EFFECTIVENESS OF JIGSAW COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL IN HEAT AND TEMPERATURE ON STUDENT.

(1)

EFFECTIVENESS OF JIGSAW COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL IN HEAT AND TEMPERATURE ON STUDENT’S LEARNING OUTCOMES

GRADE X SMA SWASTA MUHAMMADIYAH 1 MEDAN IN ACADEMIC YEAR 2011/2012

By:

Febriani Hastini Nst 081244210011

Physics Bilingual Education Study Program

THESIS

Submitted to fulfill the requirement for the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan

PHYSICS DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

MEDAN 2012

(2)

(3)

PREFACE

Syukur Alhamdulillah, praise and thanks to Allah SWT the Lord of hosts, the Almighty who has given grace and blessing to writer so that this thesis can be done. Shalawat and Salam to Rasulullah Muhammad SAW, hopefully His Syafaat will be abundant in days later.

This thesis which is titled “Effectiveness of Jigsaw Cooperative Learning Model in Heat and Temperature on Student’s Learning Outcomes Grade X SMA Swasta Muhammadiyah 1 Medan in Academic Year 2011/2012” is arranged to acquire the degree of “Sarjana Pendidikan”, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences State University of Medan.

In this occasion, let me say thanks to Mr. Drs. Eidi Sihombing, M. S as thesis supervisor who has guided and given suggestion to writer from the beginning until the end of writing this research. Thanks also to Mr. Prof. Dr. Sahyar, MS,MM, Mr. Dr. Ridwan Abdullah Sani, M.Si, and Drs. JH. Panggabean, M.Si who have given critic and suggestion to writer from the planning of research until finishing of thesis writing. Thanks also to Mr. Prof. Dr. Mara Bangun Harahap, MS as academic supervisor who had guided and motivated the writer during the lecture, Mr. Prof. Drs. Motlan, M.Sc., Ph.D as the dean of FMIPA Unimed.

Thanks also for all Mr. and Mrs. lecturer and staff employee of Physics FMIPA State University of Medan who have encourage the writer during the lecture. Thanks also to principal of SMA Swasta Muhammadiyah 1 Medan Mr. Drs Anwar Sembiring, M.Pd and also to Physics teacher Mrs. Siti Basariah, S.Pd who have helped and guided the writer during this research was taken place and also to Mr. And Mrs. teacher and staff employee who have provided the oppurtunity and aid during this research was taken place.

(4)

Gratefully and specially to : Dear my lovely mother Syahri Banun Hrp and my lovely father H. Jumroddin Nst, S.Sos who have educated me and provides motivation, praying and love, for my sisters Nurhidayah Fithriah Nst, S.Pd and Rahimah Nst, for my brothers Muhammad Syukur and Muhammad Syukri and for all my family who have supported me.

To all of my friends in Physics Department FMIPA UNIMED, especially to 2008 students of Physics Bilingual 2008: Arini, Boby, Tika, Nawi, Alfan, Majid, Risdo, Luqman, Azwar, Zia, Laila, Laurent, Ruth, Ester, Wita, and Nurul who have provided spirit, motivation, and aid to the writer. Rightfully proud to my friends Zakiyah, Sarjani and Jubaidah.

Writer realizes that there is still deficiencies in this research, that is why, writer expect constructivism’s advice and suggestion in order to make this thesis is useful for all of us.

Medan, July 2012 Writer

Febriani Hastini Nst ID. Num. 081244210011

(5)

EFFECTIVENESS OF JIGSAW COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL IN HEAT AND TEMPERATURE ON STUDENT’S LEARNING

OUTCOMES GRADE X SMA SWASTA MUHAMMADIYAH 1 MEDAN IN

ACADEMIC YEAR 2011/2012

Febriani Hastini Nst (ID. Number: 081244210011)

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this research was to find out the effectiveness of jigsaw cooperative learning model in heat and temperature on student’s learning outcomes grade X SMA Swasta Muhammadiyah 1 Medan in Academic Year 2011/2012.

The research method was quasi experimental. The population were seventy (70) students grade X semester II SMA Swasta Muhammadiyah 1 Medan and all of the population became sample of this research. The sample were divided into two classes, experimental and control class.

