learning and

result show that there are no significant quantities.

Professional competence has cannonical loading 0.99 on it's canonical
loading variable (reaction) and 0.59 cannonical loading for behavior
variable, while the pedagogy competence has cannonical loading variable
0.19, which means it is not significant. These result indicates the higher
mastery level of professional competence of the teachers makes reaction
and behavior variables higher on High School at Subdistrict 3 ofMedan.
The teachers's higher mastery of pedagogy competence and professiona l
competence on High Schoolat Subdistrict 3 of Medan will make the
mastery on reaction, learning, behavior and result be higher. Viewed
from the significance multivariate tests of the cannonical correlation
analysis shows that pedagogy competence and professional competence
are correlated with the mastery level on reaction, learning, behavior and
result together. Cannonical correlation on reaction is 0.99, learning is
0.09; behaviour is 0 .59 and result is 0 .19. it shows that reaction and
behavior variable have significant cannonical loading.
3. By controlling

pedagogy competence and professional competence

shows that there is no difference between the required mastery level on

118

reaction with the learner's reaction for high school learners at Subdistrict
3 ofMedan.
B. Implication

Based on the conclusions that have been described above, the
following will put forward some implications that are considered relevant to
the research. The following implications are:
1. The learning ability skills that include knowledge and skills attitude or
behavior include in enough category. These components are required as
special attention from teachers and the school improvement.
2. The mastery level of reaction and behavior on the high school learners at
Subdistrict 3 of Medan includes in master category. Reaction and
behavior are probability to give learning as addition task.
3. In the process of learning/learning development is not solely dependent
on the teacher and learning process in sch09ls, but also depends on the

.

learners. men are not driven by forces within, and also not "beaten" by
environmental stimuli, but it is a continuous interaction and feedback
determination through the personal determination and involvement of
parents to educate their child.
C. Suggestion
The submitted suggestions according to the fmdings in this research
are as follows:

1. The educational service chief of Medan City Government and it' s
associated ranks of other mainly in terms of

improving teacher

competence advised to give special attention in this regard: (a) to guide
the teacher's ability in carrying out the duties and responsibilities, (b) to
provide rewards for teachers who are excel in perform the task, (c) the
119

opportunity for the teachers to continue their education at a higher level
and (d) to provide adequate budget for training activities related to the
upgrading of teacher's competence.
2. To Improve the teachers' ability to continue development

through

effective training and upgrading so that it will be a positive motivation
factor for the improvement of teacher performance specifically in terms
of teacher competence.
3. Other researchers, it is suggested following up this research with
different variables that also impact the performance of teachers,
particularly about the teacher's competence.

z
?

m
120

REFERENCES

Abdurrohman, Mulyono. 1999. Pendidikan Bagi Anak Berlcesulitan Be/ajar.

Jakarta: PT. Rineka Cipta.
Ahmad. 2009. Kualitas Pendidikan di Indonesia. http: 1/uses.wordpress.com
lkua

li tas-pendik~o/.

Ambarita, J. 2004.

Diakses 4/11/2009.
Pembelajaran Matematika SMU deogan Pendekatan

PMR. Makalah disajikan dalam seminar nasional dan Workshop
Pendidikan Matematika, FPMIPA UNIMED, 29-30 Agustus
2004.
Anto, S. 2009. Evaluasi Program Pelatihan Model Kirkpatrick. StafSileksi
Pemetaan

dan

Supervisi

LPMP

D.I.

Yogyakarta.

http://vibizconsulting.com/column/indexlmnagement/1671/hr.
Diakses 2412/2010.
Anwar, Q & Sagala, S. 2006. Profesi Jabatan Kependidikan dan Guru

Sebagai Upaya Menjamin Kualitas Pembelajaran.

Jakarta:

Uhamka Press.
Arison.

2009.

