Sry Rasyiidu Tebe, Rahmah Johar and Suhartati
Proceedings of The 7th Annual International Conference (AIC) Syiah Kuala University and The 6th International
Conference on Multidisciplinary Research (ICMR) in conjunction with the International Conference on Electrical
Engineering and Informatics (ICELTICs) 2017, October 18-20, 2017, Banda Aceh, Indonesia
Active Learning Process in Bidik Misi’s Students
of Mathematics Education in Syiah Kuala
University
*
Sry Rasyiidu Tebe, Rahmah Johar and Suhartati
Department of Mathematic Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education,
University of Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh 23111, Indonesia;
*
Corresponding author: [email protected]
Abstract
Students’ active learning is a process which is affected students’
comprehension and ability in term tasks and activities. Consequently, the
aim of this study was to dispose the activity of bidik misi’s students of
mathematics education in Syiah Kuala University. The population of this
study were chosen based on GPA (Grade Point Average) all of bidik misi’s
students at mathematics’ education in Syiah Kuala University. The
sample was collected by purposive sampling. Purposive sampling was
used because there was one class that has the highest number of bidik
misi’s students. Besides the students in the force of 2015 has been
following several courses so to see the activity that was analyzed based
on GPA more efficiently done on that class. Accordingly, ten students
were selected as sample. Data collection was obtained by observation
and interview. The observation was used to identify student’s active
learning in class. The interview which was employed to identify the
causing of students active learning was done after the observation. In
teaching learning process, there were several bidik misi's students is
active, however there were several bidik misi's students is not active. it
was caused some factors such as students’ motivation influence and
students’ environment influence.
Keywords: active learning process, learning outcomes, GPA.
Introduction
Learning Process is process built by practice and experience which do inside or
outside class. Learning is basic process of development of human life. The important
aspect of the learning process is activity. As stated in Stigler and Hiebert (2004),
students’ active learning greatly influences the success of learning. Student-centered
learning is favorable to use in teaching to identify student liveliness (Jana, et al.,
2011). It can affect student learning outcomes (Jana, et al., 2011). Momani, Asri,
and Altawi (2016) stated that students should be given the opportunity to gain an
ideal learning so they can learn more and able to apply the knowledge. Student
active learning influence the students’ learning outcomes. The collaborative nature
of the active learning can encourage social skills such as decision-making and to
build interpersonal communication (Kuh, 2003; Marks, 2000; Mark Oberg, 2015).
Activeness of the learning process is a process in which students are actively
involved to build understanding and ability are defined in terms of tasks and
activities. These activities involve all student opinion (Bell and Kahroff, 2006).
729
Sry Rasyiidu Tebe, Rahmah Johar and Suhartati
Based on the results of the study Jana, et al., (2011) was found only lecturer who
presented teaching materials while the students simply recorded what was taught by
the lecture this condition caused students to become passive. Practically, students
don’t have ability ask question in the classroom during the during the learning
process takes place. The lack of the abilities due to learning process in class cause
by teachers deliver materials in one direction.
In line with Bowel, Eison, and McCallum (2013), conventional method was generally
used by teachers in teaching. Yudistiro (2016) also stated that students who were
learning were unable to choose a good way of learning. It caused the limitless of
knowledge to ask question about the materials that was taught by the teachers and
also caused students’ lack of confidence. Students look passive and silent
throughout the learning process takes place, this is caused by the method used is
the professor’s lecture (Nurhasanah, 2012). This activity is not in line with
expectations as proposed (Momani, Asiri, & Alatawi, 2016) that the student is able
to apply the learning to be better with active learning.
Tuition Fee Assistance Program namely bidik misi, is given to support students
economic. Students’ which get the bidik misi is students who have concern in
economy (Sucahyo, 2014). The students are required to further enhance the good
achievements in the field of curricular, co-curricular and extracurricular activities.
This has an impact on other students to further improve performance. Bidik misi’s
aimed at delivering graduates who are independent, productive and social care,
indefinitely contribute to reducing poverty (Kemritekdikti, 2015). There are many
efforts being made to improve academic achievement learning among student
(Abidin, et al., 2011). According to Tessema, Ready and Astani (2014) the value of
the average satisfaction of the GPA of students who do not work tends to be higher
than in students who work part-time.
