PERBEDAAN PRESTASI BELAJAR SISWA DILIHAT DARI THE MODEL PENGAJARAN DAN KEMAMPUAN MATEMATIKA AWAL MAHASISWA PADA SILINDER TOPIK SUB DI KELAS IX SMP NEGERI 1 SIDIKALANG.

(1)

THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENT’S LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT VIEWED OF THE TEACHING MODELS AND STUDENT’S

MATHEMATIC INITIAL ABILITY ON CYLINDERS SUB TOPIC AT IX GRADE SMP NEGERI 1

SIDIKALANG

By:

Karlina M. Bakara 408111070

Mathematics Education Bilingual

THESIS

Of The Requirement for The Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan

MATHEMATICS DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

MEDAN 2012

(2)

(3)

PREFACE

Give thanks to Jesus Christ for His amazing love, blessing and miracles so that writer can finish this thesis. The title of this thesis is “The Difference of Student’s Learning Achievement Viewed from The Teaching Models and Student’s Mathematic Initial Ability on Cylinders Sub Topic at IX Grade SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang”. This thesis was arranged to satisfy the requirement to get the Sarjana Pendidikan of Mathematics and Science Faculty in State University of Medan.

This thesis, writer dedicated for both beloved parents especially, my father Tumbur Bakara and my mother Frosma Manik who give me some motivation, pray and my needs until writer can finish this thesis.

The writer also say thanks a lot to all part who give important help, guidance, and support to finish this thesis. For it, in this chance the writer say thanks a lot sincerely to:

1. Prof. Dr. Ibnu Hajar Damanik, M.Si as the Rector of State University of Medan (UNIMED) and his staffs.

2. Prof. Drs. Motlan, M.Sc., Ph.D as the Dean of FMIPA UNIMED and his college Vice of Dean I, II, and III in UNIMED.

3. Prof. Dr. Mukhtar, M.Pd as the Head of Mathematics Department.

4. Drs. Syafari, M.Pd as the Head of Mathematics Education Study Program. 5. Drs. Yasifati Hia, M.Si as the Secretary of Mathematics Department. 6. Prof. Dr. Herbet Sipahutar, M.Sc as the Coordinator of Bilingual Class. 7. Prof. Dr. Mukhtar, M.Pd as writer’s Academic Supervisor.

(4)

8. Prof. Dian Armanto, M.Pd., M.A., M.Sc., Ph.D as writer’s Thesis Supervisor who has given more guidance and suggestion in finishing this thesis.

9. Prof. Dr. Mukhtar, M.Pd, Dra. Katrina Samosir, M.Pd and Dr. E. Elvis Napitupulu, M.S, who’s the persons responsible for this thesis.

10. All lecturers and staffs/officials who help writer in lecturing process in FMIPA UNIMED.

11. Jemsi Mahulae, S.Pd as the Headmaster of SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang. 12. Hotmedi Purba, S.Pd and Ramly Simbolon, S.Pd as mathematics teacher

in SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang who help the writer in the research activities. 13. My big family, there’re my sisters and my brothers, Junita Bakara, SKM,

Rominta S. Bakara, Dewi Bakara, Tionarta Bakara, Tionarti Bakara, Futri S. Bakara, Sampit Bona Bakara, Siska A. Bakara and youngest brother Franklyin B. Bakara who always give spirit, motivation and support to the writer.

14. All my lovely friends in Bilingual Class Mathematics Education 2008 especially for my friends Mesra EZ. Damanik and Angelina Togatorop who help me so much and always give me motivation. Thank so much my best friends. I miss you so much.

15. Special someone in my life Obi J.A. Malau, SH who always help and give motivation for me. I can’t say anything. You’re the best. I hope you can achieve your best future and be the best for our families. My praying is always for you my dear honey.

(5)

The writer has given a big effort to finish this thesis, and the writer consider that this thesis have so many weakness. For that, the writer needs some suggestions to make this thesis be better. And big wishes, it can be improve our knowledge.