The results that were obtained: (1) The post-test mean value of the experimental class was 69.47 and 56.56 was the mean value for control class. Standard deviation for two classes were 13.65 and 18.65. Normality of the test result from the both samples was normal but not homogenous. Therefore t’- test was conducted on this research. The tcount was 3.29 with -2.03 lower limit and 2.03 upper limit. The post-test was not fulfill the limit requirement of acceptance area -2.03< tcount < 2.03. Hence, alternative hypothesis (Ha) was accepted and null hypothesis (Ho) was rejected. (2) Furthermore, the mean value of student's learning outcomes in experimental class from affective and psychomotor domain were 72.5 and 71.3 while in control class were 69.4 and 69.4. They were in good category. It was concluded that there were no effect difference of jigsaw and direct instruction learning model for affective and psychomotor domain on student’s learning outcomes in heat and temeperature. (3) In addition, the mean value of instrument’s sensitivity index in experimental class was 0.276 that was in sensitive category while in control class was 0.187 which meant the requirement of good sensitivity index of instrument was not fulfillment. The percentage result of class learning mastery in experimental class was 86.1 % that was categorized passed meanwhile in control class was 58.8 % that was categorized not passed. Then, the mean value of activities observation result in experimental class was 74.38 while in control class was 70.63 that were included in good category.It was concluded that jigsaw cooperative learning model is more effective than direct instruction learning model. Therefore, the effectiveness of jigsaw cooperative learning model was high on the student’s learning outcomes.

(6)

List of Table

Page

Table 2.1 Comparison of Constructivism and Traditional Class 10 Table 2.2 Syntax of Direct Instruction Learning Model

19 Table 2.3 Phases of Cooperative Learning Model

Table 2.4 Conversion of Deveopment Score

Table 2.5 Level of Group Awards

27 Table 2.6 Syntax of Jigsaw Cooperative Learning Model

Table 2.7 Kinds of Thermometer

Table 3.1 Two Pre-test - Post-test Design

Table 3.2 Learning Outcomes Specification 46

Table 3.3 Criteria of Value Percentage of Content Validation 48

Table 3.4 Guideline of Affective Domain 48

Table 3.5 Guideline of Psychomotor Domain 49

Table 3.6 Criteria of Affective and Psychomotor Domain 49 Table 3.7 Indicator of Activies Observation Result 55 Table 3.8 Criterion of Activities Observation Result

55 Table 4.1 Pre-test data Normality of Experimental and Control Class 57 Table 4.2 Summary of Homogeneity Test Result of Pre-test Data 58 Table 4.3 Summary of Pre-test t-test Calculation 58 Table 4.4 Post-test Data Normality Test of Experiment and Control Class 60 Table 4.5 Summary of Homogeneity Test Result of Post-test Data 60 Table 4.6 Summary of Post-test t-test Calculation 61

(7)

List of Figure

Page

Figure 2.1 The Relationship between Current Affective and Future 15 Behavior

Figure 2.2 Illustration of Jigsaw Group 25

Figure 2.3 Analog (Alcohol Thermometer) and Digital Thermometer 31 Figure 2.4 Comparison of Thermometer Temperature Scale 34 Figure 2.5 Process of Change of Substance Form 35

Figure 2.6 Scheme of Plasma Formation 35

Figure 3.1 Scheme of Research Design 45

Figure 4.1 Bar Chart of Pre-test Data in Experiment and 57 Control Class

Figure 4.2 Bar Chart of Post-test Data in Experiment and 59 Control Class

Figure 4.3 Development of Student’s Learning Outcomes 62 in Affective Domain

Figure 4.4 Development of Student’s Learning Outcomes 63 in Psychomotor Domain

Figure 4.5 Sensitivity Index of Instrument 63

Figure 4.6 Learning Mastery 64

Figure 4.7 Activities Observation Result 65

(8)

List of Appendix

Page

Appendix 1. Lesson Plan 1

Appendix 2. Lesson Plan 2

Appendix 3. Lesson Plan 3

Appendix 4. Lesson Plan 4

103

Appendix 5. Student’s Hand Out 1

105

Appendix 6. Student’s Hand Out 2

108 Appendix 7. Specification Table of Learning Outcomes

Test 112

Appendix 8. Pre-test Problems

120

Appendix 9. Post-test Problems

121 Appendix 10. Pre-test and Post-test of Experimental Class 122 Appendix 11. Pre-test and Post-test of Control Class 123 Appendix 12 Pre-test Result of Experimental Class 124 Appendix 13 Pre-test Result of Control Class 125 Appendix 14 Post-test Result of Experimental Class 126 Appendix 15 Post-test Result of Control Class 127 Appendix 16 Calculation of Pre-test and Post-test Average