Based on the introduction above the problem in this what is the relationship between
bidik misi students’ active learning and their GPA? And what is the causing of that
phenomenon?
Research Method
This research was conducted in order to find out the relation of student activation in
activation of teaching and learning process based on student's math education GPA
of Syiah Kuala University. The subject of this research is bidik misi students batch
2015 which consist of 10 students. Jigsaw, one of the cooperative learning is one of
the cooperative learning that push the student actively and help one another on
comprehend
the
learning
material
to
achieve/gain
the
maximum
performance/achievement (Isjoni, 2010). Jigsaw put the student into some small
groups which consist 4 -6 students and each group get the information about the
topic from their learning material (huda). In the observation class, the student is
divided into source class and expert class to explain learning material that given for
each group member.
The objective of this research is to describe relationship bidik misi student being
active in learning process related with/ based on GPA. To get the data, the author
used observation and interview sheet. The observation sheet is used while the
teaching learning process happen/ during the teaching process based on indicator of
being active in teaching learning process.
There are several indicators in
observation, I.e.: (1) students' attention on teacher' explanation, (2) team work, (3)
student' ability in giving opinion in expert group, (4) student' ability in giving opinion
in source group, (5) giving an opportunity to give an opinion to others member in
group, (6) being good listener when other speech, (7) giving the wonderful idea, (8)
making plan and work division ripely, (9) the decision is based on others
730
Proceedings of The 7th Annual International Conference (AIC) Syiah Kuala University and The 6th International
Conference on Multidisciplinary Research (ICMR) in conjunction with the International Conference on Electrical
Engineering and Informatics (ICELTICs) 2017, October 18-20, 2017, Banda Aceh, Indonesia
consideration, (10) exploit the potential of group members, help each other to solve
problems. The indicator learning process by jigsaw was adopted from Harahap
(2011). The subject in observation class used discussion method in teaching learning
strategy subject. Whereas, the interview conducted after the researcher found the
result of observation class. The interviewed student is the bidik misi's student who
have the high level such as active, moderate, and low in class. The data analysis
conducted based on the result of this observation in the form of the descriptive
activity in teaching learning process for bidik misi's students.
Results and Discussion
Based on the results of data analysis are outlined that the level of activity bidik
misi’s student are divided into high, medium and low. The observations were made
with two meetings. At the first meeting, and learning activities carried out by
discussions with the expert group so that some indicators did not show up. Here is
presented the data at the observation first meeting.
N
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Nama
Nurul Asmita
Salman Al Farisi
Cut Mahfudhah
Raudhatul Jannah
Rahma Tini
Siti Muthah
Suaibatul
Aslamiah
Nuha Fadhilah
Cut Ayu Mutia
Yuswan
Table 1. The table in first meeting
Indicator
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
In the observation of the second meeting, all the students back to explain the field
of knowledge that has been gained in the expert group to the original group. At this
meeting all indicators were visible. The second meeting, there were some students
who were not present, so many indicators that cannot be seen in these students.
Here is presented the data at the observation second meeting.
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Nama
Nurul Asmita
Salman Al Farisi
Cut Mahfudhah
Raudhatul Jannah
Rahma Tini
Siti Muthah
Suaibatul
Aslamiah
Nuha Fadhilah
Cut Ayu Mutia
Yuswan
Table 2. The table in second meeting
Indicator
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Based on table 2, it can be seen that only a few of student activity’s indicators can
be seen. It was due to some indicators which appeared on the first meeting were.
After observation, the liveliness of the students is classified into high-level, medium
731
Sry Rasyiidu Tebe, Rahmah Johar and Suhartati
and low can be seen from the result of table observation. Each indicator was
observed by assessment in the form of a checkmark for students' activeness, while
students who are not active only were emptied. Moreover, student centered was in
teaching learning proses. This is supported by previous studies (Nurhasanah, 2012),
that a constructivist approach is student-centered that expected in teaching learning
process to be actively. That is the result of learning activities on the activity level
classification of students is high, medium and low.
Figure 1. Discussions that occur in students a high level of activity.