Medan, September , 2012

Writer

Karlina M. Bakara

(6)

The Difference of Student’s Learning Achievement Viewed from The Teaching Models and Student’s Mathematic Initial Ability on Cylinders Sub

Topic at IX Grade SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang Karlina M. Bakara

ABSTRACT

This research aimed to find out whether there’s or no the difference of student’s learning achievement of surface area and volume of cylinders viewed from the teaching models and student’s mathematic initial ability. Population of this research is all students at IX grade RSBI SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang academic year 2012/2013. Research’s samples are taken as many two classes randomly, in which each class consists of 25 students. This research is quasi experiment with design factorial 2 x 2. There are two factors which trial tested namely factor A: teaching models consists of two categories A1 = STAD with Teaching Aids and A2 = Direct Instruction and factor B: student’s mathematic initial ability consists of two categories B1 = High and B2 = Low.

Data that collected in this research is (1) data of student’s initial ability obtained from student’s mathematic final test value when students were on eight grade in second semester academic year 2011/2012 and (2) student’s learning achievement of surface area and volume of cylinders measured by essay test after given treatments.

Hypothesis test is done by using Two Way Analysis of Variance (Two Way ANOVA). The research result shows that on significance level 5% (1) there’s no significant difference of student’s learning achievement of surface area and volume of cylinders between students taught by STAD with teaching aids and Direct Instruction, (2) there’s a significant difference of learning achievement between students have high ability taught by STAD using teaching aids and Direct Instruction and between students have low ability taught by STAD using teaching aids and Direct Instruction and (3) there’s an interaction between model of teaching and student’s initial ability to student’s learning achievement. The result of research suggest that in order to teach surface area and volume of cylinders matter, teacher should care about student’s initial ability in choosing learning model which will be used in learning activity. If the student’s initial ability is low then the learning model should be used is Direct Instruction, but if the student’s initial ability is high then it should be used learning model STAD with teaching aids.

Key words: STAD, Direct Instruction, Student’s Mathematic Initial Ability, Student’s Learning Achievement

(7)

The Difference of Student’s Learning Achievement Viewed from The Teaching Models and Student’s Mathematic Initial Ability on Cylinders Sub

Topic at IX Grade SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang Karlina M. Bakara

ABSTRAK

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui ada tidaknya perbedaan hasil belajar siswa terhadap luas permukaan dan volume tabung bila ditinjau dari model pengajaran dan kemampuan matematika awal siswa. Populasi dari penelitian ini adalah seluruh siswa kelas IX RSBI SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang tahun pelajaran 2012/2013. Sampel penelitian ini diambil sebanyak dua kelas secara random, dimana tiap kelas terdiri dari 25 siswa. Penelitian ini merupakan quasi eksperimen dengan rancangan fakorial 2 x 2. Ada dua faktor yang diujicobakan yaitu faktor A: model pengajaran terdiri dari dua kategori A1 = STAD dengan Alat Peraga dan A2 = Direct Instruction dan faktor B: kemampuan matematika awal siswa terdiri dari dua kategori B1 = Tinggi dan B2 = Rendah.

Data yang dikumpulkan dalam penelitian ini adalah (1) data kemampuan awal siswa yang diperoleh dari nilai tes matematika akhir siswa pada saat duduk di kelas dua semester dua tahun pelajaran 2011/2012 dan (2) hasil belajar luas permukaan dan volume tabung yang diukur dengan tes uraian setelah diberi perlakuan.

