THE INFLUENCE OF DISCOVERY LEARNING MODEL TO INCREASE THE LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT WITH COOPERATION AND CURIOSITY OF STUDENTS IN TEACHING OF BUFFER SOLUTION.
THE INFLUENCE OF DISCOVERY LEARNING MODEL TO
INCREASE THE LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT WITH
COOPERATION AND CURIOSITY OF STUDENTS
IN TEACHING OF BUFFER SOLUTION
By:
Andre Anusta Barus Reg. Number: 4103332001
Bilingual Chemistry Education Study Program
A THESIS
Submitted to Fullfill Requirement for the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN 2014
(2)
Title of Thesis
Name
Reg. Number Study Program Department
: Tbe Influence of Discovery Learning Model to Increase Tbe Learning Achievement with Cooperation and Curiosity of Students In Teaching of Buffer Solution
: Andre Anusta Barns : 4103332001
: Bilingual Chemistry Education :Chemistry
Approved by: Thesis Supervisor,
/
Dr. lis Si Jahro, M.Si. NIP. 196 1015 199203 2 003
Acknowledged by:
Head of Chemistry Department Coordinator of Bilingual Program
~/
i
Drs. Jamalum Purba, M.Si NIP. 19641207 199103 1 002
Prof. Dr.rer.nat Binari Maourung, M.Si. NIP. 19640404 I 98903 1 006
r r ~
Graduation Date :.July 161
\ 2014
- ~
-otlan, M.Sc., Ph.O. 805 198601 l 001
(3)
iii
THE INFLUENCE OF DISCOVERY LEARNING MODEL TO
INCREASE THE LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT WITH
COOPERATION AND CURIOSITY OF STUDENTS
IN TEACHING OF BUFFER SOLUTION
ANDRE ANUSTA BARUS (4103332001) ABSTRACT
The objectives of this research are (1) to determine whether there are significant higher of the student’s achievement that taught by Discovery Learning model than the student’s achievement that taught by direct instruction method (2) To know the student’s chemistry achievement that taught by discovery learning model and direct instruction method (3) to investigate the percentage of the cooperation character that can be developed by using Discovery Learning model and (4) to investigate the percentage of the curiosity character that can be developed by using Discovery Learning model. The population of this research were all class in grade XI science on 2nd semester from SMAN 5 Medan. Sample was chosen by purposive random sampling and taken 2 classes from the population. The first class were used as experimental class and second class were used as control class. There were 54 students that coming from the sample. The intruments that used were 20 items of multiple choice test (evaluation test), an observation sheet of student’s cooperation character that has 6 indicators and an observation sheet of student’s curiosity character that has 4 indicators to observe the development of student’s character. In addition, there are questionnaires of cooperation and curiosity character to support the data of observation sheet. In experimental class, the method that used was Discovery Learning model while in control class, the method that used was Direct Instruction method. Before conducting the research, the pretest was done in both classes, and the data was tested by using homogeinity test. The result shows that the sample was homogeneous. Then the research was conducting in both of class and the observation sheet of student’s cooperation and curiosity character were done during the process of research in experimental class but in control class, the observation of student’s character was not done because the writer assumed that the development of student’s character does not occur if the learning process only use direct instruction method. In the last meeting the questionnaire was given to students in experimental class. The increasing of student’s achievement (gain) in experimental class is 79% (high) while in control class is 61% (medium). After conducting the teaching-learning process, the posttest was done in both of class. It used SPSS-16 for windows program to calculate the data while the hypothesis testing was tested by using Independent Sample T-Test with one tailed t-test.The results of research are (1) there are significant higher of the student’s achievement that taught by Discovery Learning model than the student’s achievement that taught by direct instruction method (2) The student’s chemistry achievement that taught by discovery learning model is better (100% could pass KKM) than taught by direct instruction method (51% could pass KKM) (3) The development of student’s cooperation character that taught by discovery learning model is 64.54% (medium) and (4) The development of student’s curiosity character that taught by discovery learning model is 59.41% (medium).
