THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENTS PHYSICS LEARNING OUTCOMES USING COOPERATIVELEARNING MODEL TYPE NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER WITH DIRECT INSTRUCTION IN GRADE X SMA N 1 BERASTAGI.
BIOGRAPHY
Tionar Melissa Malau was born in Medan on March, 25th 1991. Father’s
name is Sudung Malau (Alm) and Mother’s name is Maria Magdalena,S.Pd.
Author is the first daughter from two siblings. On 1997 author entered SD Katolik
Budi Murni Deli Tua and graduate on 2003. Then, author entered SMP N 1 Deli
Tua and graduate on 2006. Continue study at SMA N 13 Medan, author graduate
on 2009. On the middle of 2009, author has been received as student in State
University of Medan with study program is Physics bilingual education, major
Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Nature Science.
iv
PREFACE
Praise and thanks to Jesus Christ who has give a flood of merci and
guidance to writer so can finish this thesis.
This thesis which titled is “The Difference Of Student’s Physics Learning
Outcomes Using Cooperative Learning Model Type Numbered Heads Together
With Direct Instruction In Grade X SMA N 1 Berastagi” is arranged to acquire
scholar degree of Physics Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Nature Science
State University of Medan.
Thank you very much to Prof. Dr. Sahyar, M.S., M.M as thesis supervisor
who has guide and give suggestion to writer from initial research until finished
this research. Thank you so much also to Drs. Eidi Sihombing, MS, Prof. Dr Mara
Bangun Harahap, M.Si, Dr. Derlina, M.Si who have gave critics and suggestions
to writer. Thank you so much to Prof. Dr Mara Bangun Harahap, M.Si as
academic supervisor. Thank you so much to Prof. Motlan Sirait, M.Sc,.Ph.D as
Dean of FMIPA State University of Medan, Prof. Dr. Herbert Sipahutar, M.S.,
M.Sc as coordinator of Bilingual Program and to all Mr. and Mrs. Lecturer and
staff employee of Physics FMIPA State University of Medan who have
encouraged writer. Appreciation were also presented to Headmaster of SMA N 1
Berastagi Mr. Alberto Colia, M.Pd and physics teacher Mr. Apen Ginting, S.Pd,
Mr. Dhasa Duha that help me during the research, and thanks for all teacher in
SMA N 1Berastagi.
Special Gratefully to: Dear Mother Maria Magdalena,S.Pd and Beloved
father Sudung Malau (Alm) for grow me up and educate me in this life. Special
thank you for my love sister Nelly Yunita Malau that always support to finish this
thesis. Thanks for my uncle, aunt, grandmother and all my family that pray and
support me.
Thank you so much to my brothers and sisters in IKBKF Unimed
(specially for Agus K Giawa, Syahputra RB Op.S) for all of your support, pray
and help to writer to finish this thesis. Thanks a lot “Grace Small Group”, thanks
for my brother Juara Adi Syahputra Sirait that lead me to know more about Jesus,
thanks for my sister Debora Betty Sitanggang and Gita Ravhani Anugrah that
v
support and pray for me. Thanks for UKMKP- UP MIPA that provide place to do
partnership. Thank you so much for my best friend Emy Ria Nainggolan, Eli
Susiani Ginting, Hetty Simbolon, Kristina Sibarani, Jhon Hendrik Tumanggor,
Adi Yakim Surbakti, Benny S Ginting for the spirit, and support for me. And
thanks a lot for my sister Cahya Ramadhani (Berastagi) that always pray and
support me. And also my students in SMA N 1 Berastagi, thanks for the spirit and
pray for me.