Pengujian hipotesis dilakukan dengan menggunakan analisis varians dua arah (Anava Dua Arah). Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa pada taraf signifikansi 5% (1) tidak terdapat perbedaan hasil belajar luas permukaan dan volume tabung secara signifikan antara siswa yang diajar dengan STAD menggunakan bantuan alat peraga dan siswa yang diajar dengan Direct Instruction, (2) terdapat perbedaan hasil belajar secara signifikan antara siswa kelompok kemampuan tinggi yang diajar dengan STAD menggunakan bantuan alat peraga dengan siswa yang diajar dengan Direct Instruction dan juga antara siswa kelompok kemampuan rendah yang diajar dengan STAD menggunakan bantuan alat peraga dengan siswa yang diajar dengan Direct Instruction, dan (3) terdapat interaksi antara model pengajaran dan kemampuan awal siswa terhadap hasil belajar siswa. Dari penelitian ini disarankan agar dalam mengajarkan materi luas permukaan dan volume tabung hendaknya guru mempertimbangkan kemampuan awal siswa dalam memilih model pembelajaran yang akan digunakan dalam pembelajaran. Jika kemampuan awal siswa rendah maka model pembelajaran yang sebaiknya digunakan adalah Direct Instruction, tetapi jika kemampuan awal siswa termasuk kategori tinggi maka sebaiknya digunakan model pembelajaran STAD dengan menggunakan alat peraga.

Kata kunci: STAD, Direct Instruction, Kemampuan Matematika Awal Siswa, Hasil Belajar Siswa

(8)

CONTENTS

Page

Sheet of Agreement i

Curriculum Vitae ii

Abstract iii Preface v Contents viii

List of Figure xi

List of Tables xii

List of Appendix xiii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1. Problem Background 1

1.2. Problems Identification 5

1.3. Problem Restrictions 5 1.4. Problem Formulation 5 1.5. Research Objectives 6 1.6. Benefits of Research 6

1.7. Operational Definition 7

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1.Theoretical Framework 10

2.1.1. Definition and Theory of Learning 10

2.1.1.1. Definition of Learning 10 2.1.1.2. Theory of Learning 11

2.1.1.3. Learning Achievement 12 2.1.1.4. Factors that Affect Learning and Learning Achievement 14 2.1.2. Cooperative Learning 15

2.1.2.1. Definition and Elements of Cooperative Learning 15 2.1.2.2. Difference of Cooperative Learning Group with Usual

(9)

2.1.3. STAD (Student Teams Achievement Division) 19

2.1.4. Direct Instruction 23

2.1.4.1. Principles of Direct Instruction 24 2.1.5. Student’s Mathematic Initial Ability 27

2.1.6. Teaching Aids 29

2.1.7. Student’s Mistake in Solving Mathematic Problems 31 2.1.8. Description of The Subject Material of Surface Area

and Volume of Cylinder 32

2.1.8.1. Definition of Cylinder 32

2.1.8.2. Elements of Cylinder 32

2.1.8.3. Nets of Cylinder 32

2.1.8.4. Area of Cylinder Surface 33

2.1.8.5. Volume of Cylinder 34

2.2. Conceptual Framework 35

2.3. Hypothesis 36

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD

3.1. The Research Place and Time 37

3.2. Population and Sample 37

3.3. Research Variables and Instrument 37

3.4. Type and Design of Research 40

3.5. Techniques of Data Collection 41

3.6. Techniques of Data Analysis 44

CHAPTER IV RESEARCH RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Description of Research Result 49

4.1.1. Initial Data of Experiment and Control Class 49 4.1.2. Final Data of Experiment and Control Class 50

4.2. Test of Requirement Analysis 51

4.2.1. Normality Test 51

(10)

4.2.3. Hypothesis Test 54 4.2.4. Result of Observation Sheet of The Students Activity 56 4.2.5. Student’s Response in Solving The Test 58

4.3. Discussion of Research 59

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1. Conclusion 64

5.2. Suggestion 65

REFERENCES 66

(11)

LIST OF TABLE

Page Table 2.1. The difference of cooperative learning group with usual

learning group 17 Table 2.2. The criteria of the calculation of the team score 21

Table 2.3. The criteria of the awards 22

Table 3.1. Factorial design of 2 x 2 40

Table 3.2. Summary table of ANOVA to test hypothesis 47

Table 3.3. Sum of square (SS) design 47

Table 4.1. Categorization of initial abilities data 49 Table 4.2. Data of individual test in experiment and control class 50 Table 4.3. Summary of data normality test by Liliefors test 51 Table 4.4. Summary of data homogeneity test 52 Table 4.5. Summary of test average of experiment and control class 52