Based on the figure above, it can be seen student’s high activity level; they are in a
good teaching learning process. The student look actively in presenting the material,
also they are actively in the question and answer process and respond the
questions. Further the discussion that occurring of student medium level of
activeness can be seen in the figure below.
Figure 2. Discussions that occur at a low activity level student.
Based on the figure above, it can be seen student’s high activity level; they are in a
good teaching learning process. The students were active in teaching learning
process, but students in the medium level of activeness lack of motivation to
respond friends and professor’s questions.
Figure 3. Discussions that occur at a low activity level student.
Furthermore, the student’s low levels of activeness. The student is not active
in the group of question-answer process; they cannot answer the lecture questions
and lack motivation in the learning process. After further observation, it was needed
for more accurate data about the factors that affect the students’ bidik misi’s
732
Proceedings of The 7th Annual International Conference (AIC) Syiah Kuala University and The 6th International
Conference on Multidisciplinary Research (ICMR) in conjunction with the International Conference on Electrical
Engineering and Informatics (ICELTICs) 2017, October 18-20, 2017, Banda Aceh, Indonesia
activity. So, it should be interviewed to get more information. Interviews in this
research conducted after the data obtained on the observation that on May 18, 2017
and it was done by three students namely CAM, RJ and SM. The student is a student
who has classified the level of activity in the classes was observed during the
learning process in class with discussion method. In the process of interviewing
students who were high-level classification is CAM. These students are actively
involved in the teaching learning process both in presentation and question and
answer. It is caused by several factors which can include the students who have the
urge or high motivation, this student is also active in the discussion both ask,
answer and comment. Furthermore, in the terms of the GPA student, CAM has good
GPA, which corresponds to the level of activity in the learning process, namely 3.20.
The results of this observation are supported by Momani, Asiri and Alatawi (2016)
that an active student is able to apply the learning well.
The students who have the medium level activeness is RJ. as described in the
picture above, students who have the medium level activeness also have the same
potential as CAM. But RJ lacking motivation while responding answer a few lecture
questions. It occurred because the students were shamed and fear wrong to respond
the lecture question so that these students decided to silent and hesitant to answer
the lecture question. Besides RJ has the ability to communicate in presenting some
material well and able to explain in detail the materials provided. In addition, if the
terms of the GPA student, the GPA of RJ in the teaching learning process, namely
3.00. This observation is supported by the results of Momani, Asiri and Alatawi
(2016) that an active student is able to apply the learning well.
Meanwhile, a student with a low level of activity in this class was one person, who is
SM. During the discussion SM is not active in the teaching learning process, SM only
explain the material provided. However, during the process of answering-question is
done SM just silent and look will not answer the question. After the interviews, it
found that the cause of the student inactivity due to a lack of motivation in learning,
have many activities outside the course, has a lot of tasks and less active
discussion. The students' learning motivation is strongly influenced by the
environment. Some of these factors are appropriate with the achievements gained
or GPA obtained of 2.9. This is supported by previous studies that students who
work part-time has not good value than the average GPA (Tessema, 2014). Based
on the results of research was conducted observation of students’ bidik misi’s get
the scholarship standard, but as a students’ bidik misi’s have some demands that
must be achieved. One of these demands is actively prosecuted students, both
academic and non-academic.
Conclusions
Based on the observations made in lectures class, it was found that the lecturers are
already using the method of discussion to build activeness of students in the
learning process in the students participated well, especially students’ bidik misi’s.
But there are some students who are not active. It is caused by several factors that
are influenced by environmental factors and the factors that are influenced by the
students' learning motivation.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to say thank the supervisor subjects. Innovative Learning
Mathematics for the support and guidance of over the years, as well as lecture
subjects of Teaching Learning Process (TLP) and the aim of the mission of the
students of Faculty Mathematics Education Syiah Kuala University for participate in
implementation this study. Without them all this research would not be
accomplished.
733
Sry Rasyiidu Tebe, Rahmah Johar and Suhartati
References
Abidin, M. J. Z., Rezaee, A. A., Abdullah, H. N., & Singh, K. K. B. (2011). Learning
styles and overall academic achievement in a specific educational system.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(10), 143-152.