(4)
vi
TABLE OF CONTENT
Page
Ratification Sheet i
Biography ii
Absract iii
Acknowledgement iv
Table of Content vi
List of Figure x
List of Table xi
List of Appendix xiii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Background of Research 1
1.2. Problem Identification 4
1.3. Problem Limitation 5
1.4. Problem Statement 5
1.5. Research Objective 5
1.6. Research Benefit 6
1.7. Operational Definition 6
CHAPTER II LITERATURE STUDY 7
2.1. Discovery Learning Model 7
2.1.1. The Definition 7
2.1.2. The Principle of Discovery Learning Model 9
2.1.3. Syntax of the Discovery Learning Model 11
2.2. Direct Instruction Method 13
2.2.1. Syntax for Direct Instruction Method 13
2.2.2. The Different between Discovery Learning Model and
(5)
vii
2.3. The Character Education 16
2.3.1. The Cooperation Character 17
2.3.2. The Curiosity Character 19
2.4. Buffer Solution 20
2.4.1. Definition of Buffer Solution 20
2.4.2. How does Buffer Solution Maintain PH Value? 20
2.4.3. How does Buffer Solution Work in Human Body? 21
2.4.4. How to Calculate the PH Value of Buffer? 22
2.4.5. How to Determine the PH of Buffer Solution? 23
2.5. Conceptual Framework 24
2.6. Hypothesis 24
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 25
3.1. Location and Time of Research 25
3.2. Population and Sample 25
3.3. Research Variable and Instrument 26
3.3.1. The Research Variable 26
3.3.2. Research Instruments 26
3.3.3. The Instrument’s Trial 32
3.4. Type and Design of Research 34
3.4.1. Types of Research 34
3.4.2. Research Procedure 35
3.4.3. Research Design 37
3.5.Technique Data Collection 38
3.6. Data Analysis 38
3.6.1. The Normality Test 38
3.6.2. The Homogeneity of Test 38
3.6.3. Normalized Gain 39
(6)
viii
3.8. Hypothesis Testing 39
CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION 40
4.1. The Description of School Sample 40
4.2. The Instrument’s Analysis 40
4.2.1. The Observation Sheet of Student’s Character 40
4.2.2. The Questionnaire of Student’s Character 41
4.2.3. The Validity of Evaluation Test 41
4.2.4. Reliability of Evaluation Test 43
4.2.5. Difficulty Index of Evaluation Test 43
4.2.6. Discriminating Power of Evaluation Test 44
4.3. The Data of Research’s Result 46
4.3.1. The Result of Pretest and Posttest 46
4.3.2. The Result of Development of Student’s Cooperation and Curiosity
Character by Observation Sheet 47
4.3.3. The Result of Development of Student’s Cooperation and Curiosity
Character by Questionnaire 47
4.4. The Analysis Test of Data 48
4.4.1. Normality Test 48
4.4.2. Homogeneity Test 49
4.5. Student’s Achievement 50
4.5.1. Student’s Achievement before Teaching Treatment 50
4.5.2. Student’s Achievement after Teaching Treatment 51
4.5.3. The Analysis of Questions Based on Posttest Result 55
4.5.4. Gain (Increasing of Student’s Achievement) 56
4.6. Student’s Character 56
4.6.1. The Development of Student’s Cooperation Character 56
4.6.2. The Development of Student’s Curiosity Character 57
(7)
ix
4.8. The Relationship of Student’s Achievement with Student’s Character
Development 59
4.9. Discussion 61
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 66
5.1. Conclusion 66
5.2. Suggestion 66
(8)
xi
LIST OF TABLE
Page
Table 2.1 The characteristics of discovery learning model 10
Table 2.2 Syntax of discovery learning model 12
Table 2.3 Syntax of direct instruction method 14
Table 3.1 The distribution of sample 25
Table 3.2 The grille of test instrument 27
Table 3.3 The grille of observation sheet of cooperation character 28
Table 3.4 The grille of observation sheet of curiosity character 30
Table 3.5 The questionnaire of student’s cooperation character 31
Table 3.6 The questionnaire of student’s curiosity character 32
Table 3.7 Research design 36
Table 4.1 Description of class that used as sample 40
Table 4.2 Validity of the test 42