and Deviation Standard of Experimental Class 12 Appendix 17 Calculation of Pre-test and Post-test Average

and Deviation Standard of Control Class 130

Appendix 18 Normality Test of Data 132

Appendix 19 Homogeneity Test 136

Appendix 20 Hypothesis Test 138

Appendix 21 Affective Assessment of Experimental Class 142 Appendix 22 Affective Assessment of Control Class 145 Appendix 23 Psychomotor Assessment of Experimental Class 147 Appendix 24 Psychomotor Assessment of Control Class 150 Appendix 25 Sensitivity Index of instrument 153

(9)

Appendix 26 Learning Mastery 155

Appendix 27 Activities Observation Result 158

Appendix 28 Scoring Guideline of Activities Observation Sheet 162

Appendix 29 Quiz of Students 164

Appendix 30 Student’s Group Reward 165

Appendix 31 Documentation of Research

(10)

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background

Education is a process to effect students for adaptation in their environment thus will cause a change that enabled them be function in society. This is meant that success or failure of educational objectives depends on how the learning process experienced by students as a protege. Instruction charge of directing this process in order the objectives of these changes can be achieved as desired because the learning process is the core of formal educational activities who the primary role holder is a teacher.

Learning process in the old paradigm was teacher gives knowledge to students passively. In the context of education, the old paradigm means if someone has the knowledge and expertise in a field, he would be able to teach, he did not need to know the proper teaching and learning process: he only needs to pour what he knew, the old paradigm is still considered as an alternative by most of teachers (Wena, 2010: 188) in which the model that they used is still Direct Instruction where students just sat, silent, listen, record and memorize. Though the teacher's task is not only pour some of the information into the minds of students, but teachers as well as a motivator, mediator and facilitator.

From the initial observation at SMA Swasta Muhammadiyah 1 Medan indicates that students grade X were less like Physics lesson, they want to learn it because Physics is a duty subject. They prefer if they are involved in learning process actively like discussion group. This is aimed in order the delivering material is easier for understanding because they are not only listening but also involving actively. In addition, interview result with teacher of Physics (Siti Basariah, S.Pd) found that learning in the classroom more frequently using Direct Instruction learning model because it gives an opportunity in delivery of material detailly. The data obtained show that the Physics mean value of students before remedial in academic year 2011/2012 has not achieved KKM, that is 61.

The low of achievement in Physics subject in schools are issues that should receive more attention and resolution. In this case who have the important

(11)

role is teacher where is considered has the most powerful and dominant role in the school (Hamalik, 2009: 45). As one of the main tasks of teacher is select the appropriate approach or strategy to deliver a lesson in which the main task is closely related to the ability of teachers to improve learning process and outcomes. Selection of an appropriate approach or strategy intended to make teaching and learning activities can be taken place effectively that is expected to help students to improve their ability in accordance with the instructional objectives that will be achieved. It’s same with the opinion of Moh. Uzer Usman (Suryosubroto, 2009:17) that “competent teacher would be able to create an effective learning environment and will be better able to manage the learning process, so that student learning outcomes are at an optimal level”. In addition, the other aspects that must be mastered and conducted by the teacher in teaching is depends on the chosen model (Rob Nurris in Suryosubroto, 2009: 11).

Therefore, teacher need to develop and implement teaching and learning activities based on some basic ideas, namely: knowledge is found, formed, and developed by students; students actively construct knowledge; teacher need to strive for developing student’s competence and ability, and; education is the personal interaction between students and interaction between teacher and students (Lie, 2010:5). It can be implimented by increasing the participation of the learner actively in teaching and learning process. As noted (Kemp in Wena, 2010: 189) that need for teaching and learning activities as the driving force for learners to participate actively. Through active students in learning activities, expected the learning outcomes and student’s retention can be increased so that learning activities more meaningful. One of the learning models that will give students the opportunity to work in cooperatively with fellow students in structured is Cooperative Learning Model in which teacher acts as facilitator (Lie, 2010: 12). Through cooperative learning, student will be a source of learning for others so learning process will be more meaningful because learners can teach each other even though the students learn from two main sources learning, namely teacher and friends (Wena, 2010: 189). As the addition, the cooperative learning comes from the diversity of student’s ability.