Bell, D. K. J. (2006). Active Learning handbook. Missouri: Webster University.
Handhika, J. K. S. (2011). Improving students in learning through active
participation presentation methods classroom. Education Journal, 3(1), 47-54.
Huda, M. (2011). Cooperative learning methods, mechanical, structural and applied
model. Yogyakarta: Student Library.
Isjoni. 2010. Cooperative learning effectiveness study group. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Jana, H., Erin, D. S., Kate L. B., Rachel, E. T., & Amy, M. G. (2011). Learning by
doing: An empirical study of active teaching techniques. Journal of Effective
Teaching, 11(2), 40-54.
Kemritekdikti. 2015. Implementation Guidelines Help Bidikmisi Education Costs In
2015.
McCallum, D. (2013). Journal writing as an active learning tool in history education.
Teaching Scholar Caribbean, 3(1), 23-39.
Momani, M., Asiri, M.A., & Alatawi, S. M. (2016). The impact of implementing active
learning strategies in teaching English from the perspective of Tabuk Region
Educational Intermediate School Teachers. Asian Journal of Educational
Research, 4(1), 19-35.
Nurhasanah, F. (2012). The activeness students in the learning process planning
and development course mathematics learning program through constructivist
approaches in lesson study activity. Scientific Journal of Mathematical Study
Program STKIP Siliwangi Bandung, 1(1), 62
Oberg, M. (2015). Active Learning Manifaseted Within a Synchronous Online
Classroom (doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from University of Pittsburgh ETD.
(Accession No. 24623)
Sucahyo, A, Y., & Muhammad, H. N. (2014). Comparisons between the student
academic achievement and student with scholarship and those without
scholarship. Jurnal Pendidikan Olahraga dan Kesehatan, 2(1), 266-268.
Tessema, M, T., Ready, K. J., Astani, M. (2014). Does part-time job affect college
students' satisfaction and academic performance (GPA)? The case of a mid-sized
public university. International Journal of Business Administration, 5(2), 50-59.
Yudistiro. (2016). Relations with the academic procrastination learning achievement
in student active in extracurricular activities. E-Journal Fisip Unmul Psychology,
4(2), 425-431.
734
Conference on Multidisciplinary Research (ICMR) in conjunction with the International Conference on Electrical
Engineering and Informatics (ICELTICs) 2017, October 18-20, 2017, Banda Aceh, Indonesia
Active Learning Process in Bidik Misi’s Students
of Mathematics Education in Syiah Kuala
University
*
Sry Rasyiidu Tebe, Rahmah Johar and Suhartati
Department of Mathematic Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education,
University of Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh 23111, Indonesia;
*
Corresponding author: [email protected]
Abstract
Students’ active learning is a process which is affected students’
comprehension and ability in term tasks and activities. Consequently, the
aim of this study was to dispose the activity of bidik misi’s students of
mathematics education in Syiah Kuala University. The population of this
study were chosen based on GPA (Grade Point Average) all of bidik misi’s
students at mathematics’ education in Syiah Kuala University. The
sample was collected by purposive sampling. Purposive sampling was
used because there was one class that has the highest number of bidik
misi’s students. Besides the students in the force of 2015 has been
following several courses so to see the activity that was analyzed based
on GPA more efficiently done on that class. Accordingly, ten students
were selected as sample. Data collection was obtained by observation
and interview. The observation was used to identify student’s active
learning in class. The interview which was employed to identify the
causing of students active learning was done after the observation. In
teaching learning process, there were several bidik misi's students is
active, however there were several bidik misi's students is not active. it
was caused some factors such as students’ motivation influence and
students’ environment influence.
Keywords: active learning process, learning outcomes, GPA.
Introduction
Learning Process is process built by practice and experience which do inside or
outside class. Learning is basic process of development of human life. The important
aspect of the learning process is activity. As stated in Stigler and Hiebert (2004),
students’ active learning greatly influences the success of learning. Student-centered
learning is favorable to use in teaching to identify student liveliness (Jana, et al.,
2011). It can affect student learning outcomes (Jana, et al., 2011). Momani, Asri,
and Altawi (2016) stated that students should be given the opportunity to gain an
ideal learning so they can learn more and able to apply the knowledge. Student
active learning influence the students’ learning outcomes. The collaborative nature
of the active learning can encourage social skills such as decision-making and to
build interpersonal communication (Kuh, 2003; Marks, 2000; Mark Oberg, 2015).