To all of my colleagues in Physics Department FMIPA UNIMED,
especially to students of Physics Bilingual 2009, Agnesia M Damanik, Astrid P
Harahap, Avolen B Siahaan, Carolina Nainggolan, Debora B Sitanggang, Dewi S
Situmorang, Evi Valentine Silalahi, Fetriana Simanihuruk, Gita Ravhani Anugrah,
Hanna M Hutabarat, Henriko Hutabarat, Janiar S Gultom, Jefri S Waruwu, Lucius
Marbun, Mas Andri Marbun, Pretty TM Ambarita, Rani S N Damanik, Riris
Rumahorbo, Rika Yulia Fitri, Ribka M Tambunan, and Rita S Situmorang. Thank
you so much for spirit and support you give for me.
I realize this thesis is out of perfect caused by my literature or knowledge.
That’s why, writer hope constructivism’s advice and suggestion in order to make
this thesis is useful for all of us.
Medan, June 2013
Tionar Melissa Malau
ID. Number: 409322028
vi
CONTENTS
Legitimating Sheet
Page
i
Biography
ii
Abstract
iii
Preface
iv
Contents
vi
Figures List
ix
Tables List
x
Appendix List
xi
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1
1.1.
Background
1
1.2.
Problem’s Identification
4
1.3.
Problem Limitation
5
1.4.
Problem Statement
5
1.5.
Objectives
6
1.6.
Advantages of Research
6
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
8
2.1.
Theoritical Framework
8
2.1.1.
Learning
8
2.1.2.
Constructivism Learning
10
2.1.3.
Cooperative Learning
11
2.1.3.1. Numbered Heads Together
16
2.1.4.
Direct Instruction Model
18
2.1.5.
Learning Activity
19
2.1.6.
Learning Outcomes
21
2.2.
Learning Material
25
2.2.1.
Dynamic Electricity
25
2.2.1.1. Electric Current
25
vii
2.2.1.2. Electrical Measuring Instrument
26
2.2.1.3. Ohm’s Law
28
2.2.1.4. Energy and Power
31
2.3.
Preceding Researcher
32
2.4.
Critical Framework
34
2.4.1.
Numbered Heads Together and Direct Instruction
34
2.4.2.
Difference of Learning Outcomes using Numbered
2.5.
Heads Together with Direct Instruction
35
Hypothesis
35
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
36
3.1.
Location and Time of Research
36
3.2.
Research Population and Sample
36
3.3.
Research Variables
36
3.4.
Research Design
37
3.5.
Research Procedures
37
3.6.
Instrument and Data Collection
40
3.6.1
Research Instrument
40
3.6.2
Content Validity
42
3.6.3
Non-Tested Instrument
43
3.7.
Data Analysis Techniques
44
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH RESULT AND DISCUSSION
50
4.1.
Research Result
50
4.1.1.
Data of Pretest Score
50
4.1.2.
Data of Postest Score
50
4.2.
Data Analysis
52
4.2.1.
Normality Test
52
4.2.2.
Homogeneity Test
55
4.2.3.
Hypothesis Testing
55
4.2.4.
Affective and Psychomotoric of Students
57
viii
4.3.