Guru

dan

//arisonOO 1.wordpress.com

Tantangan Globalisasi.

http:

/2009/0 I/07/guru-dan-tantangan-

globalisasi/ Diakses 4112/2009.
A.R. 2000, Peningkatan mutu pendidikan Matematika. Makalah
disajikan

pada

seminar

nasional

Peningkatan

kualitas

pendidikan Matematika pada Pendidikan Dasar, Malang: UM
Malang.
Danim, Sudarman. 1995. Pengantar Studi Penelitian Kebijakan. Jakarta;
Bumi Aksara.

121

Daryanto. 2009. Panduan Proses Pembelajaran Kreatif& Inovatif. Teori dan
Praktik dalam Pengembangan Profesionalme Guru. Jakarta: AV
Publisher.
Depdiknas. 2003. Kurikulum 2004 SMA.

Standar Kompetensi Mata

Pelajaran Matematika SMAIMA. Jakarta:Depdiknas.
Dimyati dan Mudjiono. 1999. Belajar dan Pembelajaran. Jakarta: Rineka
Cipta.
Dunn. N, William. 1981 . Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. PrenticeHall. Inc., Englewood Clift, N.J. 07632.
Filsafat Matemaika http: 1/meetabied.wordpress.com /20 10/03/20/teoribelajar-konstruktivisme-vygotsky-dalam-pembelajaranmatematika/diakses 29/4 /2010.
Franciscusti.

2009.

Pengertian

1/franciscusti.b logspot.com

Pembelajaran

.http:

/2008/06/pembelajaran-merupakan

proses.html. Diakses 4/ll/2009.
Gultom, Syawal. 2007. "Sertifikasi Guru: Tantangan bagi Guru Profesional" .

Makalah

Disajikan

dalam

Seminar

Strategi

Pencapaian

Kompetensi dalam Rangka Menghadapi Uji Sertifikasi Profesi
Guru dan Dosen. Unimed, Medan, 14 Juli 2007.
Had i, Y 2009. Kajian Kompetensi Guru Dalam Peningkatan Mutu
Pendidikan.

http:/lyusufhadi.net/wp-

content/uploads/2009/02/sinopsis-kompetensi-guru.pdf.
17/ll/2009.
Hamalik, Oemar. 2004. Psikologi Belajar Mengajar. Bandung: Sinar Baru
Algesindo.
---- - ---------- 200 I. Kurikulum dan Pembelajaran. Jakarta: Bumi

Aksara.

122

Hill, Michael. 1993. The Policy Process. Harvester Wheatsheaf. New York.
London. Toronto. Sydney. Tokyo. Singapore. Printed and bound
in Great Britain by BPC Wheatons Ltd. Exeter.
Hujodo, Hennan. 1988. Mengajar Be1ajar Matematika. Depdikbud, Jakarta.
Hutauruk, Rosidah. 2000...Analisis Kesulitan Guru Mengajar Matematika di
SD pada Kecamatan Sibolga Kabupaten Tapanuli Tengah". Skripsi
tidak. Diterbitkan. Medan. FMIPA Universitas Negeri Medan.
lnstrumen kompetensi pedagogik dikembangkan berdasarkan defenisi
operasional

dengan

mengadopsi

instrumen

yang

telah

dikembangkan. Format Peni1aian Kinetja Guru, 2009.
JR. Robinson. B. Richard. 2000. Strategic Management. Formulation,

Implementation, and Control.

Seven Edition. Business Week

Irwin. McGraw-Hill.
Kamars, Dachnel. 2005. Administrasi Pendidikan. Teori dan Praktek. Edisi
Kedua. Padang: Universitas Putra Indonesia.
Kasim. Azbar. 1995.

Teori Pembuatan Keputusan.

Lembaga Penerbit

Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Indonesia.
Katmiati.

2009.

Guru

Dan

Proses Mengajar-Belajar (Prnb)

Http:

//Katmiati.Biogspot.Corn /2007/05/Guru-Dan-Proses- Mengajar.
Diakses 4/11/2009.
Kirkpatrick, L, Donald. 1994. Evaluating Training Programs. The Four
Levels. Berret-Koebler Publisher. San Fransisco.
Mardapi, D. 2003. Kurilculum 2004 dan Optimalisasi Sistem Evaluasi

Pendidikan di Sekolah. Makalah disajikan dalam Seminar Nasional
Kurikulum 2004 Berbasis Kompetensi, Universitas Ahmad Dahlan,

y ogyakarta.