(12)

Cooperative learning is a learning model where students work in small groups to help each other in learning of subject matter. In this learning, student should be able to share, help, discuss and argue each other to hone the knowledge that they control and close the gap in their understanding. Cooperative learning can be used effectively for all levels and types of classes including a special class for talented student even for a class in medium intelligence level and in particular for heterogeneous classes with varying degrees of ability to teach a variety of subjects ranging from the basic ability until problem solving that is complex. It can also be used for class management in learning.

The reasons make cooperative learning are in educational practices because it can improve student’s achievement, develop intergroup relations, acceptance of classmates who are weak in academic, increase self-esteem, growing awareness that students need learn to think, solve problems, integrate and apply their skills and knowledge. In addition, cooperative learning can help make a difference become learning materials and not be as a problem, namely the relations development among of students from different ethnic backgrounds.

As for the types of cooperative learning model namely Jigsaw, Think-Pair-Share, Numbered Heads Together, Group Investigation, Two Stay Two Stray, Make a Match, Listening Team, Inside-Outside Circle, Bamboo Dancing, Point-Counter-Point, and The Power of Two (Suprijono, 2010: 89). From all types of cooperative learning model, the most effective model is Jigsaw cooperative learning model because more emphasis on the mastery of concepts (Slavin, 2005: 237). The other reasons are because in Jigsaw found the expert group. By the expert group, students will more responsible and focused to resolve the matter which is a part of them and not only one or two people that exist here, but also more than one or two people. In addition this model has the advantage that is students will be more active in class because each group has different problems and students understand the subject matter easily. Through this model students are required to be able to convey each of their opinion related to the subject matter that will be learned. Thus the student’s activeness in following lesson can be increased.

(13)

This is evident from several researchers who have conducted research about Jigsaw cooperative learning model, including; Jon Hendrik M. Silaban in the " Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Jigsaw untuk Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar Siswa Pada Materi Pokok Besaran dan Satuan Kelas X Semester 1 SMAN 1 Air Joman Kisaran Tahun Ajaran 2008/2009 " conducted research as Classroom Action Research (PTK) method by examining student’s' learning activities through observation sheet which shows that by using Jigsaw cooperative learning model in learning can provide improvement of learning outcomes and activities of students, this was can be seen from the mean value of the initial test before the application of Jigsaw cooperative learning model was given as 4.17. After applied Jigsaw cooperative learning model, the student’s learning outcomes increased from 12.6 in cycle I to 14.6 in cycle II. While student’s learning activity was increased as 7.5%. Researcher suggests that attention to the steps in learning to achieve the improvement of learning outcomes and anticipate the time addition of the research.

According to Sri Masvita Tarigan in “Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Jigsaw Terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa Di kelas VII Semester I SMP Negeri 30 Medan T.P. 2010/2011" conducted research as quasi-experimental method by designing with pre-test and pos-test and observe how the activities of students during the learning model was applied. Her research show that using Jigsaw cooperative learning model in learning can provide improvement of student’s learning outcomes and activities, this can be seen from the value of student’s learning outcomes which have increased from 37.37 to 70.75. In addition, students also experienced an increase of activities. The constraints of the researcher were not all groups can present results of their discussion for a limited time, the students are paying less attention when the subject matter presented and disturbing friend who caused a stir. Therefore, researcher suggests adjusting the time allocation available to the group discussion, rebuke and advice students who disturb during the learning takes place.

Further Tin Indriati in “Upaya meningkatkan Hasil Belajar Siswa Melalui Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Jigsaw Pada Materi Usaha dan Energi di

(14)

Kelas XI IPA Semester 1 SMA negeri 3 Binjai Tahun Ajaran 2008/2009" conducted research as Classroom Action Research (PTK) method. Her research shows that using the Jigsaw cooperative learning model in learning can provide the improvement of student’s learning outcomes and activities, this can be seen from the results of student learning outcomes has increased from 65.0 in cycle I to 77.5 in cycle II. Researcher suggested that consider the steps and weaknesses in this learning model in order to obtain better an increase of learning outcomes.