Table 4.6. Mastery statistic list 54

Table 4.7. Summary of calculation results Two Way ANOVA 55 Table 4.8. Result of observation sheet of the students activity 56

(12)

LIST OF FIGURE

Pages Figure 2.1. Direct instruction learning visual concept diagram 25 Figure 2.2. A cylinder with the elements 32

Figure 2.3. Nets of cylinder 33

Figure 2.4. Nets of cylinder with radius r 33

Figure 2.5. A cylinder is a regular prism with a lot of numbers of facets 34

Figure 2.6. Conceptual framework 35

Figure 3.1. Scheme of research procedure 43

Figure 4.1. Graph of student’s learning achievement average 53 Figure 4.2. Graph of Student’s activities level 58

(13)

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1.Problem Background

Along with the rapid development of science and technology nowadays, it also participates and influences the development of education. The progress of science and technology provide a challenge for education to increase the quality and effectiveness of education as a national demand in line with the development of society. This significantly affects the education program and curriculum in schools. Curriculum objectives can be achieved well if the program is clearly and applicably designed. In this case the teachers are required to have proficiency in designing the program and determine instructional strategies that must be adopted. Teachers should be skilled at selecting and using appropriate teaching methods to be applied in an effective learning system.

Mathematics which called the queen of science is subjects that taught from primary to secondary level. But until recently mathematic is regarded as a difficult and boring subject and even scary. This is because the mathematics learning tends to lead to pure mathematics, fast and abstract, lacking attention ability and soul of the students. It makes students have trouble follow math subject, which in turn makes them unhappy about mathematic.

Student’s displeasure to the mathematic is caused by the teacher can’t teach mathematic matter in a professional way. In other words the teacher can’t or less use the methods of mathematic teaching that can foster student interest or motivation to do and learn (Kasiati, 2008). This is also confirmed by Chomaidi in Syahputra (2002:2) stated that:

"Learning strategies to students has been a tendency to be just moving the science course. This strategy should be changed and directed to activities that can stimulate the students creativity in the process of learning - teaching. In this strategy since elementary school and junior high school, students must be conditioned in such a way that they used to discover, explore, and discuss anything related to teaching."

(14)

Junior High School is the education that prepares students to be members of the public who have the ability to hold a reciprocal relationship with the social environment, culture, and the universe as well as to develop more capacity in the world of work/higher education. Students at this level generally were aged between 11-16 years. At that age they do not have perfect analysis and abstraction capabilities. And according to the theory of cognitive development from the famous Swiss psychologist, Jean Peaget, which stated that children are more or less at that age can perform operations that involve the objects and they can also be a logical reason as far as it was applied in the specific or concrete example (Santrock, 2007).

After the initial observations with the mathematics teacher and some students at SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang, facts on the field indicate that till nowadays there are still many difficulties that experienced by students in learning mathematics material. One difficulty is to understand the concept of the subject matter sub surface area and volume of cylinders. They always memorize the formula of that matter. Beside it, they are less to develop the concept surface area and volume of cylinders. As the result, they get a lot of trouble when they answer the questions daily, general, and UN tests which related to the surface area and volume of cylinders. And finally students get low achievements.

As Usman (2007:36) said that one of cautions of the low student’s learning achievement beside low concept comprehension is caused by less variety teaching method, in which in several this time the teachers oriented to the traditional approach that placed learner only as a listener. With a variety learning models expect that students not only as a listener, but can become actors in the learning that can enhance mathematic learning achievement.

Beside choosing the exact teaching methods, it’s important to pay attention for the student’s initial ability. Because it’s very influencing the learning - teaching process. If it has been known the student’s initial ability, the teacher

wouldn’t be wrong to choose the appropriate teaching model to be implemented in

(15)

To solve the problems then all parties involved either directly or indirectly, should take active part in efforts to improve the quality of teaching in the units of education, including the government. One of the government's efforts have been made to improve the quality of teaching is through education programs and teacher certification training. The purpose of this training is to enhance teachers competence and knowledge, especially about the methods, approaches, strategies, and skills in teaching. Although as stated by Prof. Dr. Baedhowi, M.Si., in the results of his research in 2008 which stated that the main motivation of the teachers involved certification related to the financial namely for an allowance. That become issue, after taking part the certification it did not increase the teachers competence automatically.