Table 4.3 Difficulty index 44
Table 4.4 Discriminating power 45
Table 4.5 Summary of the instrument test 45
Table 4.6 Data of pretest and posttest 47
Table 4.7 Normality test of student’s achievement 48
Table 4.8 Normality test of student’s character 49
(9)
xii
Table 4.10 Data of student’s achievement in pretest 50
Table 4.11 Data of student’s achievement in posttest 51
Table 4.12 Average value of normalized gain 54
Table 4.13 The Analysis of questions based on posttest result 55
Table 4.14 The summary of student’s cooperation character 57
Table 4.15 The summary of student’s curiosity character 58
Table 4.16 Hypothesis testing 59
Table 4.17 The relationship of student’s achievements with student’s
character development 60
Table 4.18 The percentage of the relationship between student’s
(10)
x
LIST OF FIGURE
Page
Figure 3.1. The flowchart of the research 37
Figure 4.1. The student’s achievement in experimental class 52
Figure 4.2. The increasing of student’s achievement in experimental class 52
Figure 4.3. The student’s achievement in control class 53
(11)
xiii
LIST OF APPENDIX
Page
Appendix 1 Syllabus of chemistry subject 70
Appendix 2 Lesson plan of experiment class 75
Appendix 3 Lesson plan of control class 96
Appendix 4 The observation sheet of student’s cooperation character 115
Appendix 5 The observation sheet of student’s curiosity character 117
Appendix 6 The questionnaire of student’s cooperation character 118
Appendix 7 The questionnaire of student’s curiosity character 119
Appendix 8 The instrument test before validation 120
Appendix 9 Lattice of Instrument test on buffer solution topic 127
Appendix 10 Table of validity item test 136
Appendix 11 Reliability of instrument test 152
Appendix 12 Difficulty index 154
Appendix 13 Discriminating power 158
Appendix 14 The instrument test after validation 162
Appendix 15 Worksheet of experiment 169
Appendix 16 The result of experiment 174
Appendix 17 The observation data of student’s cooperation character 177
Appendix 18 The observation data of student’s curiosity character 180
Appendix 19 The development of student’s cooperation character 183
Appendix 20 The development of student’s curiosity character 184
(12)
xiv
Appendix 22 The questionnaire data of student’s curiosity 186
Appendix 23 Gain of pretest-posttest in experimental class 187
Appendix 24 Gain of pretest-posttest in control class 189
Appendix 25 Normality test 191
Appendix 26 Homogeinity test 199
Appendix 27 Hypothesis testing 201
Appendix 28 The calculation of increasing student’s achievement 203
(13)
66
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 5.1. Conclusion
After conducting the research and analyzing the data, there are some conclusions that gotten, they are:
1. The student’s achievement that taught by discovery learning model is
significant higher than the student’s achievement that taught by using direct
instruction method (sig < ; 0.000 < 0.05).
2. The student’s chemistry achievement that taught by discovery learning model
is better (100% could pass KKM) than taught by direct instruction method (51% could pass KKM).
3. The development of student’s cooperation character that taught by discovery
learning model is 64.54 % (medium criteria).
4. The development of student’s curiosity character that taught by discovery
learning model is 59.41 % (medium criteria).
5.2. Suggestion
From the result of the research, there are some suggestion must be raised:
1. It is suggested for chemistry teacher to use Discovery Learning model in
learning Buffer Solution topic to increase the student’s cooperation character
in learning process.
2. It is suggested for chemistry teacher to use Discovery Learning model in
learning Buffer Solution topic to increase the student’s curiosity character in
learning process.
