THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME AND ACTIVITY BETWEEN THINK PAIR SHARE AND NUMBERED HEAD TOGETHER MODEL ON HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM IN CLASS XI SMA NEGERI 11 MEDAN ACADEMIC YEAR 2013/2014.
THE DIFFERENCE DF STUDENT LEARNING DUTCDME AND
ACTIVITY BETCEEN THINK PAIR SHARE AND NUMBERED
HEAD TDGETHER MDDEL DN HUMAN REPRDDUCTIVE
SYSTEM IN CLASS XI SMA NEGERI 11 MEDAN
ACADEMIC YEAR 2013/2014
By:
Novita Sari
4103342021
Biology Bilingual Education
THESIS
Submitted to Fulfill The Requirement for The Degree of
SarjanaPendidikan
BIDLDGY DEPARTMENT
FACULTY DF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE
STATE UNIVERSITY DF MEDAN
MEDAN
2014
i
x
THE DIFFERENCE DF STUDENT LEARNING DUTCDME AND
ACTIVITY BETCEEN THINK PAIR SHARE AND NUMBERED
HEAD TDGETHER MDDEL DN HUMAN REPRDDUCTIVE
SYSTEM IN CLASS XI SMA NEGERI 11 MEDAN
ACADEMIC YEAR 2013/2014
Novita Sari
4103342021
ABSTRACT
This quasy expeqiment qeseaqch aims to investigate the diffeqence of
student leaqning outcome and activity between Think Paiq Shaqe and Numbeqed
Head Togetheq model on human qepqoductive system in SMA Negeqi 11 Medan
Academic Yeaq 2013/2014. The population of this qeseaqch was all students in
SMA Negeqi 11 Medan totaling 223 students. The sample was taken by using
qandom sampling and was obtained the sample foq 38 students of Think Paiq Shaqe
(XI IPA 5) and 38 students of Numbeqed Head Togetheq class (XI IPA 6). The
instqument of qeseaqch was student’s leaqning outcome test in multiple choice
foqm with 30 questions which had been validated by expeqt. The qesult of data
analysis showed that pqe-test in Think Paiq Shaqe class (43.73±10.98 ) and pqe-test
in Numbeqed Head Togetheq class (41.97±9.28). Afteq t test was caqqied out by
using significance degqee α = 0,05, it was obtained that tcalculate = 0.75 < ttable =
1.99, so it can be known both classes had no diffeqence of student leaqning
outcome befoqe implementation. Post-test in Think Paiq Shaqe class (77.65±6.73)
has diffeqence compaqed with pos-test in Numbeqed Head Togetheq (74.47±5.63).
It was obtained that tcalculate = 2.24 > ttable = 1.99, define student leaqning outcome
of biology in Think Paiq Shaqe is higheq than student leaqning outcome in
Numbeqed Head Togetheq. Then, the aveqage qesult of student activity in Think
Paiq Shaqe and Numbeqed Head Togetheq was 73.80 : 71.32. It means that student
activities in Think Paiq Shaqe is moqe active than student activity in Numbeqed
Head Togetheq.
Keywoqd : student learning outcome, student activities, Think Pair Share,
Numbered Head Together
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, the writer would like to praise Allah swt that give health and
wisdom to the author so this thesis can be completed properly in accordance with
planned time. This thesis is aimed at fulfilling a requirement to get the degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan at Biology department, Mathematics and Natural Science
Faculty, State University of Medan.
During the process of writing the thesis, the writer realized that se had
many problems. Meanwhile, she has been given some suggestions, comments,
academic guidance and moral support from her consultant and others that she
would like to express her sincere thanks.
Firstly, the writer would like to express her great gratitude to Drs. H. Tri
Harsono, M.Si as her consultant for his generous assistance, guidance, advices and
valuable time to read and discuss the thesis until it is completed. The author also
would like thank profusely to Prof. Drs. Motlan, M.Sc, Ph.D., as dean of the
Mathematics and Natural Science Faculty, State University of Medan. Prof. Dr.
rer. nat. Binari Manurung, M.Si, Syarifuddin, M.Sc, Ph.D, and Dr. Syahmi Edi,
M.Si as the lecturer team of examiners for their suggestion and contructive
criticisms for the thesis revision and Dra. Rosita Tarigan, M.Pd as her academic
supervisor who has guided the author during academic program.
My never ending thankfulness is fully to my beloved father Mugimin
Syatriadi and my mother Fauziah Siregar for their everlasting love, hopeful
prayersin her life, the entire moral and the financial support that have enabled her
to finish her study. Her special thanks and admiration are also due to her beloved
sisters and brother, Deviana, Dodi Arisandi, Edi Handoyo, Ramadhan Abdiansyah
and Mawar Afriza.
The writer also thanks to the headmaster of SMA Negeri 11 Medan, Drs.
K. Lumbantoruan, M.Pd and Biology teacher Daryanti S.Pd, M.Si , all teachers
and students especially XI IPA in SMAN 11 Medanwho received the presence of
the author during research in these classes. My gratitude also goes to BIOTA, my
best friends Ari, Thata, Rafika, Hafizah, Saodah and all my friends in class
ix
Biology Bilingual Education 2010 who helped me during this research can be
completed on time.