Recognizing this fact, the certification program alone is not sufficient as an effort to improve the competence of teachers (Dirjen PMPTK: 2010). So go back to the personality of the teachers in trying to improve the quality of instruction. Stock of knowledge about learning strategies derived from the training very effective when applied in the process of learning - teaching. One method that is appropriate and has piloted namely the usage of teaching aids in teaching mathematics.

Teaching aids which intended as manipulative model can affect student success in learning mathematics because the uses of teaching aids can help students in studying abstract mathematical objects. As advocated by Gravemeijer (1994) that a broad attention has to be given to visual models, model situations, and schemata that arises from problem solving activities because it will help students to move through from informal to formal knowledge and from intuitive level to level of subject matter systematic.

But the reality is that the learning - teaching is not fully utilizing teaching aids. This is due to lack of understanding about the importance of teaching aids,

lack of cost, time, and effort. As the results, students can’t enhance their low outcomes when they have test about matter surface area and volume cylinders since their comprehension about that matter is less deep. Besides the use of teaching aids, learning models also affect learning - teaching. As expressed by

(16)

Usman (2007:9) that: "A competent teacher will be more able to create an

effective learning environment so that student’s learning achievements are at an optimal level.”

In order students can learn well, the methods of teaching should be kept as precise, efficient, and effective as possible. Said to be effective if the learning method can produce something as expected. Said to be efficient if the applied learning method relatively use little energy, effort, cost and time as possible.

One alternative model of learning in KTSP is a cooperative learning model type STAD. Cooperative learning model is usually called a model of mutual cooperation. Studying characteristics of cooperative learning is not the same as the regularly studying group. STAD (Student Teams Achievement Divisions) as one type of model of cooperative learning is a cooperative learning model for mixed grouping that involves the team’s recognition and responsibility for the learning of individual group members.

Learning with cooperative model type STAD expect that students often benefit from working in pairs or groups to construct understanding or help one another master skills (Aggarwal, J.C., 2001:400). Actually STAD is not enough to facilitate students group for understanding concept of surface area and volume of

cylinders. However, by combining it with the use of teaching aid it’s expected that

it can more widely facilitate students group for understanding concept of surface area and volume of cylinders. By this teaching method, researcher hope that there

is an improvement of student’s learning achievement.

To know how far the effect of teaching methods and student’s initial ability to the student’s learning achievement at IX grade SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang, the researcher interested in doing this research. Based on the rationale reasons above, the researcher determined the title of the research " The Difference of Student’s Learning Achievement Viewed from The Teaching Models and Student’s Mathematic Initial Ability on Cylinders Sub Topic at IX Grade SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang”.

(17)

1.2.Problem Identifications

Problems are identified in learning process as follow:

1) Students have difficulty in understanding concept of surface area and volume of cylinders and they often memorize the formula.

2) Low interest of students to mathematic subject especially subject matter sub surface area and volume of cylinders.

3) Low learning achievement especially in subject matter sub surface area and volume of cylinders.

4) Teaching methods are less vary and tend to be monotonous.

5) The learning of mathematic is tend to pure mathematic, practical, abstract and less attention to students ability.

6) Lack of use teaching aids/exemplary material such as cylinders teaching aid in learning activities.

1.3.Problems Restrictions

The main problem which can be determined from the problem identification above and also from the scope of this research is the significant

difference of student’s learning achievement of surface area and volume of

cylinders taught by STAD using teaching aids and Direct Instruction at IX grade SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang academic year 2012/2013.

1.4.Problems Formulation

The formulation of the problems in this research are:

1) Is there a significant difference of student’s learning achievement of surface area and volume of cylinders taught by STAD with teaching aids and Direct Instruction?

2) Is there a significant difference of student’s learning achievement of surface area and volume of cylinders between students with high and low abilities?