3. It is suggested for chemistry teacher to use Discovery Learning model in
learning Buffer Solution topic to increase the student’s achievement in
(14)
1
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background of Research
Education is the sector that most important for human civilization in this world. Education is also very important for improving the quality of human resources especially in Indonesia. If the education quality of certain country is conceited, it will make life level of society will be well in their country. But in Indonesia the quality of education is still low. It can be seen from one of indicator that has been done by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), for the education quality of development country in Asia Pacific, Indonesia is place in 10 level of the 14 country, whereas quality of teacher exist in level 14 of the 14 (UNESCO, 2010).
The quality of education can be achieved with a suitable learning process in the classroom. However, there are still many facts on the ground that student management system only done by direct instruction method that can not make students enough understand and lead to passive students which can not foster the
student’s achievement. This is obvious with the discovery of facts in SMAN 5
Medan that the students are still low in chemistry learning outcomes. It can be seen from the results of daily exams with the KKM value of chemistry is 75, while the students that are able to achieve only 30%.
In the other side, the problem of chemistry subject in senior high school is
the weakness of teachers in channeling the child’s potency. Educators often
impose their own desire without observing their requisites, interest and talent that exist in each student. The other problem is that the learning model that used by teacher is still monotonous, while the teachers always use direct instruction method, so the teacher dominates teaching and learning process in classroom that makes the student is less motivated to study. Direct instruction method also makes student confuse to learn a topic that is abstract or infrequently meet by student, because by using the direct instruction method, the teacher tends not representing
(15)
2
the abstract object in class during the learning process. Using direct instruction
method, student doesn’t demand to be more creative and has not critical thinking
about the topic that is learned, but the student only has role as an audience that is explained by teacher without conceiving for well.
Especially for chemistry subject, the teacher must be creative because there are some characteristics of chemistry itself. It can be seen from Situmorang (2009) that told us about the characteristics of chemistry subject, they are: 1) a number of chemistry is abstract, 2) chemistry was implication from the fact, 3) chemistry are successive and develop quickly, 4) chemistry are not only about the explanation of facts, laws, term and etc, but also the numeric problem that has important part in learning chemistry, and 5) there are so many topics in chemistry that must be studied. Furthermore, the topics in chemistry is belongs to 3 characteristics, they are the decomposition of concepts, mathematical calculations, and execution of experiments. According to this characteristic of chemistry and its topics, we need
a creative teacher that has proper model of teaching for chemistry’s topics.
The efforts that have been taken by the government in improving the quality of education in Indonesia is improving the quality of curriculum, that publics in
2013 where it’s curriculum demand to improve the learning outcomes, cognitive,
and psychomotor of students. The model that suggested to be used for teaching based on curriculum 2013, are Problem Based Learning (PBL), Discovery Learning, and Project Learning. By using that three model, it is assumed that the cognitive aspect and psychomotor of student will increase.
Based on the data above, writer wants to use a way to overcome the education problem in Indonesia, by replacing the model of learning that used by teacher in classroom, from direct instruction method to discovery learning model. It is because the Discovery Learning is a learning model that encourages students to ask questions and formulate their own tentative answers, and to deduce general principles from practical examples or experiences. Bicknell-Holmes and Hoffman (2000) describe the three main attributes of discovery learning as 1) exploring and problem solving to create, integrate, and generalize knowledge, 2) student driven, interest-based activities in which the student determines the sequence and
(16)
3
frequency, and 3) activities to encourage integration of new knowledge into the
learner’s existing knowledge base. The first attribute of discovery learning is a
very important one. Through exploring and problem solving, students take on an active role to create, integrate, and generalize knowledge. Instead of engaging in passively accepting information through lecture or drill and practice, students establish broader applications for skills through activities that encourage risk-taking, problem solving, and an examination of unique experiences (Bicknell-Holmes & Hoffman, 2000). In this attribute, students rather than the teacher drive the learning. Expression of this attribute of discovery learning essentially changes the roles of students and teachers and is a radical change difficult for many teachers to accept (Hooks, 1994). A second attribute of discovery learning is that it encourages students to learn at their own pace. Through discovery learning, some degree of flexibility in sequencing and frequency with learning activities can be achieved. Learning is not a static progression of lessons and activities. This attribute contributes greatly to student motivation and ownership of their learning. A third major attribute of discovery learning is that it is based on the principle of using existing knowledge as a basis to build new knowledge (Bicknell-Holmes & Hoffman, 2000). Scenarios with which the students are familiar allow the students to build on their existing knowledge by extending what they already know to invent new ideas.