123

Mudyahardjo. Redja.2001.

Pengantar Pendidikan.

Sebuah Studi Awal

Tentang dasar-Dasar Pendidikan pada Umumnya dan Pendidikan
di Indonesia. Jakarta: RajaGrafindo Persada.
Muhidin, A, S. 2010. http: 1/sambasalim.com /pendidikan lkualitas-prosespembelajaran.html. Diakses 19/03/2010.
Mulyasa, E. 2007. Kurikulum Tingkast Satuan Pendidikan.

Sebuah

Panduan Praktis. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.
- - - - -. 2007. Standar Kompetensi Sertifikasi Guru. Bandung: Remaja
Rosdakarya.
N anim, 2009. Pengertian Guru. http: //umnifkipunisma.blogspot.com
/2009/06/Pengertian.guru.html. D iakses 3/9/2009.
Pasaribu, Delta. 2004. " Hasil Ujian akhir Nasional (UAN) Bidang Studi
Matematika Siswa SMA se-Kota Medan Ditinjau dari Disiplin
Kerja, Kepuasan Kerja dan Keterampilan Mengajar Guru". Tesis
tidak diterbitkan. Medan: Program Pascasarjana. Universifa$
Negeri Medan.
Pemberdayaan Guru,

T enaga Kependidikan

dan Masyarakat dalam

Manajemen Sekolah. Bandung: Alfabeta Bandung.
Purwanto, NgaJim. 2007. Ilmu Pendidikan Teoritis dan Praktis. Band ung:
Remaja Rosdakarya.
Putupanji. 2009. Guru Agung Pendidikan Kejuruan. http: //blog.Uny.ac.id
/putupanjilguru/. Diakses 5/12/2009.
Reynolds, D & Muijs, D . 2008. Effective Teaching. Tepri dan Aplikasi.

Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Rezeki, Robbi. 2004. "Pengaruh Strategi Pembelajaran Kontekstual dan
Kreativitas terbadap Hasil Belajar Matematika Sekolah Lanjutan
Pertama

(SLTP)

Negeri

Kecamatan

Stabat".

Tesis

tidak

124

Diterbitkan. Medan: Program Pascasarjana. Universitas Negeri
Medan.

Rink. J. E. ( 1993). Teaching Physical Education f or Learning. Second
Edition. Toronto: Mosby. http: //blog.Uny.ac.id /putupanji/guru/.
Diakses
/06/2010.
Ruseffendi, E.T. 1989. Pengantar kepada Membantu Guru Mengembangkan
Kompetensinya dalam Pengajaran untuk Meningkatkan CBSA.
Bandung: Tarsito.
Sagala, Syaiful. 2005. Konsep dan Makna Pembelajaran. Untuk membantu
Bandung:

Administrasi Pendidikan Komtemporer. Bandung.

· ~-

- -.

Ke

2009.

Kependidikan.

ma

p~

Profesional Guru dan Tenaga

Pemberdayaan Guru, Tenaga Kependidikan dan

Masyarakat dalam Manajemen Sekolah.

Bandung: Alfabeta

Bandung.
Sanjaya, Wina. 2008. Strategi

Berorientasi Standar Proses
Pembl~a.

Pendidikan. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group.
Sardiman, A.M. 2001. Interaksi & Motivasi Belajar Mengajar. Jakarta:
RajaGrafindo Persada.
Siregar, L, S. 2010. Korelasi Kanonikal: Komputasi dengan menggunakan
SPSS

dan

lnterpretasi

Hasil

Analisis.