3) Is there an interaction between model of teaching and the student’s

(18)

4) What is the difference level of student activity in learning surface area and volume of cylinders to students taught by STAD using teaching aids and Direct Instruction?

5) What is the difference of student’s response in solving the test of surface area and volume of cylinders to student taught by STAD using teaching aids and Direct Instruction?

1.5.Research Objective

This research has the main objective as follow:

1) To find out whether there is a significant difference of the student’s learning achievement of surface area and volume of cylinder taught by STAD using teaching aids and Direct Instruction.

2) To find out whether there is a significant difference student’s learning achievement of surface area and volume of cylinders between students with high and low abilities.

3) To find out whether there is an interaction between model of teaching and

the student’s abilities to student’s learning achievement.

4) To find out the difference level of student activity in learning surface area and volume of cylinders to students taught by STAD using teaching aids and Direct Instruction.

5) To find out the difference of student’s response in solving the test of surface area and volume of cylinders to student taught by STAD using teaching aids and Direct Instruction.

1.6.Benefits of Research

The benefits which expected from this research are: 1)For teachers

a. Provide an alternative for teachers to determine the learning

(19)

b. Provide information to teachers that the use of teaching aids can facilitate the teacher in presenting a subject matter related to the understanding the concept.

2)For students

The creation of a pleasant learning situation such that can increase the activity, creativity, and learning achievement.

3)For school

The result of this research gives the good contribution for the school in improving the teaching of mathematics at SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang in optimizing school facilities and infrastructure that can support the learning process.

4)For researcher

Researchers can obtain experienced directly how to choose learning strategies and media appropriately so that when later jumped into the field, researchers already have insight and knowledge. In addition, researchers will have a basically teaching skills and develop learning by using teaching aids.

5)For the other researchers

Can be the source for the other researchers that are interested in undertaking similar research further.

1.7. Operational Definition

1) STAD Cooperative Learning Model

Cooperative learning model is learning approach that focuses on the use of small groups of students to work together in maximizing the learning conditions for achieving learning objectives. One example is STAD cooperative learning model. STAD cooperative learning is a

(20)

model for mixed groupings involving team recognition and responsibility for the learning of individual group members.

2) Teaching aids

Teaching aids is a tool to educate or teach what is taught so easily understood by students. Teaching aids can also be defined concrete objects which are models of mathematical ideas.

3) Direct instruction

Direct instruction is an approach to teaching within a teacher-directed classroom environment. The process emphasizes systematic sequencing of lessons, a presentation of new content and skills, guided student practice, the use of feedback and independent practice by students.

4) Interaction

Interaction is an action happening when two or more objects (factors) influence or have effect one another. The idea of this two way relation is very important for interaction concept, as contradiction with

one way relation. It’s said that by there exist of interaction can cover the

effect of one factors and reverse (R.K. Sembiring, 1986: 445)

5) Learning achievement

The achievement is the result from an interaction of action learning and teaching. From the students, learning achievement is the top end of the experience and learning process (Dimyati and Mudjiono, 2009:33). The learning achievement is the picture of the student outcomes in following the learning process at a level that followed.

6) Surface area and volume of cylinders Surface area of cylinders

(21)

The surface of the cylinders consists of cylinder lateral, upper side (cap) and under side (base). The cylinder lateral side is formed by a rectangle with length and width t. The following formulas of areas are usually used in the cylinders:

Volume of cylinders

If r is radius of base cylinders ( a circle ) and t is height of cylinders, then:

The area of the base = the area of the cap = The area of cylinder lateral =

The area of cylinder surface =

The area of un-caped cylinder surface = ,

in which , r = the radius of cylinder and t = the height of cylinder.

Volume of cylinder = the area base x the height of cylinder = the area of circle x the height of cylinder = r2 x t

(22)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 5.1. Conclusion

Based on result of hypothesis test using significant level α = 0,05 above, it can be concluded that :

1) There’s no significant difference of student’s learning achievement of surface area and volume of cylinders between taught by STAD with teaching aids and Direct Instruction. It means that cooperative learning model type STAD using teaching aids doesn’t give significant contribution to the student’s learning achievement of surface area and volume of cylinders yet.