The writer had tried as much as possible in the completion of this thesis,
but thw writer is aware there are still many weakness in terms of content and
grammar, therefore the writer is pleased to receive some suggestions and
constructive criticism from readers for thesis perfectly. Presumably the contents of
this thesis are useful in enriching science and education.
Medan,
Author
Novita Sari
4103342021
July 2014
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Thesis Approval
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Table
List of Appendix
Biography
Acknowledgement
Abstract
Page
i
ii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
x
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
1.2. Identification of Problem
1.3. Scope of Problem
1.4. Research Question
1.5. Objectives of Study
1.6. Significance of Study
1
3
3
3
3
4
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Theoritical Framework
2.1.1. Learning
2.1.2. Learning Outcomes
2.1.3. Learning Activities
2.1.4. Learning Models
2.1.5. Cooperative Learning
2.1.6. Cooperative Learning Model Think-Pair-Share Type
2.1.7. Cooperative Learning Model Numbered Head Together Type
2.2. Learning Material of Reproductive Systems
2.3. Conceptual Framework
2.4. Hypothesis Formulation
2.4.1. Verbal Hypothesis
2.4.2. Statistic Hypothesis
5
5
5
7
8
8
11
13
16
27
27
27
28
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.3.1.
3.3.2.
Location and Time of Research
Population and Sample
Variable of Research
Independent Variable (X)
Dependent Variable (Y)
29
29
29
29
29
iii
3.4.
3.5.
3.5.1.
3.5.2.
3.5.3.
3.6.
3.6.1.
3.6.2.
3.7.
3.7.1.
3.7.2.
3.7.3.
3.7.4.
3.8.
3.8.1.
3.8.2.
3.8.3.
Research Method and Design
Research Procedures
Preparing Stages
Implementation Stages
Final Stage
Instrument of Research
Test
Observation Sheet
Test of Research Instruments
Validity Test
Reliability Test
Difficulty Index Test
Discrimination Index Test
Technique of Data Analysis
Normalitity Test
Homogeneity Test
Hypothesis Test
29
30
30
30
32
32
32
33
36
36
37
37
38
38
38
39
40
CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1. The Result of Instrument Test
4.1.1. Validity Test
4.1.2. Reliability Test
4.1.3. Difficulty Index
4.1.4. Discrimination Index
4.2. Description The Result of Research
4.2.1. Data of Students Value
4.3. Observation of Student Activities
4.4. Data Analysis
4.4.1. Normality Test
4.4.2. Homogeneity Test
4.4.3. The Effect of Learning Model on Learning Outcome
4.5.
Discussion
41
41
41
41
41
42
42
44
45
45
45
46
47
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclusion
5.2. Suggestion
50
50
REFERENCES
51
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1. The Steps of Cooperative Learning Model
10
Tabel 2.2. The Procedures of Learning Models Implementation of TPS
12
Tabel 2.3. The Procedures of Learning Models Implementation of NHT
14
Table 3.1. Design of Experimental Research
30
Table 3.2. The Gratings of Test
32
Table 3.3. Assessment Guidelines of Student Activities
34
Table 3.4. Index Classification of Test Validity
36
Table 3.5. The Classification of Difficulty Index of Test
37
Table 3.6. The Classification of Discrimination Index
38
Table 4.1. Normality Test Data
45
Table 4.2. Homogeneity Test Data
45
Table 4.3. Summary of Hypothesis Test
46
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1. Model of the LEPO Framework
6
Figure 2.2. Structure of Male Reproductive Organs
17
Figure 2.3. Structure of Female Reproductive Organs
18
Figure 2.4. Spermatogenesis
19
Figure 2.5. Oogenesis
20
Figure 2.6. Menstrual Cycle
22
Figure 3.1. Scheme of Research Procedures
35
Figure 4.1. Diagram of Pre-test TPS class and NHT class
42
Figure.4.2. Diagram of Post-test TPS class and NHT class
43
Figure 4.3 Percentage of Student Activities
44
vi
LIST OF APPENDIX
Page
Appendix 1.
Syllabus of Learning Activities
53
Appendix 2.
Lesson Plan
55
Appendix 3.
Question Sheet
84
Appendix 4.
Student Answer Sheet
94
Appendix 5.
Answer Key
95
Appendix 6.
Worksheet
96
Appendix 7.
Student Activity Sheet
103
Appendix 8.
Assesment Guide of Student Activity
104
Appendix 9.
The Calculation of Validity Test
105
Appendix 10. Table of Validity
108
Appendix 11. The Calculation of Realibility Test
109
Appendix 12. Table of Reability
110
Appendix 13. The Calculation of Difficulty Index
111
Appendix 14. Table of Difficulty Index
114
Appendix 15. The Calculation of Discrimination Index
115
Appendix 16. Table Calculation Discrimination Index
118
Appendix 17. Research Data
119
Appendix 18. The Calculation of Mean and Standart Deviation
123
Appendix 19. The Normality Test of Research Data
126
Appendix 20. The Calculation of Homogeneity Test
130
Appendix 21. Hypothesis Test
133
Appendix 22. Student Activity in TPS and NHT
137
Appendix 23. Documentation
151
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODECTION
1.1.
Background
Education systems aim to enable students not just to acquire knowledge
but also to become capable, confident and enthusiastic learners. At school,
students who have positive approaches to learning, in terms of both attitudes and
behaviours, tend to enjoy good learning outcomes. Beyond school, children and
adults who have developed the ability and motivation to learn on their own
initiative are well-placed to become lifelong learners. Thus, an overall assessment
of the outcomes of schooling needs to consider not only students’ knowledge and
understanding but also their approaches to learning (Artelt, 2003).