Discussion
60
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTION
64
5.1. Conclusion
64
5.2. Suggestion
64
REFERENCES
66
ix
FIGURES LIST
Page
Figure 2.1. Electrical charges flowing in a conductor
25
Figure 2.2 Ammeters fitted series to series
26
Figure 2.3. Ammeter reading
27
Figure 2.4 (a) avometer (b) Voltmeter in parallel to the circuit
28
Figure 2.5 Voltmeter reading
28
Figure 2.6 Resistor fixed
28
Figure 2.7 Composition of barriers in series
29
Figure 2.8 Composition of resistance in parallel
30
Figure 2.9 Kirchhoff I Law
31
Figure 3.1 Research Phase
39
Figure 4.1 Chart of Cognitive of student based reach Bloom Taxonomy
in Pretest
51
Figure 4.2 Chart of Cognitive of student based reach Bloom Taxonomy
in Postest
52
Figure 4.3 Chart of Normality of Pretest in Control Class
53
Figure 4.4 Chart of Normality of Pretest in Experiment Class
53
Figure 4.5 Chart of Normality of Pretest in Control Class
54
Figure 4.6 Chart of Normality of Pretest in Experiment Class
54
Figure 4.7 Chart of affective during three meetings
57
Figure 4.8 Chart of psychomotoric during three meetings
58
Figure 4.9 Chart Relation Between affective, psychomotoric, and
Cognitive
59
x
TABLES LIST
Page
Table 2.1 Differences Cooperative learning group with
Direct Instruction Group
13
Table 2.2 Steps of Cooperative Learning Model
15
Table 2.3 Steps of Numbered Heads Together
17
Table 2.4 Steps of Direct Instruction Model
18
Table 3.2 Grille Problem
41
Table 3.3 Categories student’s Learning Outcomes
42
Table 3.4 Criteria of Value Percentage of Content Validity
42
Table 3.5 Guideline of Affective Domain
43
Table 3.6 Guideline of Psychomotor Domain
43
Table 3.7 Criterion of Affective and Psychomotoric domains
44
Table 4.1 Pretest Score in Experiment and Control Class
50
Table 4.2 Postest Score in Experiment and Control Class
51
Table 4.3 Normality Test for Pretest Score
53
Table 4.4 Normality Test for Postest Score
54
Table 4.5 Homogenity Test in Experiment and Control Class
55
Table 4.6 Calculation of Hypothesis Test
56
xi
APPENDIX LIST
Page
Appendix 1 Lesson Plan-1
68
Appendix 2 Lesson Plan-2
83
Appendix 3 Lesson Plan-3
96
Appendix 4 Worksheet-1
109
Appendix 5 Worksheet-2
113
Appendix 6 Worksheet-3
116
Appendix 7 Grill of Research Instrument
118
Appendix 8 Research Instrument
129
Appendix 9 Affective and Psychomotoric Assessment Instrument
136
Appendix 10 Affective Assessment 1st Meeting (Experiment Class)
140
Appendix 11 Affective Assessment 2nd Meeting (Experiment Class)
143
rd
Appendix 12 Affective Assessment 3 Meeting (Experiment Class)
146
Appendix 13 Psychomotoric Assessment 1st Meeting (Experiment Class)
149
Appendix 14 Psychomotoric Assessment 2nd Meeting (Experiment Class)
151
Appendix 15 Psychomotoric Assessment 3rd Meeting (Experiment Class)
153
Appendix 16 Affective Assessment 1st Meeting (Control Class)
156
nd
Appendix 17 Affective Assessment 2 Meeting (Control Class)
160
Appendix 18 Affective Assessment 3rd Meeting (Control Class)
164
Appendix 19 Psychomotoric Assessment 1st Meeting (Control Class)
168
Appendix 20 Psychomotoric Assessment 2nd Meeting (Control Class)
172
Appendix 21 Psychomotoric Assessment 3rd Meeting (Control Class)
176
Appendix 22 Mark Tabulation of Pretest in Control Class
180
Appendix 23 Mark Tabulation of Postest in Control Class
181
Appendix 24 Mark Tabulation of Pretest in Experiment Class
182
Appendix 25 Mark Tabulation of Postest in Experiment Class
183
Appendix 26 Learning Outcomes Data in Control Class
184
Appendix 27 Learning Outcomes Data in Experiment Class
185
Appendix 28 Calculation of Mean Value and Standard Deviation
in Experiment Class
186
xii
Appendix 29 Calculation of Mean Value and Standard Deviation
in Control Class
188
Appendix 30 Normality Test
190
Appendix 31 Homogenity Test
194
Appendix 32 Hypothesis Test
196
Appendix 33 List of Critical Value for Liliefors
200
Appendix 34 List of Percentil Value of t Distribution
201
Appendix 35 Table of Area in below Normal Curve 0 to z
202
Appendix 36 Research Documentation
203
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
Physics is the basic of science that learns natural phenomena
systematecally. Physics is subject that give us information and concept of natural
phenomena occur in our daily life. Physics is an interesting subject, because we
can directly observe in our daily lives. But in reality many students stating that
physics is difficult, because many of the formulas should be memorized. This fact
is reinforced by the results of their low physical exam. The low physics learning
outcomes can be caused by various factors, among others, the low interest in
students to learn physics, the way teachers teach less attractive, and less precise
model of learning materials in teaching physics.