2) There’s a significant difference of student’s learning achievement of surface area and volume of cylinders between students with high and low abilities. In which student with high ability taught by STAD using teaching aids have learning achievement is higher than taught by Direct Instruction. Meanwhile student with low ability taught by STAD using teaching aids have learning achievement is lower than taught by Direct Instruction. In overall it can be concluded that student’s learning achievement with high ability is higher than student with low ability. 3) There’s a significant interaction between model of teaching and student’s

abilities to the student’s learning achievement. It means that both factors namely, method of teaching and student’s ability influence student’s learning achievement. Since some student’s with low initial ability when given the treatment can achieve the same score with student’s with high initial ability and reverse.

Learning with STAD using teaching aids make students are more active in discussion than Direct Instruction. It can be showed by the percentage of student’s activity each meeting, in which the percentage of student’s activity in class with learning model STAD is higher than in class with learning model Direct Instruction.

(23)

Student’s response in solving the test show that students taught by STAD with teaching aids is better than taught by Direct Instruction. There are some mistake that found from the analysis result of student’s answer sheet. They are :

1) Mistake in accepting information. a. Mistake in writing what is known b. Mistake in writing what is asked

2) Mistake which referring to the concept of surface area and volume of cylinders namely mistake in using and applying formula.

3) Mistake in calculating 5.2. Suggestion

From the research result, discussion and conclusion that have been described above, then given suggestion :

1) For the students with low ability, it’s better to use Direct Instruction as the method of teaching to deliver the material so that students can enhance their learning achievements.

2) For the students with high ability, it’s better to use STAD with teaching aids as the method of teaching to deliver the material since they can learn by themselves and teacher just facilitate them.

3) For the mathematic teacher suggested if using learning model with teaching aids as one of efforts to improve the student’s learning achievement must be supported by increasing the student’s understanding about concept of requirement material which related to the concept of cylinders. Beside it, applying it with enough time such that can give the time to review the matter without let students understand the concept by themselves.

4) To obtain the research result which more believe, this research is needed to use more bigger samples maybe doing it in other school such that obtained the more valid research result.

(24)

REFERENCES

Abdurrahman, Mulyono. 1999. Pendidikan bagi Anak Berkesulitan Belajar. Jakarta: PT. Rineka Cipta

Aggarwal, J.C. 2001. Principles Methods & Techniques of Teaching Second Revised Edition. New Delhi: VIKAS PUBLISHING HOUSE PVT Ltd Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2002. Dasar – Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan. Jakarta: PT

Bumi Aksara

Best, John W. and Khan, James V. 2007. Research In Education. New Delhi: Prentice – Hall of India

Borich, Gary D. 1996. Effective Teaching Methods Third Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall

Brown, H. Douglas. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach To Language Pedagogy, Second Edition. San Francisco: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc

Dembo, Myron.H. 1994. Applying educational psychology fifth edition. Los Angeles: University of Southern California

Depdiknas. 2002. Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka

Dimyati, Mudjiono. 2006. Belajar dan Pembelajaran. Jakarta: PT RINEKA CIPTA

Dirjen PMPTK.2010. Media Informasi Pendidik dan Tenaga Kependidikan. Jakarta: Dirjen PMPTK Kemdiknas

Ferdi. Belajar dan Pembelajaran Journal.

http://www.bloggermajalengka.com/2011/09/pengertian-belajar-dan-pembelajaran.html accessed in February, 23rd 2012

Gravemeijer, K.P.E. 1994. Developing Realistic Mathematics Education. The Nederlands, Utrecht: Freudenthal Institute.