There are also some researchs that has been done by using Discovery
learning model. The result’s research of Balim (2008), show that the learning
outcomes, the perception, the memorizing in cognitive and affective of students in experimental class that used Discovery Learning get better result than the students in control class, this model also makes students more active in learning process. While Nastiti (2012) concluded in her research that Discovery Learning model
increase the student’s achievements in solving chemistry problem of SMA
students in Purworejo as much as 81%. The research of Suprini in Neneng (2013) also concluded that the using of Discovery learning model on Colloid properties can develop some skill of students, such as the skill in interpreting observation, planning experiment, using the tools and materials and observing. Based on the
(17)
4
researchs before, it can be seen that the Discovery learning model can make students more active in learning process.
According to the Laws of Number 20 Year 2003 about The National Education System in paragraph 3, the national education has function to develop the ability and form the character and the culture of nation that has value in
educating nation’s life. The national education has objective to develop the
potential of students to be the faithful human to the God, have a certain character, healthy, bookish, capable, creative, autonomous, and being the democratic and
responsibility citizen (Deputi Menteri Sekretaris Negara Bidang
Perundangundangan, 2003). It shows that the quality of student’s character
education is very important to be improved. Especially in this research, by using the Discovery learning model, there are also some characters that will be developed by writer, they are the cooperation and curiosity of students. The cooperation and curiosity are belongs to 18 characters that must be developed in education life. They are some characters that very important to make students be able to share their knowledge and make their knowledge deeper than before.
Based on the background mentioned above, the writer has done the research
which the title is: “The Influence of Discovery Learning Model to Increase the
Learning Achievement, Cooperation and Curiosity of Students in Teaching of Buffer Solution”.
1.2. Problem Identification
Based on the background above, some problems can be identified as below:
1. The quality of education in Indonesia still low.
2. Lack of variation in model of teaching by teacher.
3. Teachers are too dominant in the classroom learning process that causes
students to be passive.
4. Students tend to dislike chemistry subjects that often have difficulty in
understanding the learning concepts. It makes them less motivation in learning chemistry subject.
(18)
5
1.3. Problem Limitation
Based on the background above, the limitation of problems can be identified as below:
1. The model that was used in this research is Discovery Learning.
2. The topic that taught in this research only on Buffer Solution topic on XI
grade semester II.
3. This research was conducted in SMAN 5 Medan.
4. Student’s achievement that measured only the cognitive skill from the level
C1-C4.
5. There were two characters that measured; the cooperation and curiosity of
student.
1.4. Problem Statement
To give the direction of this research, the problem statements in this research are as follows:
1. Is the student’s achievement that taught by discovery learning model
significant higher than taught by direct instruction method?
2. How is the student’s chemistry achievement that taught by discovery
learning model and direct instruction method?
3. How many percents of the cooperation character can be developed by
using discovery learning model?
4. How many percents of the curiosity character can be developed by using
discovery learning model?
1.5. Research Objective
The objectives of this research were:
1. To determine whether student’s achievement that taught by discovery
(19)
6
2. To know the student’s chemistry achievement that taught by discovery
learning model and direct instruction method
3. To know the percentage of the cooperation character that can be developed
by using discovery learning model.
4. To know the percentage of the curiosity character that can be developed by
using discovery learning model.
1.6. Research Benefit
The benefits that hoped from this research are:
1. Getting learning model that suitable and effective on teaching of chemistry
subject to increase the student’s achievement and student’s character
especially cooperation and curiosity.