Based on interviews with physics teacher in SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi,
physics learning outcomes is still low. This is evident from the mark of
summative examination‘s students with an average 67, whereas the value of
Mastery Minimal Criteria of physics is 75. In the learning process, teachers using
conventional methods, learning process was teacher centered. In the learning
process, the teacher explains the material and noting formulas and work on the
problems. So that became synonymous with physics formulas and learning
becomes less attractive.
Table 1.1 Percentage Student Reached KKM
No
Year
Class
KKM value
% Student
Graduate
1.
X
75
13 %
2010
2.
XI
80
15%
3.
XII
80
14%
4.
X
75
15%
2011
5.
XI
80
12%
6.
XII
80
14%
7.
X
75
12%
2012
8.
XI
80
16%
9.
XII
80
14%
Source : SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi, 2013
2
From the table above we can make conclusion that student’s learning
outcomes of physics subject is still low. And from the questionnaire given by
researcher in observation, student is not interest in physics subject, because their
consider that physics is the difficult lesson, and teacher who teached them less
engange them in learning, teacher just give lecturing and give them exercise about
physics. So from this case, researcher want to use the model of teaching that can
engage the student learning, and make the student as the center of learning. So,
they get the knowledge of physics and feel interest to study physics. So, from that,
teacher have role as facilitator of learning, and motivating student to learn.
Teachers are a crucial component in the implementation of a learning
strategy. Teachers in the process of learning have very important role. The
teacher's role is not only as a model or good example for the students he teaches,
but also as a learning manager. Thus the effectiveness of teachers the rests process
learning. Therefore, the success of a learning process is largely determined by the
quality or the ability of teachers. According to Norman Kirby in Sanjaya, W
(2011:52) states: "One underlying emphasis should be noticeable: that the quality
of the teacher is essential, constant feature in the success of any educational
system."
In line with the problems above, the learning process of physics required
an innovative learning model that can encourage student learning, making
students more active, and learning more fun, so that with increasing student
motivation will also increase learning outcomes. One alternative to student
motivation is to engage students in learning. Teachers must be able to create a
comfortable atmosphere for learning and fun, as well as to actively involve
students in the learning process .Therefore, the learning model used is a model
that attracted students, enhance the spirit of learning, and fun. One alternative
learning model that evokes the spirit of learning and engage students is
cooperative learning.
3
According to Bruce,J and Marsha Weil (2003:13), ”Cooperative learning
procedures facilitate learning across all curriculum areas and ages, improving selfesteem, social skill and solidarity, and academic learning goals ranging from the
acquisition of information and skill through the modes of inquiry of academic
disciplines.”
Based on the issues that have been presented previously, the writter tries to
do research in an effort to improve student learning outcomes by implementing
cooperative learning model type numbered heads together (NHT) with some
methods of learning.
According to Slavin (2005:256), “Cooperative learning type NHT is a
better approach to learning allows students to be more active and take full
responsibility for understanding the subject matter both in groups and
individually.”
Therefore NHT learning model can be applied in day-to-day on the subject
at the junior high or high school students. In this study the writter chose the
dynamic electric topic because it is contextual topic explained with the steps of
cooperative learning type NHT. In addition, cooperative learning model type NHT
has not been used for research In SMA N 1 Berastagi. Dynamic Electricity also
allows students to learn to identify concepts through visual aids and group
discussions. Based on the description the writter wanted to do research on NHT
model to improve student learning outcomes in grade X SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi
Academic Year 2012/2013 on dynamic electric topic.