One of the problems that faced in education is lack of learning process. In
learning process, students are less encouraged to develop critical thinking. This
learning process in class is directed to student’s ability to memorize information,
the brain is forced to remember and store many information without required to
understand information that they remembered to relate in daily life.
As
consequently, when students have graduated from school, they are smart
theoretically but less of application (Sanjaya, 2006).
Based on the interview result with Mrs. Daryanti, the Biology teacher of
class XI IPA SMA Negeri 11 Medan, known that value of Kriteria Ketuntasan
Minimal (KKM) Biology subject in School is 72, while the learning outcomes of
students was average of 65 – 70. It was caused the teaching way of teacher still
monotonous although sometimes used learning media such as power point that
presented in front of the class, teachers still dominate teaching learning process so
that students tend to be passive when teaching learning process in the class. In this
situation, teachers serve as the main source of information so that the learning
activities happen in one direction and make students become bored in learning.
The interview result with Biology teacher in SMA Negeri 11 Medan stated
the cooperative learning model Think Pair Share and Numbered Head Together
2
type
never used in Biology subject yet. Thus, researcher introduced the
cooperative learning model to solve the problems.
Cooperative Learning refers to variety of teaching methods in which
students work in small group to help one another learn academic content. In
cooperative classrooms, students are expected to help each other to discuss and
argue with each other, to assess each other’s current knowledge and fill in gaps in
each other’s understanding, so that the interest and active students in the learning
process can be improved individually and groups (Siburian, 2013).
The reason of researcher choose Think-Pair-Share type is this cooperative
learning model designed to influence the interaction patterns of students. ThinkPair-Share is a classroom-based active learning strategy, in which students
work on a problem posed by the instructor, first individually, then in pairs, and
finally as a class-wide discussion. TPS has been recommended for its benefits of
allowing students to express their reasoning, reflect on their thinking, and
obtain immediate feedback on their understanding (Kothiyal, 2013)
Numbered Head Together learning model is one of cooperative learning
models that developed based on contructivism principle. According to Lie ( 2004 )
NHT can provide benefits for students who are underachieving and high achieving
students that work together to complete the task. The students in a group depend
on each other for information and for doing the task assigned on them This model
can promote mutual respect among the members and the prevent the domination
of particular student in a group.
Reproductive System Topic was the learning topic that teach in second
semester. This topic was also accordance with research time that carried out.
Researcher used learning model Think-Pair-Share and Numbered Head Together
type on Reproductive System, with the hope through this cooperative learning
students can work together to resolve the matter.
Based on the background above, so the title research title is “The
Difference of Student Learning Outcome and Activity between Think Pair
Share and Numbered Head Together Model on Human Reproductive System
in Class XI SMA Negeri 11 Medan Academic Year 2013/2014”.
3
1.2.
Identification of Problem
Based on the background above, the problem identification in this study :
1. The variation in learning still low in applying learning models
2. Lack of interaction between students with teacher or one student with
anothers.
3. The students cooperation in teaching learning process still low.
4. Learning outcomes still low level
1.3.
Scope of Problem
The problem scope in this research :
1.
This research is limited in using cooperative learning Think-Pair-Share
with Numbered Head Together.
2. The research is applied in Topic Reproductive System in Class XI SMA
Negeri 11 Medan Academic Year 2013/2014.
3. The Learning Outcomes that observed is limited in cognitive and affective
aspects.
1.4.
Research Question
The research question in this research :
1. Is there any difference between student learning outcome that taught by using
Think Pair Share and Numbered Head Together Type on Topic Human
Reproductive System in class XI SMA Negeri 11 Medan Academic Year
2013/2014?
2. Is there any difference between student learning activity that taught by using
Think Pair Share and Numbered Head Together Type on Topic Human
Reproductive System in class XI SMA Negeri 11 Medan Academic Year
2013/2014?
1.5.
Objectives of Study
The study objectives are to know :
1. The difference of student learning outcome that taught by using Think Pair
Share and Numbered Head Together Type on Topic Human Reproductive
System in class XI SMA Negeri 11 Medan Academic Year 2013/2014.
4
2. The difference of student learning activity that taught by using Think Pair
Share and Numbered Head Together Type on Topic Human Reproductive
System in class XI SMA Negeri 11 Medan Academic Year 2013/2014.
1.6.
Significance of Study
The significance that hoped in this study :
1. Consideration for biology teacher to determine learning models that will used
in delivering learning topic accordance with subject matter.
2. As input for researcher to self-prepare become teacher who able to improve
learning quality.
3. Provide knowledge and experience for student about discussion way with
using learning model Think Pair Share (TPS) and Numbered Head Together
(NHT) type so that can used by student to explore and develop knowledge and
learning skill for other topic through information sharing with peers or
another.
4. As practice source for next research in education field.
50
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclusion
The conclusion of this research :
1. There is significant difference of student learning outcome in biology that
taught by using Think Pair Share (TPS) and Numbered Head Together (NHT)
model on Human Reproductive System topic for class 11 in SMA Negeri 11
Medan.
2. Students activities that taught by using Think Pair Share (TPS) is more active
than Numbered Head Together (NHT) model on Human Reproductive System
topic for class 11 in SMA Negeri 11 Medan.