Hadjar, Ibnu. 1999. Dasar – Dasar Metodologi Penelitian Kwantitatif dalam Pendidikan. Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada

Hidayat.2004. Teori Pembelajaran Matematika. Semarang: FMIPA UNNES Ibrahim, Muslimin. 2000. Pembelajaran Kooperatif. Surabaya: UNESA

(25)

Joyce, Bruce.et.al.2009. Models of Teaching Model – Model Pengajaran Edisi Kedelapan. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar

M.A, Marsigit. 2008. Mathematics for Junior High School IX Year. Jakarta: Yudhistira

Mulyani A., Yunia. 2004. Upaya Mengatasi Kesulitan Siswa Belajar Geometri dalam Pengajaran Remedial Kelompok dan Remidial Bersama di Sekolah Lanjutan Tingkat Pertama http://digilib.upi.edu./pasca/available/etd-1011106-131035 acessed in July, 25th 2012

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Mathematics Ability http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/abilities.asp acessed in September, 6th 2012

Nur, Muhammad dan Prima Retno, W. 2003. Pengajaran Berpusat Kepada Siswa dan Pendekatan Konstruktivis dalam Pengajaran. Surabaya: UNESA UNIVERSITY PRESS

Para Ahli. Definisi Belajar.

http://carapedia.com/pengertian_definisi_belajar_menurut_para_ahli_info 499.html accessed in February, 23rd 2012

Santrock, John.W. 2007. Adolescence, 11th Edition. New York: Mc Graw – Hill Companies,Inc

Sembiring, R.K. 1986. Ilmu Peluang dan Statistika untuk Insinyur dan Ilmuwan. Bandung: Penerbit ITB

Slameto. 2003. Belajar dan Faktor – Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya. Jakarta: PT Rineka Cipta

Slavin, R.E. 2008. Cooperative Learning Teori, Riset & Praktik. Jakarta: Nusa Media

Sriati, Arti. 1994. Kesulitan Belajar Matematika pada Siswa SMA. Jurnal Kependidikan Jogjakarta

Starr, Cheryl. Direct Instruction Methods in the Classroom | eHow.com

http://www.ehow.com/info_7973507_direct-instruction-methods-classroom.html#ixzz22YYtOYmH accessed in July, 27th 2012

Sudjana, Nana.1989. Media Pengajaran. Bandung: Sinar Baru Algesindo Sudjana. 1996. Metoda Statistika. Bandung: Tarsito

(26)

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

Sudrajat. Akhmad. Pembelajaran Langsung.

http://akhmadsudjat.wordpress.com/2012/07/27model-pembelajaran-langsung/ accessed in July, 27th 2012

Suryabarata, Sumadi. 2004. Psikologi Pendidikan. Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada

Suryosubroto. 2002. Proses Belajar Mengajar Di Sekolah. Jakarta : Rineka Cipta. Syahputra, Edy.et.al.2002. Efektifitas Metode Terbimbing dalam Pembelajaran

Kooperatif Topik Luas Bangun Datar di Kelas 1 SLTP Kodya Medan. Medan: IKIP Medan

Treffers, A. (1991). Realistic mathematics education in the Netherlands 1980 - 1990. In Leen Streefland (Ed.), Realistic Mathematics Education in Primary Schools. Utrecht: Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University. Undang – Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 14 Tahun 2005 ”Guru dan Dosen“ Usman. 2007. Menjadi Guru yang Profesional. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya

Walpole, Ronald.E.et.al. 1978. Probability and Statistics for Engineers and Scientists, Second Edition. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc Wena, Made. 2009. Strategi Pembelajaran Inovatif Kontemporer (Suatu Tinjauan

(27)

CURRICULUM VITAE

Karlina M. Bakara was born in Sidikalang on November 15th, 1988. Her father’s name is Tumbur Bakara and her mother’s name is Frosma Manik. She is first child of her family, and then she has eight sisters and two brother. She was jointed to SD Inpres 030306 Barisan Nauli on 1995, and then graduated in 2001. She was graduated from SMP Negeri 2 Sidikalang on 2004. And then she was graduated from SMA Negeri 1 Sidikalang on 2007. After graduated from Senior High School, she continued her study in UNIMED as Students College in bilingual class for Mathematics Education of 2008. She has been finished her thesis at 4th September 2012 as the requirement for getting the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan.

(1)