Writter fully aware that cooperative learning has been studied by the
students. The results of previous studies reviewed were: Ertha (2012) states that:
"There is a significant improvement in student learning outcomes about 61.23%
after implementing NHT model. In other research, average student’s pre-test mark
is 46.41 and after implementation of numbered heads together model, student’s
post-test mark of experiment class is 78.46 that researched by Ebtan Sihotang in
2012. In his thesis, stated that cooperative learning type of NHT improved student
4
learning outcomes about 59.11%." Susanti (2009) stated that: "There is increasing
on student learning outcomes taught by cooperative model types numbered head
together by 49.37%."
The general difference with previous research is in method of teaching. In
this research I use experiment method, so student more understand dynamic
electricity while implementing NHT model. In this research, writter will develop
the applicating Numbered Heads Together model to know student’s learning
outcomes.
Based on the description above writter conducted a research using
cooperative learning model type numbered heads together (NHT) on student’s
physics learning outcomes on dynamic electricity in grade X SMA Negeri 1
Berastagi. The title taken by writter is : "The Difference of Student’s Physics
Learning Outcomes using Cooperative Learning Model Type Numbered Heads
Together with Direct Instruction Model in grade X SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi "
1.2. Problem’s Identification
Based on the above background, the main points of the problem is
formulated as follows:
1. Lack of student motivation to learn physics
2. Student only memorizing the formula of physics without understanding
the matter
3. Student still have low team work to do discussion
4. Student’s learning activity is passive and student become have low
learning outcomes
5. Teacher seldom use learning model in teaching and learning activity, so
the learning become boring and not interesting
5
6. Teacher only explain the matter and give the exercise to student, so
student think that physics only calculating, finally student think physics is
difficult.
1.3. Problem Limitation
Based on the background problems described above and the identification
of problems that have been described, the study is quite extensive and limited
ability and time researchers, the researchers made the extent of the problem is
important. The extent of the problem that will be examined are:
1. Implementation of cooperative learning model type numbered head
together (NHT) in class.
2. Student learning outcomes by implementing cooperative learning model
type numbered head together (NHT).
3. The topic is dynamic electric, and the sub topic is current, voltage, and
ohm’s law will implement in Grade X SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi Academic
Year 2012/2013.
1.4. Problem Statement
Based on the background of the issues, identifying problems, and
limitation issues, the problems in this study can be formulated as follows:
1. How student’s physics learning outcomes (affective, psychomotoric, and
cognitive) use cooperative learning model type numbered head together on
dynamic electricity topic in grade X SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi Academic
Year 2012/2013?
2. How student’s physics learning outcomes (affective, psychomotoric, and
cognitive) use direct instruction model on dynamic electricity topic in grade
X SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi Academic Year 2012/2013?
3. Is there the difference of student’s physics learning outcomes (affective,
psychomotoric, and cognitive) use cooperative learning model type
6
numbered head together and direct instruction model on dynamic electricity
topic in grade X SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi Academic Year 2012/2013?
1.5. Objectives
Based on the background of the issues, identifying problems, limitation
issues, and the problems in this study, the objectives of this research can be
formulated as follows:
1. Identify student’s physics learning outcomes (affective, psychomotoric,
and cognitive) use cooperative learning model type numbered head together
on dynamic electricity topic in grade X SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi Academic
Year 2012/2013.
2. Identify student’s physics learning outcomes (affective, psychomotoric,
and cognitive) use direct instruction model on dynamic electricity topic in
grade X SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi Academic Year 2012/2013.
3. Identify the difference of student’s physics learning outcomes (affective,
psychomotoric, and cognitive) use cooperative learning model type numbered
head together and direct instruction model on dynamic electricity in grade X
SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi Academic Year 2012/2013.
1.6. Advantages of Research
The research expected to be useful for:
•
Physics Teacher
1. Become a reference for physics teachers to use Numbered Head
Together model for teaching physics in available physics topic.
•
Student
1.
Increasing student interest and curiosity about physics.
2. Increasing student’s physics learning outcomes
after applicate
cooperative learning model type numbered heads together.