5.2. Suggestion
There were some suggestions can be proposed, namely :
1.
Students of SMA Negeri 11 Medan were encouraged to improve their interest
and curiosity by implementing cooperative learning model.
2.
For biology teachers can make Think Pair Share (TPS) and Numbered Head
Together (NHT) as alternative in choosing the learning model that was
expected to increase students learning outcome and students activities.
3.
To the next researcher was hoped to be better to do research because of
researcher was not capable to master the class in whole and influenced the
result, so next researcher will get more maximum result.
4.
Giving reinforcement to students is very effective to increase student learning
outcome.
51
REFERENCES
Aggarwal, J. C., (2001), Principles, Methods e Techniques of Teaching (Second
Revised Edition), Vikas Publishing House PVT LTD , New Delhi.
Arends, R. I., (2007), Learning
to Teach
Mc Graw-Hill Companies, New York.
(Seventh Edition), The
Arikunto, S., (2010), Masar-Masar Evaluasi Pendidikan Edisi Revisi. Penerbit
Bumi Aksara, Jakarta.
Artelt, C., Baumert, J., Julius, N., and Peschar, J., (2003), Learners For Life
Student Approaches To Learning, PISA Results Report, OECD
Aryulina, D., Muslim, C., dan Winarni, E., (2007), Biologi 2 SMA dan MA untuk
Kelas XI, Esis, Jakarta.
Baker, D. P., (2013), The Effects Of Implementing The Cooperative Learning
Structure, Numbered Heads Together, In Chemistry Classes At A Rural,
Low Performing High School, Thesis, Louisiana State University.
Febria, H., (2012), Perbandingan Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe
Numbered Head Together dan Think Pair Share terhadap Hasil Belajar
Biologi di SMPN 43 Medan., Skripsi, State University of Medan, Medan.
Istarani, (2012), 58 Model Pembelajaran Inovatif, Penerbit Media Persada,
Medan.
Junaidi, (2010), http://junaidichaniago.wordpress.com (Accesed Juli 2014).
Kailani, F., (2010), Penerapan Metode Kooperatif NHT (Numbered Head
Together) untuk Meningkatkan Minat Belajar Al-Qur’an Hadits SiswaSiswi Kelas IV A SD Darul Ulum Bungurasih, Jurnal Penelitian
Tindakan Kelas Pendidikan Agama Islam 1 (1) : 25-36.
Kothiyal, A., Majumdar, R., Murthy, S., and Iyer, S., (2013), Effect of ThinkPair-Share in a Large CS1 Class: 83% Sustained Engagement, ACM,
USA.
Krohmer, R. W., (2004), The Reproductive System, Infobase Publishing, USA.
Li, M. P., and Lam, B. H., (2013), The Active Classroom : Cooperative Learning,
The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hongkong.
Lie, A., (2004), Cooperative Learning, Penerbit P.T.Grasindo, Jakarta.
Mandal, R. R., (2009), Cooperative Learning Strategies to Enhance Writing Skill.
The Modern Journal of Applied Linguistic 1: 0974-8741
Nurhayati, N., (2009), Biologi 2 : Kelas XI SMA dan MA, Jakarta : Depdiknas
52
Ong, E. T., (2010), Keberkesanan Kaedah “Numbered Heads Together” Terhadap
Pencapaian Biologi Dalam Kalangan Pelajar Di Universiti Pendidikan
Sultan Idris, Jurnal Teknologi 53: 35–46.
Phillips, R. A., McNaught, C., and Kennedy, G., (2010), Towards a generalised
conceptual framework for learning: the Learning Environment,
Learning Processes and Learning Outcomes (LEPO) framework, EMMEMIA 2010 : 2495–2504.
Prawirohartono, S., dan Hidayati, S., (2007), Sains Biologi 2 SMA/MA, Bumi
Aksara, Jakarta.
Sabri, A., (2010), Strategi Belajar Mengajar Micro Teaching, Penerbit Quantum
Teaching, Padang.
Sanjaya, W., (2006), Strategi Pembelajaran Berorientasi Standar Proses
Pendidikan, Penerbit Media Kencana, Jakarta.
Sardiman, (2006), Interaksi dan Motivasi Belajar Mengajar, Penerbit PT Raja
Grafindo Persada, Jakarta.
Siburian, T. A., (2013), Improving Students’ Achievement on Writing Mescriptive
Text Through Think Pair Share, State University of Medan, Medan.
Solomon, E. P., Berg, L. R., and Martin, D.W., (2008) Biology ( Eighth Edition ),
Thomson Brooks/Cole, USA.
Sudijono, A., (2011), Pengantar Evaluasi Pendidikan,
Grafindo Persada, Jakarta.
Penerbit PT Raja
Sudjana, (2005), Metode Statistika, Penerbit Tarsito, Bandung.
Sudjana, N., (2009), Penilaian Hasil Proses Belajar Mengajar, Penerbit PT
Remaja Rosdakarya, Bandung.
Suyanto and Djihad, A., (2013), Bagaimana Menjadi Calon Guru dan Guru
Profesional, Multi Pressindo, Yogyakarta.
Syah, M., (2009), Psikologi Belajar, Penerbit PT Raja Grafindo Persada, Jakarta.