According Dwiyatno in “Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Jigsaw untuk Meningkatkan Minat dan Kemampuan Mendiskripsikan Materi Fluida dalam Pelajaran Fisika bagi siswa Kelas XI IPA-1 SMA Negeri 2 Purworejo" conducted research as Classroom Action Research (PTK) method that was performed in two cycles. Researcher measures student’s learning outcomes through observation of students' learning interest. From the research results can be concluded that the Jigsaw cooperative learning model can enhance student’s interest that was activeness in following the learning process from 58% in cycle I to 80% in cycle II. While the percentage of KKM increased from 42.5% in the initial conditions to 56.4% in cycles I and 76.9% in cycle II. As for the suggestion of researcher is necessary to follow up the results of this research in teaching and learning activities at school because based on the results of this research the students is possible to achieve competence, teachers need to innovate from result of this classroom action research so that the issue of learning in the classroom can continue to be pursued to overcome various problems of learning in schools is needed teacher collaboration with various stakeholders including teachers with teachers, peers or lecturer from the college.

To follow up all of research so wish to make research by applying the same learning model that is Jigsaw cooperative learning model although in factly realizes that this learning model has been much studied. Here will conduct quasi experimental to increase student’s learning outcomes whether it from cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains in Heat and temperature material and also observe the using effectiveness of Jigsaw cooperative learning model. Based on the explanation above, so interested to conduct research which titled was

(15)

“Effectiveness of Jigsaw Cooperative Learning Model in Heat and Temperature on Student’s Learning Outcomes Grade X SMA Swasta Muhammadiyah 1 Medan in Academic Year 2011/2012”.

1.2. Identification of Problem

Based on background presented above, the problems identification in this research are as follows:

1. Learning model that is often used is Direct Instruction

2. Lack of students involvement in teaching and learning activities 3. The low of student learning outcomes in Physics

1.3. Limitation of Problem

In accordance with the problems identification, then the problems limitation in this research are as follows:

1. The model applied in this research is Jigsaw cooperative learning model 2. Learning topic in this research is Heat and Temperature

3. The research is conducted in SMA Swasta Muhammadiyah 1 Medan grade X semester 2 academic year 2011/2012

1.4. Formulation of Problem

Based on the problems limitation, so the problems formulation contained in this research are as follows:

1. Is there any effect difference of jigsaw cooperative learning model and direct instruction learning model for cognitive domain on student’s learning outcomes in heat and temperature?

2. Is there any effect difference of jigsaw cooperative learning model and direct instruction learning model for affective and psychomotor domains on student’s learning outcomes in heat and temperature?

3. How the effectiveness of Jigsaw cooperative learning model on student’s learning outcomes in heat and temperature?

(16)

1.5. Objective of Researh

Referring to the problems formulation, then the objectives to be achieved in this research are as follows:

1. To examine the effect difference of jigsaw cooperative learning model and direct instruction learning model for cognitive domain on student’s learning outcomes in heat and temperature

2. To examine the effect difference of jigsaw cooperative learning model and direct instruction learning model for affective and psychomotor domains on student’s learning outcomes in heat and temperature

3. To examine the effectiveness of jigsaw cooperative learning model on student’s learning outcomes in heat and temperature

1.6. Benefit of Research

The benefits of this research are as follows:

1. For School: can provide good information and donations in order to improve the learning process and school quality through increased student’s achievement and professionalism of teachers working

2. For Teachers: for consideration in selecting or integrating a variety of appropriate learning model class, especially in physics learning

3. For Students: students are more motivated and continue to be active during the learning process takes place, so it can improve learning outcomes and provide a fun learning experience

4. Researcher: As an input, and increase knowledge for the researcher as candidate for future teacher in the implementation of Jigsaw cooperative learning model

(17)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 5.1. Conclusions

Based on the analysis result of research, it was concluded:

1. There was significant effect difference of jigsaw cooperative learning model and direct instruction learning model for cognitive domain on student’s learning outcomes in heat and temperature. Jigsaw cooperative learning model was better than direct instruction learning model.

2. There were no significant effect difference of jigsaw cooperative learning model and direct instruction learning model for affective and psychomotor domains on student’s learning outcomes in heat and temperature. Both jigsaw cooperative learning model and direct instruction learning model were included in good category.

3. The effectiveness of jigsaw cooperative learning model was high than direct instruction learning model for cognitive domain on student’s learning outcomes in heat and temperature. Furthermore, jigsaw cooperative learning model was more effective than direct instruction learning model on student’s learning outcomes. It was obtained by fulfilling the three requirements of the learning effectiveness, namely index sensitivity of instrument, learning mastery and activities observation result.