3. Make student usuall to discuss with their group discussion and develop
team work and responsibility.
7
•
Researcher
1. Gain the knowledge about implementation Numbered Head Together in
physics subject
2. Adding experience about teaching by using Numbered Head Together
and know the influence in student’s physics learning outcomes
•
Next Researcher
1. As a reference for further research on the application of cooperative
learning model type numbered heads together (NHT).
64
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
Based on the research result, data analysis, and discussion so can
be concluded that :
1. Student’s physics learning outcomes (affective, psychomotoric, and
cognitive) use cooperative learning model type numbered heads together
on dynamic electric topic in grade X SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi is, affective
is 56.45 medium category, psychomotoric is 62.49 medium category, and
cognitive is 71.25 good category.
2. Student’s physics learning outcomes (affective, psychomotoric, and
cognitive) use direct instruction model on dynamic electricity topic in
grade X SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi, affective is 18.35 bad category,
psychomotoric is
15.87 bad category, and cognitive is 60.48 enough
category.
3. There is a difference of
student’s physics learning outcomes use
cooperative learning model type numbered head together and direct
instruction model on dynamic electricity topic in grade X SMA Negeri 1
Berastagi Academic Year 2012/2013. In this research, student’s physics
learning outcomes using numbered heads together better than direct
instruction learning.
5.2 Suggestion
Based on research result and discussion before, researcher give
suggestions as follows :
•
For Student
Student learn about the material before study in class. So student easy to
understand the material.
•
For Physics Teacher
65
Physics teacher should help the researcher to guide the student to do
discussion. And together with the researcher observe the activity of
student.
•
For School
School provide the instrument and material that use in learning process.
So, student more understand the physics learning material.
•
For Next Resercher
Next Researcher should have good time management so, every phase of
Numbered Heads Together done in efficient time and lesson close on time.
Tionar Melissa Malau was born in Medan on March, 25th 1991. Father’s
name is Sudung Malau (Alm) and Mother’s name is Maria Magdalena,S.Pd.
Author is the first daughter from two siblings. On 1997 author entered SD Katolik
Budi Murni Deli Tua and graduate on 2003. Then, author entered SMP N 1 Deli
Tua and graduate on 2006. Continue study at SMA N 13 Medan, author graduate
on 2009. On the middle of 2009, author has been received as student in State
University of Medan with study program is Physics bilingual education, major
Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Nature Science.
iv
PREFACE
Praise and thanks to Jesus Christ who has give a flood of merci and
guidance to writer so can finish this thesis.
This thesis which titled is “The Difference Of Student’s Physics Learning
Outcomes Using Cooperative Learning Model Type Numbered Heads Together
With Direct Instruction In Grade X SMA N 1 Berastagi” is arranged to acquire
scholar degree of Physics Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Nature Science
State University of Medan.
Thank you very much to Prof. Dr. Sahyar, M.S., M.M as thesis supervisor
who has guide and give suggestion to writer from initial research until finished
this research. Thank you so much also to Drs. Eidi Sihombing, MS, Prof. Dr Mara
Bangun Harahap, M.Si, Dr. Derlina, M.Si who have gave critics and suggestions
to writer. Thank you so much to Prof. Dr Mara Bangun Harahap, M.Si as
academic supervisor. Thank you so much to Prof. Motlan Sirait, M.Sc,.Ph.D as
Dean of FMIPA State University of Medan, Prof. Dr. Herbert Sipahutar, M.S.,
M.Sc as coordinator of Bilingual Program and to all Mr. and Mrs. Lecturer and
staff employee of Physics FMIPA State University of Medan who have
encouraged writer. Appreciation were also presented to Headmaster of SMA N 1
Berastagi Mr. Alberto Colia, M.Pd and physics teacher Mr. Apen Ginting, S.Pd,
Mr. Dhasa Duha that help me during the research, and thanks for all teacher in
SMA N 1Berastagi.