Syamsuri, D., (2007), Biologi SMA Untuk Kelas XI, Erlangga, Jakarta.
Trianto, (2011), Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif-Progresif, Kencana
Prenada Media Group, Jakarta.
ACTIVITY BETCEEN THINK PAIR SHARE AND NUMBERED
HEAD TDGETHER MDDEL DN HUMAN REPRDDUCTIVE
SYSTEM IN CLASS XI SMA NEGERI 11 MEDAN
ACADEMIC YEAR 2013/2014
By:
Novita Sari
4103342021
Biology Bilingual Education
THESIS
Submitted to Fulfill The Requirement for The Degree of
SarjanaPendidikan
BIDLDGY DEPARTMENT
FACULTY DF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE
STATE UNIVERSITY DF MEDAN
MEDAN
2014
i
x
THE DIFFERENCE DF STUDENT LEARNING DUTCDME AND
ACTIVITY BETCEEN THINK PAIR SHARE AND NUMBERED
HEAD TDGETHER MDDEL DN HUMAN REPRDDUCTIVE
SYSTEM IN CLASS XI SMA NEGERI 11 MEDAN
ACADEMIC YEAR 2013/2014
Novita Sari
4103342021
ABSTRACT
This quasy expeqiment qeseaqch aims to investigate the diffeqence of
student leaqning outcome and activity between Think Paiq Shaqe and Numbeqed
Head Togetheq model on human qepqoductive system in SMA Negeqi 11 Medan
Academic Yeaq 2013/2014. The population of this qeseaqch was all students in
SMA Negeqi 11 Medan totaling 223 students. The sample was taken by using
qandom sampling and was obtained the sample foq 38 students of Think Paiq Shaqe
(XI IPA 5) and 38 students of Numbeqed Head Togetheq class (XI IPA 6). The
instqument of qeseaqch was student’s leaqning outcome test in multiple choice
foqm with 30 questions which had been validated by expeqt. The qesult of data
analysis showed that pqe-test in Think Paiq Shaqe class (43.73±10.98 ) and pqe-test
in Numbeqed Head Togetheq class (41.97±9.28). Afteq t test was caqqied out by
using significance degqee α = 0,05, it was obtained that tcalculate = 0.75 < ttable =
1.99, so it can be known both classes had no diffeqence of student leaqning
outcome befoqe implementation. Post-test in Think Paiq Shaqe class (77.65±6.73)
has diffeqence compaqed with pos-test in Numbeqed Head Togetheq (74.47±5.63).
It was obtained that tcalculate = 2.24 > ttable = 1.99, define student leaqning outcome
of biology in Think Paiq Shaqe is higheq than student leaqning outcome in
Numbeqed Head Togetheq. Then, the aveqage qesult of student activity in Think
Paiq Shaqe and Numbeqed Head Togetheq was 73.80 : 71.32. It means that student
activities in Think Paiq Shaqe is moqe active than student activity in Numbeqed
Head Togetheq.
Keywoqd : student learning outcome, student activities, Think Pair Share,
Numbered Head Together
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, the writer would like to praise Allah swt that give health and
wisdom to the author so this thesis can be completed properly in accordance with
planned time. This thesis is aimed at fulfilling a requirement to get the degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan at Biology department, Mathematics and Natural Science
Faculty, State University of Medan.
During the process of writing the thesis, the writer realized that se had
many problems. Meanwhile, she has been given some suggestions, comments,
academic guidance and moral support from her consultant and others that she
would like to express her sincere thanks.
Firstly, the writer would like to express her great gratitude to Drs. H. Tri
Harsono, M.Si as her consultant for his generous assistance, guidance, advices and
valuable time to read and discuss the thesis until it is completed. The author also
would like thank profusely to Prof. Drs. Motlan, M.Sc, Ph.D., as dean of the
Mathematics and Natural Science Faculty, State University of Medan. Prof. Dr.
rer. nat. Binari Manurung, M.Si, Syarifuddin, M.Sc, Ph.D, and Dr. Syahmi Edi,
M.Si as the lecturer team of examiners for their suggestion and contructive
criticisms for the thesis revision and Dra. Rosita Tarigan, M.Pd as her academic
supervisor who has guided the author during academic program.
My never ending thankfulness is fully to my beloved father Mugimin
Syatriadi and my mother Fauziah Siregar for their everlasting love, hopeful
prayersin her life, the entire moral and the financial support that have enabled her
to finish her study. Her special thanks and admiration are also due to her beloved
sisters and brother, Deviana, Dodi Arisandi, Edi Handoyo, Ramadhan Abdiansyah
and Mawar Afriza.
The writer also thanks to the headmaster of SMA Negeri 11 Medan, Drs.
K. Lumbantoruan, M.Pd and Biology teacher Daryanti S.Pd, M.Si , all teachers
and students especially XI IPA in SMAN 11 Medanwho received the presence of
the author during research in these classes. My gratitude also goes to BIOTA, my
best friends Ari, Thata, Rafika, Hafizah, Saodah and all my friends in class
ix
Biology Bilingual Education 2010 who helped me during this research can be
completed on time.
The writer had tried as much as possible in the completion of this thesis,
but thw writer is aware there are still many weakness in terms of content and
grammar, therefore the writer is pleased to receive some suggestions and
constructive criticism from readers for thesis perfectly. Presumably the contents of
this thesis are useful in enriching science and education.