2. As consideration for teachers to use discovery learning model type in the
classroom teaching and learning process in order to increase student’s
learning achievements and student’s character.
3. As a matter of information for researchers in order to improve the quality of
learning in a creative and innovative chemistry.
1.7. Operational Definition
Discovery learning is encompasses an instructional model and strategies that
focus on active, hands-on learning opportunities for students (Dewey, 1997).
Cooperation is an effort in people or a group of human to reach one or some
purposes (Baron, 2000).
Curiosity is an important motivational component that links cues reflecting
novelty and challenge (internal or external) with growth opportunities (Depue, 1996).
Buffer solution is an aqueous solution that can maintain the PH of a system
within a specified range when a small amount of acid or base is added, or when the system is diluted.
(20)
67
REFERENCE
Arikunto,S., (2010), Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik, Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
Anisah, N., (2013), Profil Keterampilan Proses Sains Siswa Pada Pembelajaran Pembuatan Sistem Koloid Menggunakan Metode Discovery-Inquiry, Skripsi, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jakarta.
Baron, R. and Byane D., (2000), Social psychology 9th edition. Plenum, USA
Bicknell, T. and Hoffman, P. S., (2000), Elicit, engage, experience, explore: Discovery learning in library instruction. Reference Services Review 28(4): 313-322.
Bonwell, C. C., (1998), Active Learning: Energizing the Classroom. Active Learning Workshop, Green Mountain Falls
Borthick, A. F. and Donald R. J., (2000). The Motivation for Collaborative Discovery Learning Online and Its Application in an Information Systems Assurance Course, Issues in Accounting Education 15(2), 25-27
Bruner, J.S., (1967), On knowing: Essays for the left hand. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Deci, E. L., (1975), Intrinsic motivation, Plenum, New York.
Depue, R. A., (1996), A neurobiological framework for the structure of
personality and emotion: Implications for personality disorders. Guilford,
New York
Deputi Menteri Sekretaris Negara Bidang Perundang-undangan, (2005), Undang-undang Republik Indonesia No 20 Tahun 2003 Tentang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional, Lembaga Negara Republik Indonesia, Jakarta.
(21)
68
Hooks, B., (1994), Teaching to transgress, Routledge, New York.
Izard, C. E., (1977), Human emotions, Plenum, New York.
Joolingen, W. V., (1999), Cognitive tools for discovery learning, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 18: 234-236.
Love, S., (1996), Thomas Alva Edison,
http://www.minot.k12.nd.us/mps/edison/edison/edison.html (accessed on January 20 2014)
Majid, A. and Dian, A., (2011), Pendidikan Karakter Perspektif, Rosda, Bandung. Mosca, J. and Howard, L., (1997), Grounded learning: Breathing live into
business education, Journal of Education for Business 8: 212-215
Papert, S., (2000), What’s the big idea?: Toward a pedagogy of idea power, IBM
Systems Journal 22: 17-24
Papert, S., (2001), Jean Piaget.
http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/piaget.html (accesssed on January 20, 2014)
Percy, W., (1954), The loss of the creature,
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Fall_1997/ling001/percy.html. (accesssed on January 20, 2014)
Schank, R. and Cleary, C., (1994), Engines for education.
http://www.ils.nwu.edu/~e_for_e/nodes/I-M-INTRO-ZOOMER-pg.html (accesssed on January 20, 2014)
Situmorang, M., (2010), Penelitian Tindakan Kelas (PTK) Untuk Mata Pelajaran Kimia, Unimed, Medan.