5.2. Suggestions

Based on the results and conclusions in this research, there were some suggestions, namely:

1. Researcher who want to conduct research using Jigsaw cooperative learning model is suggested that better monitor the activities of students in the group by observing and guiding students for working in groups by asking questions to each student about what he/she had done in group and constraints faced by students during discussion

(18)

2. For further researcher is suggested to be wise in the management of stage in jigsaw cooperative learning model by giving attention to the steps in learning to achieve the improvement of learning outcomes because some stages can be more consumed time than targeted

3. For further researcher is suggested to be more efficient in time

4. For further researcher is suggested to be more creative in managing the classroom

5. For further researcher who want to find out about affective and psychomotor domains is suggested to find out the more appropriate indicators that will be used to assest student’s learning outcomes in order obtain the appropriate result accurately.

6. For further researcher is suggested to find out the other requirements of the effectiveness learning in order obtain more accurate result

(19)

REFERENCES

Arikunto, S., 2009. Dasar - Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan Edisi Revisi. Penerbit Bumi Aksara: Jakarta.

Cronbach, Lee., 2006. Educational Psychology. New Harcourt: Grace.

Departemen Pendidikan Nasional, Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah. 2003. Pedoman Khusus Pengembangan Silabus dan Penilaian Mata Pelajaran Fisika. Proyek Pelita: Jakarta.

Dwiyantoro, P., 2011. Fisika itu Mudah dan Menyenangkan. Penebar Swadaya Group: Jakarta.

German Cultural Institute. 1991. Source Book for Teaching, Learning, and Enjoying Physics. Mzumbe Book Project: Tanzania.

Hamalik, O., 2009. Proses Belajar Mengajar. PT Bumi Aksara: Jakarta.

Hewitt, G., 2006. Conceptual Physics Tenth Edition. Pearson Addison Wesley: San Franisco.

Kamajaya., 2004. Fisika untuk SMA Kelas 1 (Kelas X) Semester 2. Grafindo Media Pratama: Bandung.

Lie, A., 2010. Cooperative Learning. PT Gramedia: Jakarta.

Mayer, R, E., 2003. Revising Bloom’s Taxonomy. The H.W. Wilson Company.

http://www.unco.edu/cetl/sir/stating_outcome/documents/Krathwohl.pdf.

Retrieved June 14th 2012.

Popham, J., 1995. Classroom Assessment What Teachers Need to Know. University of California: Los Angels.

Slameto., 2010. Belajar dan Faktor- Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya. PT Rineka Cipta: Jakarta.

Slavin, R. E., 2005. Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice. Prentice Hill: London.

Smahillah. 2012. The Effectiveness of Teaching Reading Comprehension by Using Jigsaw Technique. http://smahillah.hubpages.com/hub/mamaazaputri2. Retrieved June 14th 2012.

(20)

Sri. 2011. Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Jigsaw Terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa di Kelas VII Semester 1 SMP Negeri 30 Medan T.P. 2010/2011. Skripsi. FMIPA: Unimed.

Sudijono, Anas., 2009. Pengantar Evaluasi Pendidikan. PT Raja Grafindo Persada: Jakarta.

Sudjana., 2005. Metoda Statistika. PT Tarsito: Bandung.

Suprijono, A., 2010. Cooperative Learning Teori dan Aplikasi PAIKEM. Pustaka Pelajar: Yogyakarta.

Suryosubroto, B., 2009. Proses Belajar Mengajar di Sekolah. PT Rineka Cipta: Jakarta.

Thomas, K., 2004. Learning Taxonomies in The Cognitive, Affective, and Psychomotor Domain. Rocky Mountain Alchemy: White Paper.

http://www.rockymountainalchemy.com/whitePapers/rma-wp-learning-taxonomies v2-1, pdf. Retrieved January 20th 2012

Trianto., 2010. Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif - Progresif. Kencana Prenada Media Group: Jakarta.

Walpole, Ronald., 1992. Pengantar Statistika. PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama: Jakarta.

Wena, M., 2010. Strategi Pembelajaran Inovatif Kontemporer. PT Bumi Aksara: Jakarta.

Yount, Rick., 2006. Populations and Sampling.

.http://www.napce.org/documents/research-design

yount/07_Sampling_4th.pdf. Retrieved January 20th 2012

Zitzewitz, Paul and friends., 2005. Physics Principles and Problems. The McGraw-Hill Companies: Glencoe.