Medan,
Author
Novita Sari
4103342021
July 2014
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Thesis Approval
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Table
List of Appendix
Biography
Acknowledgement
Abstract
Page
i
ii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
x
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
1.2. Identification of Problem
1.3. Scope of Problem
1.4. Research Question
1.5. Objectives of Study
1.6. Significance of Study
1
3
3
3
3
4
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Theoritical Framework
2.1.1. Learning
2.1.2. Learning Outcomes
2.1.3. Learning Activities
2.1.4. Learning Models
2.1.5. Cooperative Learning
2.1.6. Cooperative Learning Model Think-Pair-Share Type
2.1.7. Cooperative Learning Model Numbered Head Together Type
2.2. Learning Material of Reproductive Systems
2.3. Conceptual Framework
2.4. Hypothesis Formulation
2.4.1. Verbal Hypothesis
2.4.2. Statistic Hypothesis
5
5
5
7
8
8
11
13
16
27
27
27
28
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.3.1.
3.3.2.
Location and Time of Research
Population and Sample
Variable of Research
Independent Variable (X)
Dependent Variable (Y)
29
29
29
29
29
iii
3.4.
3.5.
3.5.1.
3.5.2.
3.5.3.
3.6.
3.6.1.
3.6.2.
3.7.
3.7.1.
3.7.2.
3.7.3.
3.7.4.
3.8.
3.8.1.
3.8.2.
3.8.3.
Research Method and Design
Research Procedures
Preparing Stages
Implementation Stages
Final Stage
Instrument of Research
Test
Observation Sheet
Test of Research Instruments
Validity Test
Reliability Test
Difficulty Index Test
Discrimination Index Test
Technique of Data Analysis
Normalitity Test
Homogeneity Test
Hypothesis Test
29
30
30
30
32
32
32
33
36
36
37
37
38
38
38
39
40
CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1. The Result of Instrument Test
4.1.1. Validity Test
4.1.2. Reliability Test
4.1.3. Difficulty Index
4.1.4. Discrimination Index
4.2. Description The Result of Research
4.2.1. Data of Students Value
4.3. Observation of Student Activities
4.4. Data Analysis
4.4.1. Normality Test
4.4.2. Homogeneity Test
4.4.3. The Effect of Learning Model on Learning Outcome
4.5.
Discussion
41
41
41
41
41
42
42
44
45
45
45
46
47
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclusion
5.2. Suggestion
50
50
REFERENCES
51
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1. The Steps of Cooperative Learning Model
10
Tabel 2.2. The Procedures of Learning Models Implementation of TPS
12
Tabel 2.3. The Procedures of Learning Models Implementation of NHT
14
Table 3.1. Design of Experimental Research
30
Table 3.2. The Gratings of Test
32
Table 3.3. Assessment Guidelines of Student Activities
34
Table 3.4. Index Classification of Test Validity
36
Table 3.5. The Classification of Difficulty Index of Test
37
Table 3.6. The Classification of Discrimination Index
38
Table 4.1. Normality Test Data
45
Table 4.2. Homogeneity Test Data
45
Table 4.3. Summary of Hypothesis Test
46
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1. Model of the LEPO Framework
6
Figure 2.2. Structure of Male Reproductive Organs
17
Figure 2.3. Structure of Female Reproductive Organs
18
Figure 2.4. Spermatogenesis
19
Figure 2.5. Oogenesis
20
Figure 2.6. Menstrual Cycle
22
Figure 3.1. Scheme of Research Procedures
35
Figure 4.1. Diagram of Pre-test TPS class and NHT class
42
Figure.4.2. Diagram of Post-test TPS class and NHT class
43
Figure 4.3 Percentage of Student Activities
44
vi
LIST OF APPENDIX
Page
Appendix 1.
Syllabus of Learning Activities
53
Appendix 2.
Lesson Plan
55
Appendix 3.
Question Sheet
84
Appendix 4.
Student Answer Sheet
94
Appendix 5.
Answer Key
95
Appendix 6.
Worksheet
96
Appendix 7.
Student Activity Sheet
103
Appendix 8.
Assesment Guide of Student Activity
104
Appendix 9.
The Calculation of Validity Test
105
Appendix 10. Table of Validity
108
Appendix 11. The Calculation of Realibility Test
109
Appendix 12. Table of Reability
110
Appendix 13. The Calculation of Difficulty Index
111
Appendix 14. Table of Difficulty Index
114
Appendix 15. The Calculation of Discrimination Index
115
Appendix 16. Table Calculation Discrimination Index
118
Appendix 17. Research Data
119
Appendix 18. The Calculation of Mean and Standart Deviation
123
Appendix 19. The Normality Test of Research Data
126
Appendix 20. The Calculation of Homogeneity Test
130
Appendix 21. Hypothesis Test
133
Appendix 22. Student Activity in TPS and NHT
137
Appendix 23. Documentation
151
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODECTION
1.1.
Background
Education systems aim to enable students not just to acquire knowledge
but also to become capable, confident and enthusiastic learners. At school,
students who have positive approaches to learning, in terms of both attitudes and
behaviours, tend to enjoy good learning outcomes. Beyond school, children and
adults who have developed the ability and motivation to learn on their own
initiative are well-placed to become lifelong learners. Thus, an overall assessment
of the outcomes of schooling needs to consider not only students’ knowledge and
understanding but also their approaches to learning (Artelt, 2003).