Soekanto, S., (2002), Sosiologi suatu pengantar Edisi 4, PT. Raja Grafindo Persada, Jakarta
(22)
69
Sudrajat, A., (2010), Pendidikan Karakter Di Sekolah:
http://akhmadsudrajat.wordpress.com (accessed on January 20, 2014) Sulistyowati, N., Widodo, A.T., and Sumarni, W., (2012), Efektivitas Model
Pembelajaran Guided Discovery Learning Terhadap Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Kimia, Jurusan Kimia FMIPA UNNES. Journal of Chemistry in Education 2(1): 25-29
Syafriani, D, (2012), Pengembangan model pembelajaran dalam upaya membentuk kepribadian yang berkarakter mulia dan hasil belajar yang tinggi pada materi bentuk geometri molekul, Skripsi, Pasca Sarjana, Unimed, Medan.
Syahrul, I., (2013), Permasalahan Pendidikan di Indonesia,
http://van88.wordpress.com/makalah-permasalahan-pendidikan-di indonesia (accesssed on January 20 2014)
(1)
researchs before, it can be seen that the Discovery learning model can make students more active in learning process.
According to the Laws of Number 20 Year 2003 about The National Education System in paragraph 3, the national education has function to develop the ability and form the character and the culture of nation that has value in educating nation’s life. The national education has objective to develop the potential of students to be the faithful human to the God, have a certain character, healthy, bookish, capable, creative, autonomous, and being the democratic and responsibility citizen (Deputi Menteri Sekretaris Negara Bidang Perundangundangan, 2003). It shows that the quality of student’s character education is very important to be improved. Especially in this research, by using the Discovery learning model, there are also some characters that will be developed by writer, they are the cooperation and curiosity of students. The cooperation and curiosity are belongs to 18 characters that must be developed in education life. They are some characters that very important to make students be able to share their knowledge and make their knowledge deeper than before.
Based on the background mentioned above, the writer has done the research which the title is: “The Influence of Discovery Learning Model to Increase the Learning Achievement, Cooperation and Curiosity of Students in Teaching of Buffer Solution”.
1.2. Problem Identification
Based on the background above, some problems can be identified as below: 1. The quality of education in Indonesia still low.
2. Lack of variation in model of teaching by teacher.
3. Teachers are too dominant in the classroom learning process that causes students to be passive.
4. Students tend to dislike chemistry subjects that often have difficulty in understanding the learning concepts. It makes them less motivation in learning chemistry subject.
(2)
1.3. Problem Limitation
Based on the background above, the limitation of problems can be identified as below:
1. The model that was used in this research is Discovery Learning.
2. The topic that taught in this research only on Buffer Solution topic on XI grade semester II.
3. This research was conducted in SMAN 5 Medan.
4. Student’s achievement that measured only the cognitive skill from the level C1-C4.
5. There were two characters that measured; the cooperation and curiosity of student.
1.4. Problem Statement
To give the direction of this research, the problem statements in this research are as follows:
1. Is the student’s achievement that taught by discovery learning model significant higher than taught by direct instruction method?
2. How is the student’s chemistry achievement that taught by discovery learning model and direct instruction method?
3. How many percents of the cooperation character can be developed by using discovery learning model?
4. How many percents of the curiosity character can be developed by using discovery learning model?
1.5. Research Objective
The objectives of this research were:
1. To determine whether student’s achievement that taught by discovery learning model is significant higher than taught by direct instruction method.
(3)
2. To know the student’s chemistry achievement that taught by discovery learning model and direct instruction method
3. To know the percentage of the cooperation character that can be developed by using discovery learning model.
4. To know the percentage of the curiosity character that can be developed by using discovery learning model.
1.6. Research Benefit
The benefits that hoped from this research are:
1. Getting learning model that suitable and effective on teaching of chemistry subject to increase the student’s achievement and student’s character especially cooperation and curiosity.
2. As consideration for teachers to use discovery learning model type in the classroom teaching and learning process in order to increase student’s learning achievements and student’s character.
3. As a matter of information for researchers in order to improve the quality of learning in a creative and innovative chemistry.
1.7. Operational Definition
Discovery learning is encompasses an instructional model and strategies that focus on active, hands-on learning opportunities for students (Dewey, 1997). Cooperation is an effort in people or a group of human to reach one or some
purposes (Baron, 2000).