Special Gratefully to: Dear Mother Maria Magdalena,S.Pd and Beloved
father Sudung Malau (Alm) for grow me up and educate me in this life. Special
thank you for my love sister Nelly Yunita Malau that always support to finish this
thesis. Thanks for my uncle, aunt, grandmother and all my family that pray and
support me.
Thank you so much to my brothers and sisters in IKBKF Unimed
(specially for Agus K Giawa, Syahputra RB Op.S) for all of your support, pray
and help to writer to finish this thesis. Thanks a lot “Grace Small Group”, thanks
for my brother Juara Adi Syahputra Sirait that lead me to know more about Jesus,
thanks for my sister Debora Betty Sitanggang and Gita Ravhani Anugrah that
v
support and pray for me. Thanks for UKMKP- UP MIPA that provide place to do
partnership. Thank you so much for my best friend Emy Ria Nainggolan, Eli
Susiani Ginting, Hetty Simbolon, Kristina Sibarani, Jhon Hendrik Tumanggor,
Adi Yakim Surbakti, Benny S Ginting for the spirit, and support for me. And
thanks a lot for my sister Cahya Ramadhani (Berastagi) that always pray and
support me. And also my students in SMA N 1 Berastagi, thanks for the spirit and
pray for me.
To all of my colleagues in Physics Department FMIPA UNIMED,
especially to students of Physics Bilingual 2009, Agnesia M Damanik, Astrid P
Harahap, Avolen B Siahaan, Carolina Nainggolan, Debora B Sitanggang, Dewi S
Situmorang, Evi Valentine Silalahi, Fetriana Simanihuruk, Gita Ravhani Anugrah,
Hanna M Hutabarat, Henriko Hutabarat, Janiar S Gultom, Jefri S Waruwu, Lucius
Marbun, Mas Andri Marbun, Pretty TM Ambarita, Rani S N Damanik, Riris
Rumahorbo, Rika Yulia Fitri, Ribka M Tambunan, and Rita S Situmorang. Thank
you so much for spirit and support you give for me.
I realize this thesis is out of perfect caused by my literature or knowledge.
That’s why, writer hope constructivism’s advice and suggestion in order to make
this thesis is useful for all of us.
Medan, June 2013
Tionar Melissa Malau
ID. Number: 409322028
vi
CONTENTS
Legitimating Sheet
Page
i
Biography
ii
Abstract
iii
Preface
iv
Contents
vi
Figures List
ix
Tables List
x
Appendix List
xi
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1
1.1.
Background
1
1.2.
Problem’s Identification
4
1.3.
Problem Limitation
5
1.4.
Problem Statement
5
1.5.
Objectives
6
1.6.
Advantages of Research
6
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
8
2.1.
Theoritical Framework
8
2.1.1.
Learning
8
2.1.2.
Constructivism Learning
10
2.1.3.
Cooperative Learning
11
2.1.3.1. Numbered Heads Together
16
2.1.4.
Direct Instruction Model
18
2.1.5.
Learning Activity
19
2.1.6.
Learning Outcomes
21
2.2.
Learning Material
25
2.2.1.
Dynamic Electricity
25
2.2.1.1. Electric Current
25
vii
2.2.1.2. Electrical Measuring Instrument
26
2.2.1.3. Ohm’s Law
28
2.2.1.4. Energy and Power
31
2.3.
Preceding Researcher
32
2.4.
Critical Framework
34
2.4.1.
Numbered Heads Together and Direct Instruction
34
2.4.2.
Difference of Learning Outcomes using Numbered
2.5.
Heads Together with Direct Instruction
35
Hypothesis
35
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
36
3.1.
Location and Time of Research
36
3.2.
Research Population and Sample
36
3.3.
Research Variables
36
3.4.
Research Design
37
3.5.
Research Procedures
37
3.6.
Instrument and Data Collection
40
3.6.1
Research Instrument
40
3.6.2
Content Validity
42
3.6.3
Non-Tested Instrument
43
3.7.