One of the problems that faced in education is lack of learning process. In
learning process, students are less encouraged to develop critical thinking. This
learning process in class is directed to student’s ability to memorize information,
the brain is forced to remember and store many information without required to
understand information that they remembered to relate in daily life.
As
consequently, when students have graduated from school, they are smart
theoretically but less of application (Sanjaya, 2006).
Based on the interview result with Mrs. Daryanti, the Biology teacher of
class XI IPA SMA Negeri 11 Medan, known that value of Kriteria Ketuntasan
Minimal (KKM) Biology subject in School is 72, while the learning outcomes of
students was average of 65 – 70. It was caused the teaching way of teacher still
monotonous although sometimes used learning media such as power point that
presented in front of the class, teachers still dominate teaching learning process so
that students tend to be passive when teaching learning process in the class. In this
situation, teachers serve as the main source of information so that the learning
activities happen in one direction and make students become bored in learning.
The interview result with Biology teacher in SMA Negeri 11 Medan stated
the cooperative learning model Think Pair Share and Numbered Head Together
2
type
never used in Biology subject yet. Thus, researcher introduced the
cooperative learning model to solve the problems.
Cooperative Learning refers to variety of teaching methods in which
students work in small group to help one another learn academic content. In
cooperative classrooms, students are expected to help each other to discuss and
argue with each other, to assess each other’s current knowledge and fill in gaps in
each other’s understanding, so that the interest and active students in the learning
process can be improved individually and groups (Siburian, 2013).
The reason of researcher choose Think-Pair-Share type is this cooperative
learning model designed to influence the interaction patterns of students. ThinkPair-Share is a classroom-based active learning strategy, in which students
work on a problem posed by the instructor, first individually, then in pairs, and
finally as a class-wide discussion. TPS has been recommended for its benefits of
allowing students to express their reasoning, reflect on their thinking, and
obtain immediate feedback on their understanding (Kothiyal, 2013)
Numbered Head Together learning model is one of cooperative learning
models that developed based on contructivism principle. According to Lie ( 2004 )
NHT can provide benefits for students who are underachieving and high achieving
students that work together to complete the task. The students in a group depend
on each other for information and for doing the task assigned on them This model
can promote mutual respect among the members and the prevent the domination
of particular student in a group.
Reproductive System Topic was the learning topic that teach in second
semester. This topic was also accordance with research time that carried out.
Researcher used learning model Think-Pair-Share and Numbered Head Together
type on Reproductive System, with the hope through this cooperative learning
students can work together to resolve the matter.
Based on the background above, so the title research title is “The
Difference of Student Learning Outcome and Activity between Think Pair
Share and Numbered Head Together Model on Human Reproductive System
in Class XI SMA Negeri 11 Medan Academic Year 2013/2014”.
3
1.2.
Identification of Problem
Based on the background above, the problem identification in this study :
1. The variation in learning still low in applying learning models
2. Lack of interaction between students with teacher or one student with
anothers.
3. The students cooperation in teaching learning process still low.
4. Learning outcomes still low level
1.3.
Scope of Problem
The problem scope in this research :
1.
This research is limited in using cooperative learning Think-Pair-Share
with Numbered Head Together.
2. The research is applied in Topic Reproductive System in Class XI SMA
Negeri 11 Medan Academic Year 2013/2014.
3. The Learning Outcomes that observed is limited in cognitive and affective
aspects.
1.4.
Research Question
The research question in this research :
1. Is there any difference between student learning outcome that taught by using
Think Pair Share and Numbered Head Together Type on Topic Human
Reproductive System in class XI SMA Negeri 11 Medan Academic Year
2013/2014?
2. Is there any difference between student learning activity that taught by using
Think Pair Share and Numbered Head Together Type on Topic Human
Reproductive System in class XI SMA Negeri 11 Medan Academic Year
2013/2014?
1.5.
Objectives of Study
The study objectives are to know :
1. The difference of student learning outcome that taught by using Think Pair
Share and Numbered Head Together Type on Topic Human Reproductive
System in class XI SMA Negeri 11 Medan Academic Year 2013/2014.
4
2. The difference of student learning activity that taught by using Think Pair
Share and Numbered Head Together Type on Topic Human Reproductive
System in class XI SMA Negeri 11 Medan Academic Year 2013/2014.
1.6.
Significance of Study
The significance that hoped in this study :
1. Consideration for biology teacher to determine learning models that will used
in delivering learning topic accordance with subject matter.
2. As input for researcher to self-prepare become teacher who able to improve
learning quality.
3. Provide knowledge and experience for student about discussion way with
using learning model Think Pair Share (TPS) and Numbered Head Together
(NHT) type so that can used by student to explore and develop knowledge and
learning skill for other topic through information sharing with peers or
another.
4. As practice source for next research in education field.
50
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclusion
The conclusion of this research :
1. There is significant difference of student learning outcome in biology that
taught by using Think Pair Share (TPS) and Numbered Head Together (NHT)
model on Human Reproductive System topic for class 11 in SMA Negeri 11
Medan.
2. Students activities that taught by using Think Pair Share (TPS) is more active
than Numbered Head Together (NHT) model on Human Reproductive System
topic for class 11 in SMA Negeri 11 Medan.
5.2. Suggestion
There were some suggestions can be proposed, namely :
1.