Activeness of the learning process is a process in which students are actively
involved to build understanding and ability are defined in terms of tasks and
activities. These activities involve all student opinion (Bell and Kahroff, 2006).
729
Sry Rasyiidu Tebe, Rahmah Johar and Suhartati
Based on the results of the study Jana, et al., (2011) was found only lecturer who
presented teaching materials while the students simply recorded what was taught by
the lecture this condition caused students to become passive. Practically, students
don’t have ability ask question in the classroom during the during the learning
process takes place. The lack of the abilities due to learning process in class cause
by teachers deliver materials in one direction.
In line with Bowel, Eison, and McCallum (2013), conventional method was generally
used by teachers in teaching. Yudistiro (2016) also stated that students who were
learning were unable to choose a good way of learning. It caused the limitless of
knowledge to ask question about the materials that was taught by the teachers and
also caused students’ lack of confidence. Students look passive and silent
throughout the learning process takes place, this is caused by the method used is
the professor’s lecture (Nurhasanah, 2012). This activity is not in line with
expectations as proposed (Momani, Asiri, & Alatawi, 2016) that the student is able
to apply the learning to be better with active learning.
Tuition Fee Assistance Program namely bidik misi, is given to support students
economic. Students’ which get the bidik misi is students who have concern in
economy (Sucahyo, 2014). The students are required to further enhance the good
achievements in the field of curricular, co-curricular and extracurricular activities.
This has an impact on other students to further improve performance. Bidik misi’s
aimed at delivering graduates who are independent, productive and social care,
indefinitely contribute to reducing poverty (Kemritekdikti, 2015). There are many
efforts being made to improve academic achievement learning among student
(Abidin, et al., 2011). According to Tessema, Ready and Astani (2014) the value of
the average satisfaction of the GPA of students who do not work tends to be higher
than in students who work part-time.
Based on the introduction above the problem in this what is the relationship between
bidik misi students’ active learning and their GPA? And what is the causing of that
phenomenon?
Research Method
This research was conducted in order to find out the relation of student activation in
activation of teaching and learning process based on student's math education GPA
of Syiah Kuala University. The subject of this research is bidik misi students batch
2015 which consist of 10 students. Jigsaw, one of the cooperative learning is one of
the cooperative learning that push the student actively and help one another on
comprehend
the
learning
material
to
achieve/gain
the
maximum
performance/achievement (Isjoni, 2010). Jigsaw put the student into some small
groups which consist 4 -6 students and each group get the information about the
topic from their learning material (huda). In the observation class, the student is
divided into source class and expert class to explain learning material that given for
each group member.
The objective of this research is to describe relationship bidik misi student being
active in learning process related with/ based on GPA. To get the data, the author
used observation and interview sheet. The observation sheet is used while the
teaching learning process happen/ during the teaching process based on indicator of
being active in teaching learning process.
There are several indicators in
observation, I.e.: (1) students' attention on teacher' explanation, (2) team work, (3)
student' ability in giving opinion in expert group, (4) student' ability in giving opinion
in source group, (5) giving an opportunity to give an opinion to others member in
group, (6) being good listener when other speech, (7) giving the wonderful idea, (8)
making plan and work division ripely, (9) the decision is based on others
730
Proceedings of The 7th Annual International Conference (AIC) Syiah Kuala University and The 6th International
Conference on Multidisciplinary Research (ICMR) in conjunction with the International Conference on Electrical
Engineering and Informatics (ICELTICs) 2017, October 18-20, 2017, Banda Aceh, Indonesia
consideration, (10) exploit the potential of group members, help each other to solve
problems. The indicator learning process by jigsaw was adopted from Harahap
(2011). The subject in observation class used discussion method in teaching learning
strategy subject. Whereas, the interview conducted after the researcher found the
result of observation class. The interviewed student is the bidik misi's student who
have the high level such as active, moderate, and low in class. The data analysis
conducted based on the result of this observation in the form of the descriptive
activity in teaching learning process for bidik misi's students.