ssiregar@staff.gunadarma.ac.id. D iakses 25/4no 10.
Slamet, PH. 2007. "Kompetensi Guru dan Strategi Pencapaiannya". Makalah
Disajikan

dalam

Seminar

NasionaJ

Strategi

Pencapaian

125

Kompetensi dalam Rangka Menghadapi Uji Sertiftkasi Profrsi
Guru dan Dosen. Unimed, Medan, 14 Juli.
Sobur, Alex. 2003. Psikologi Umum dalam Lintasan Sejarah. Bandung:
Pustaka
Setia. http: /lblog.Uny.ac.id /putupanji/guru/. Diakses 511212009.
Soedjadi, R. 1999. Kiat Pendidikan M atematika di Indonesia. Konstatasi
Keadaan Masa Kini Menuju Harapan Masa Depan. Jakarta:
Dirjend. Dlkti.
Soemannan. 2006. Graduate Profiles at Graduation for implementation of
Competence Based-System. http: 1/elearning-for-professionals.com
/mod /resource /view.php?id=8. Diakses 4/J l/2009.
Soetopo, H. 2007. Evaluasi Program Supervisi Peodidikan. Dalam Imron,
A., Burhanuddin, dan Maisyarob (Eds.), Supervisi Pendidikan dan

Pengajaran: Konsep, Pendekatan, dan Penerapan Pembinaan
Profe siona/. Malang: Fakultas Umu Pendidi.kao Universitas Negeri

Malang .
Sugiyono, 2008. Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif Kualitatif dan R&D.
Bandung: Alfa Beta Bandung.
Suharta, I Gusti, Putu & Anglingsari. 2004. Matematika Reatistik: Apa dan
Bagaimana?.

Editorial Jumal

Peodidikan dan

Kebudayaan,

(online}, Edisi 38.
Suberman, Erman & Winataputra, Udin, S. 1993. Strategi Belajar Mengajar
Matematika. Jakarta: Depdikbud Dirjend. Dikdasmen.
Sujono. 1988. Pengajaran Matematika untuk Sekolah Menengah. Jakarta:
Depdikbud.
Sumarno. 2007. Disertasi. Evaluasi Program Pendidikan Sekolab Menengah
Kejuruan Teknologi dan Industri (SMKTI) Kota Bandar Lampung

126

Untuk Perencanaan Strategi Level Mikro. Program Pascasrujana
Universitas Negeri Y ogyakarta.
Susanto, H. http //www. bpkpenabur.or.id /files /2010 /Hal. 6471 % 20
Mengembangkan % 20 Self % 20 regulation.pdf. Diakses
12/4/2010
Susanto.

2009.

http:

ilmiah.um.ac.id/index.php/disertasi/article/view/973.

/lkaryaDiakses

17/11/2009.
Susilo, Joko, Muhammad. 2007. Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan.
Manajemen Pelaksanaan dan Kesiapan Sekolah Menyongsongnya.
Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Syah, Muhibbin. 2003. Psikologi Belajar. Rosdakarya, Bandung.
Syahputra.2009. Latar Belakang Masalah Pendidikan Indonesia.

http:

//www.idonbiu.com/2009/10/latar-belakang-masalahpendidikan.html. Diakses 4/11/2009.

Tim dosen. 2009. Pengantar Dasar-Dasar Pendidikan. Tim Dosen IKIP
Malang.

Malang:

Pencetak Usaha Offset Printing Surabaya

Indonesia.
2009.

Peningkatan

Kualitas

Pendidikan

Indonesia.

http://privace23 .blogspot.com/2009/08/peningkatan-kualitaspendidikan-di.html. Diakses 17 /11/2009.
Trimahanani, Emy. (2009) . Mengukur Keberhasilan Program Pelatihan (2).

Editor Managementfile.com Bentuk EvaJuasi Training.
1/vibizconsulting.com

/column/index/management

http:

/1671/hr.

Diakses 24/2/2010.
Trisnawati. 2009. "Analisis Kesulitan Guru dalam Pembelajaran Matematika
di SMK Kota Malang''. Tesis diterbitkan. PPJN-Batan Digital

127

Library, (online), (http://jiptumm/gdl/sl/2003/trisnawati, Diakses
20 /112010).
Tu' u. Tulus. 2004. Peran Disiplin Pada Perilaku dan Prestasi Siswa.
Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Widiasarana Indonesia

128