Curiosity is an important motivational component that links cues reflecting novelty and challenge (internal or external) with growth opportunities (Depue, 1996).
Buffer solution is an aqueous solution that can maintain the PH of a system within a specified range when a small amount of acid or base is added, or when the system is diluted.
(4)
REFERENCE
Arikunto,S., (2010), Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik, Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
Anisah, N., (2013), Profil Keterampilan Proses Sains Siswa Pada Pembelajaran Pembuatan Sistem Koloid Menggunakan Metode Discovery-Inquiry, Skripsi, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jakarta.
Baron, R. and Byane D., (2000), Social psychology 9th edition. Plenum, USA Bicknell, T. and Hoffman, P. S., (2000), Elicit, engage, experience, explore:
Discovery learning in library instruction. Reference Services Review 28(4): 313-322.
Bonwell, C. C., (1998), Active Learning: Energizing the Classroom. Active Learning Workshop, Green Mountain Falls
Borthick, A. F. and Donald R. J., (2000). The Motivation for Collaborative Discovery Learning Online and Its Application in an Information Systems Assurance Course, Issues in Accounting Education 15(2), 25-27
Bruner, J.S., (1967), On knowing: Essays for the left hand. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Deci, E. L., (1975), Intrinsic motivation, Plenum, New York.
Depue, R. A., (1996), A neurobiological framework for the structure of personality and emotion: Implications for personality disorders. Guilford, New York
Deputi Menteri Sekretaris Negara Bidang Perundang-undangan, (2005), Undang-undang Republik Indonesia No 20 Tahun 2003 Tentang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional, Lembaga Negara Republik Indonesia, Jakarta.
(5)
Hooks, B., (1994), Teaching to transgress, Routledge, New York. Izard, C. E., (1977), Human emotions, Plenum, New York.
Joolingen, W. V., (1999), Cognitive tools for discovery learning, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 18: 234-236.
Love, S., (1996), Thomas Alva Edison,
http://www.minot.k12.nd.us/mps/edison/edison/edison.html (accessed on January 20 2014)
Majid, A. and Dian, A., (2011), Pendidikan Karakter Perspektif, Rosda, Bandung. Mosca, J. and Howard, L., (1997), Grounded learning: Breathing live into
business education, Journal of Education for Business 8: 212-215
Papert, S., (2000), What’s the big idea?: Toward a pedagogy of idea power, IBM Systems Journal 22: 17-24
Papert, S., (2001), Jean Piaget.
http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/piaget.html (accesssed on January 20, 2014)
Percy, W., (1954), The loss of the creature,
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Fall_1997/ling001/percy.html. (accesssed on January 20, 2014)
Schank, R. and Cleary, C., (1994), Engines for education. http://www.ils.nwu.edu/~e_for_e/nodes/I-M-INTRO-ZOOMER-pg.html (accesssed on January 20, 2014)
Situmorang, M., (2010), Penelitian Tindakan Kelas (PTK) Untuk Mata Pelajaran Kimia, Unimed, Medan.
Soekanto, S., (2002), Sosiologi suatu pengantar Edisi 4, PT. Raja Grafindo Persada, Jakarta
(6)
Sudrajat, A., (2010), Pendidikan Karakter Di Sekolah: http://akhmadsudrajat.wordpress.com (accessed on January 20, 2014)
Sulistyowati, N., Widodo, A.T., and Sumarni, W., (2012), Efektivitas Model Pembelajaran Guided Discovery Learning Terhadap Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Kimia, Jurusan Kimia FMIPA UNNES. Journal of Chemistry in Education 2(1): 25-29
Syafriani, D, (2012), Pengembangan model pembelajaran dalam upaya membentuk kepribadian yang berkarakter mulia dan hasil belajar yang tinggi pada materi bentuk geometri molekul, Skripsi, Pasca Sarjana, Unimed, Medan.
Syahrul, I., (2013), Permasalahan Pendidikan di Indonesia, http://van88.wordpress.com/makalah-permasalahan-pendidikan-di