Results and Discussion
Based on the results of data analysis are outlined that the level of activity bidik
misi’s student are divided into high, medium and low. The observations were made
with two meetings. At the first meeting, and learning activities carried out by
discussions with the expert group so that some indicators did not show up. Here is
presented the data at the observation first meeting.
N
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Nama
Nurul Asmita
Salman Al Farisi
Cut Mahfudhah
Raudhatul Jannah
Rahma Tini
Siti Muthah
Suaibatul
Aslamiah
Nuha Fadhilah
Cut Ayu Mutia
Yuswan
Table 1. The table in first meeting
Indicator
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
In the observation of the second meeting, all the students back to explain the field
of knowledge that has been gained in the expert group to the original group. At this
meeting all indicators were visible. The second meeting, there were some students
who were not present, so many indicators that cannot be seen in these students.
Here is presented the data at the observation second meeting.
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Nama
Nurul Asmita
Salman Al Farisi
Cut Mahfudhah
Raudhatul Jannah
Rahma Tini
Siti Muthah
Suaibatul
Aslamiah
Nuha Fadhilah
Cut Ayu Mutia
Yuswan
Table 2. The table in second meeting
Indicator
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Based on table 2, it can be seen that only a few of student activity’s indicators can
be seen. It was due to some indicators which appeared on the first meeting were.
After observation, the liveliness of the students is classified into high-level, medium
731
Sry Rasyiidu Tebe, Rahmah Johar and Suhartati
and low can be seen from the result of table observation. Each indicator was
observed by assessment in the form of a checkmark for students' activeness, while
students who are not active only were emptied. Moreover, student centered was in
teaching learning proses. This is supported by previous studies (Nurhasanah, 2012),
that a constructivist approach is student-centered that expected in teaching learning
process to be actively. That is the result of learning activities on the activity level
classification of students is high, medium and low.
Figure 1. Discussions that occur in students a high level of activity.
Based on the figure above, it can be seen student’s high activity level; they are in a
good teaching learning process. The student look actively in presenting the material,
also they are actively in the question and answer process and respond the
questions. Further the discussion that occurring of student medium level of
activeness can be seen in the figure below.
Figure 2. Discussions that occur at a low activity level student.
Based on the figure above, it can be seen student’s high activity level; they are in a
good teaching learning process. The students were active in teaching learning
process, but students in the medium level of activeness lack of motivation to
respond friends and professor’s questions.
Figure 3. Discussions that occur at a low activity level student.
Furthermore, the student’s low levels of activeness. The student is not active
in the group of question-answer process; they cannot answer the lecture questions
and lack motivation in the learning process. After further observation, it was needed
for more accurate data about the factors that affect the students’ bidik misi’s
732
Proceedings of The 7th Annual International Conference (AIC) Syiah Kuala University and The 6th International
Conference on Multidisciplinary Research (ICMR) in conjunction with the International Conference on Electrical
Engineering and Informatics (ICELTICs) 2017, October 18-20, 2017, Banda Aceh, Indonesia
activity. So, it should be interviewed to get more information. Interviews in this
research conducted after the data obtained on the observation that on May 18, 2017
and it was done by three students namely CAM, RJ and SM. The student is a student
who has classified the level of activity in the classes was observed during the
learning process in class with discussion method. In the process of interviewing
students who were high-level classification is CAM. These students are actively
involved in the teaching learning process both in presentation and question and
answer. It is caused by several factors which can include the students who have the
urge or high motivation, this student is also active in the discussion both ask,
answer and comment. Furthermore, in the terms of the GPA student, CAM has good
GPA, which corresponds to the level of activity in the learning process, namely 3.20.
The results of this observation are supported by Momani, Asiri and Alatawi (2016)
that an active student is able to apply the learning well.
The students who have the medium level activeness is RJ. as described in the
picture above, students who have the medium level activeness also have the same
potential as CAM. But RJ lacking motivation while responding answer a few lecture
questions. It occurred because the students were shamed and fear wrong to respond
the lecture question so that these students decided to silent and hesitant to answer
the lecture question. Besides RJ has the ability to communicate in presenting some
material well and able to explain in detail the materials provided. In addition, if the
terms of the GPA student, the GPA of RJ in the teaching learning process, namely
3.00. This observation is supported by the results of Momani, Asiri and Alatawi
(2016) that an active student is able to apply the learning well.