Students of SMA Negeri 11 Medan were encouraged to improve their interest
and curiosity by implementing cooperative learning model.
2.
For biology teachers can make Think Pair Share (TPS) and Numbered Head
Together (NHT) as alternative in choosing the learning model that was
expected to increase students learning outcome and students activities.
3.
To the next researcher was hoped to be better to do research because of
researcher was not capable to master the class in whole and influenced the
result, so next researcher will get more maximum result.
4.
Giving reinforcement to students is very effective to increase student learning
outcome.
51
REFERENCES
Aggarwal, J. C., (2001), Principles, Methods e Techniques of Teaching (Second
Revised Edition), Vikas Publishing House PVT LTD , New Delhi.
Arends, R. I., (2007), Learning
to Teach
Mc Graw-Hill Companies, New York.
(Seventh Edition), The
Arikunto, S., (2010), Masar-Masar Evaluasi Pendidikan Edisi Revisi. Penerbit
Bumi Aksara, Jakarta.
Artelt, C., Baumert, J., Julius, N., and Peschar, J., (2003), Learners For Life
Student Approaches To Learning, PISA Results Report, OECD
Aryulina, D., Muslim, C., dan Winarni, E., (2007), Biologi 2 SMA dan MA untuk
Kelas XI, Esis, Jakarta.
Baker, D. P., (2013), The Effects Of Implementing The Cooperative Learning
Structure, Numbered Heads Together, In Chemistry Classes At A Rural,
Low Performing High School, Thesis, Louisiana State University.
Febria, H., (2012), Perbandingan Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe
Numbered Head Together dan Think Pair Share terhadap Hasil Belajar
Biologi di SMPN 43 Medan., Skripsi, State University of Medan, Medan.
Istarani, (2012), 58 Model Pembelajaran Inovatif, Penerbit Media Persada,
Medan.
Junaidi, (2010), http://junaidichaniago.wordpress.com (Accesed Juli 2014).
Kailani, F., (2010), Penerapan Metode Kooperatif NHT (Numbered Head
Together) untuk Meningkatkan Minat Belajar Al-Qur’an Hadits SiswaSiswi Kelas IV A SD Darul Ulum Bungurasih, Jurnal Penelitian
Tindakan Kelas Pendidikan Agama Islam 1 (1) : 25-36.
Kothiyal, A., Majumdar, R., Murthy, S., and Iyer, S., (2013), Effect of ThinkPair-Share in a Large CS1 Class: 83% Sustained Engagement, ACM,
USA.
Krohmer, R. W., (2004), The Reproductive System, Infobase Publishing, USA.
Li, M. P., and Lam, B. H., (2013), The Active Classroom : Cooperative Learning,
The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hongkong.
Lie, A., (2004), Cooperative Learning, Penerbit P.T.Grasindo, Jakarta.
Mandal, R. R., (2009), Cooperative Learning Strategies to Enhance Writing Skill.
The Modern Journal of Applied Linguistic 1: 0974-8741
Nurhayati, N., (2009), Biologi 2 : Kelas XI SMA dan MA, Jakarta : Depdiknas
52
Ong, E. T., (2010), Keberkesanan Kaedah “Numbered Heads Together” Terhadap
Pencapaian Biologi Dalam Kalangan Pelajar Di Universiti Pendidikan
Sultan Idris, Jurnal Teknologi 53: 35–46.
Phillips, R. A., McNaught, C., and Kennedy, G., (2010), Towards a generalised
conceptual framework for learning: the Learning Environment,
Learning Processes and Learning Outcomes (LEPO) framework, EMMEMIA 2010 : 2495–2504.
Prawirohartono, S., dan Hidayati, S., (2007), Sains Biologi 2 SMA/MA, Bumi
Aksara, Jakarta.
Sabri, A., (2010), Strategi Belajar Mengajar Micro Teaching, Penerbit Quantum
Teaching, Padang.
Sanjaya, W., (2006), Strategi Pembelajaran Berorientasi Standar Proses
Pendidikan, Penerbit Media Kencana, Jakarta.
Sardiman, (2006), Interaksi dan Motivasi Belajar Mengajar, Penerbit PT Raja
Grafindo Persada, Jakarta.
Siburian, T. A., (2013), Improving Students’ Achievement on Writing Mescriptive
Text Through Think Pair Share, State University of Medan, Medan.
Solomon, E. P., Berg, L. R., and Martin, D.W., (2008) Biology ( Eighth Edition ),
Thomson Brooks/Cole, USA.
Sudijono, A., (2011), Pengantar Evaluasi Pendidikan,
Grafindo Persada, Jakarta.
Penerbit PT Raja
Sudjana, (2005), Metode Statistika, Penerbit Tarsito, Bandung.
Sudjana, N., (2009), Penilaian Hasil Proses Belajar Mengajar, Penerbit PT
Remaja Rosdakarya, Bandung.
Suyanto and Djihad, A., (2013), Bagaimana Menjadi Calon Guru dan Guru
Profesional, Multi Pressindo, Yogyakarta.
Syah, M., (2009), Psikologi Belajar, Penerbit PT Raja Grafindo Persada, Jakarta.
Syamsuri, D., (2007), Biologi SMA Untuk Kelas XI, Erlangga, Jakarta.
Trianto, (2011), Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif-Progresif, Kencana
Prenada Media Group, Jakarta.