Meanwhile, a student with a low level of activity in this class was one person, who is
SM. During the discussion SM is not active in the teaching learning process, SM only
explain the material provided. However, during the process of answering-question is
done SM just silent and look will not answer the question. After the interviews, it
found that the cause of the student inactivity due to a lack of motivation in learning,
have many activities outside the course, has a lot of tasks and less active
discussion. The students' learning motivation is strongly influenced by the
environment. Some of these factors are appropriate with the achievements gained
or GPA obtained of 2.9. This is supported by previous studies that students who
work part-time has not good value than the average GPA (Tessema, 2014). Based
on the results of research was conducted observation of students’ bidik misi’s get
the scholarship standard, but as a students’ bidik misi’s have some demands that
must be achieved. One of these demands is actively prosecuted students, both
academic and non-academic.
Conclusions
Based on the observations made in lectures class, it was found that the lecturers are
already using the method of discussion to build activeness of students in the
learning process in the students participated well, especially students’ bidik misi’s.
But there are some students who are not active. It is caused by several factors that
are influenced by environmental factors and the factors that are influenced by the
students' learning motivation.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to say thank the supervisor subjects. Innovative Learning
Mathematics for the support and guidance of over the years, as well as lecture
subjects of Teaching Learning Process (TLP) and the aim of the mission of the
students of Faculty Mathematics Education Syiah Kuala University for participate in
implementation this study. Without them all this research would not be
accomplished.
733
Sry Rasyiidu Tebe, Rahmah Johar and Suhartati
References
Abidin, M. J. Z., Rezaee, A. A., Abdullah, H. N., & Singh, K. K. B. (2011). Learning
styles and overall academic achievement in a specific educational system.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(10), 143-152.
Bell, D. K. J. (2006). Active Learning handbook. Missouri: Webster University.
Handhika, J. K. S. (2011). Improving students in learning through active
participation presentation methods classroom. Education Journal, 3(1), 47-54.
Huda, M. (2011). Cooperative learning methods, mechanical, structural and applied
model. Yogyakarta: Student Library.
Isjoni. 2010. Cooperative learning effectiveness study group. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Jana, H., Erin, D. S., Kate L. B., Rachel, E. T., & Amy, M. G. (2011). Learning by
doing: An empirical study of active teaching techniques. Journal of Effective
Teaching, 11(2), 40-54.
Kemritekdikti. 2015. Implementation Guidelines Help Bidikmisi Education Costs In
2015.
McCallum, D. (2013). Journal writing as an active learning tool in history education.
Teaching Scholar Caribbean, 3(1), 23-39.
Momani, M., Asiri, M.A., & Alatawi, S. M. (2016). The impact of implementing active
learning strategies in teaching English from the perspective of Tabuk Region
Educational Intermediate School Teachers. Asian Journal of Educational
Research, 4(1), 19-35.
Nurhasanah, F. (2012). The activeness students in the learning process planning
and development course mathematics learning program through constructivist
approaches in lesson study activity. Scientific Journal of Mathematical Study
Program STKIP Siliwangi Bandung, 1(1), 62
Oberg, M. (2015). Active Learning Manifaseted Within a Synchronous Online
Classroom (doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from University of Pittsburgh ETD.
(Accession No. 24623)
Sucahyo, A, Y., & Muhammad, H. N. (2014). Comparisons between the student
academic achievement and student with scholarship and those without
scholarship. Jurnal Pendidikan Olahraga dan Kesehatan, 2(1), 266-268.
Tessema, M, T., Ready, K. J., Astani, M. (2014). Does part-time job affect college
students' satisfaction and academic performance (GPA)? The case of a mid-sized
public university. International Journal of Business Administration, 5(2), 50-59.
Yudistiro. (2016). Relations with the academic procrastination learning achievement
in student active in extracurricular activities. E-Journal Fisip Unmul Psychology,
4(2), 425-431.
734