Data Analysis Techniques
44
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH RESULT AND DISCUSSION
50
4.1.
Research Result
50
4.1.1.
Data of Pretest Score
50
4.1.2.
Data of Postest Score
50
4.2.
Data Analysis
52
4.2.1.
Normality Test
52
4.2.2.
Homogeneity Test
55
4.2.3.
Hypothesis Testing
55
4.2.4.
Affective and Psychomotoric of Students
57
viii
4.3.
Discussion
60
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTION
64
5.1. Conclusion
64
5.2. Suggestion
64
REFERENCES
66
ix
FIGURES LIST
Page
Figure 2.1. Electrical charges flowing in a conductor
25
Figure 2.2 Ammeters fitted series to series
26
Figure 2.3. Ammeter reading
27
Figure 2.4 (a) avometer (b) Voltmeter in parallel to the circuit
28
Figure 2.5 Voltmeter reading
28
Figure 2.6 Resistor fixed
28
Figure 2.7 Composition of barriers in series
29
Figure 2.8 Composition of resistance in parallel
30
Figure 2.9 Kirchhoff I Law
31
Figure 3.1 Research Phase
39
Figure 4.1 Chart of Cognitive of student based reach Bloom Taxonomy
in Pretest
51
Figure 4.2 Chart of Cognitive of student based reach Bloom Taxonomy
in Postest
52
Figure 4.3 Chart of Normality of Pretest in Control Class
53
Figure 4.4 Chart of Normality of Pretest in Experiment Class
53
Figure 4.5 Chart of Normality of Pretest in Control Class
54
Figure 4.6 Chart of Normality of Pretest in Experiment Class
54
Figure 4.7 Chart of affective during three meetings
57
Figure 4.8 Chart of psychomotoric during three meetings
58
Figure 4.9 Chart Relation Between affective, psychomotoric, and
Cognitive
59
x
TABLES LIST
Page
Table 2.1 Differences Cooperative learning group with
Direct Instruction Group
13
Table 2.2 Steps of Cooperative Learning Model
15
Table 2.3 Steps of Numbered Heads Together
17
Table 2.4 Steps of Direct Instruction Model
18
Table 3.2 Grille Problem
41
Table 3.3 Categories student’s Learning Outcomes
42
Table 3.4 Criteria of Value Percentage of Content Validity
42
Table 3.5 Guideline of Affective Domain
43
Table 3.6 Guideline of Psychomotor Domain
43
Table 3.7 Criterion of Affective and Psychomotoric domains
44
Table 4.1 Pretest Score in Experiment and Control Class
50
Table 4.2 Postest Score in Experiment and Control Class
51
Table 4.3 Normality Test for Pretest Score
53
Table 4.4 Normality Test for Postest Score
54
Table 4.5 Homogenity Test in Experiment and Control Class
55
Table 4.6 Calculation of Hypothesis Test
56
xi
APPENDIX LIST
Page
Appendix 1 Lesson Plan-1
68
Appendix 2 Lesson Plan-2
83
Appendix 3 Lesson Plan-3
96
Appendix 4 Worksheet-1
109
Appendix 5 Worksheet-2
113
Appendix 6 Worksheet-3
116
Appendix 7 Grill of Research Instrument
118
Appendix 8 Research Instrument
129
Appendix 9 Affective and Psychomotoric Assessment Instrument
136
Appendix 10 Affective Assessment 1st Meeting (Experiment Class)
140
Appendix 11 Affective Assessment 2nd Meeting (Experiment Class)
143
rd
Appendix 12 Affective Assessment 3 Meeting (Experiment Class)
146
Appendix 13 Psychomotoric Assessment 1st Meeting (Experiment Class)
149
Appendix 14 Psychomotoric Assessment 2nd Meeting (Experiment Class)
151
Appendix 15 Psychomotoric Assessment 3rd Meeting (Experiment Class)
153
Appendix 16 Affective Assessment 1st Meeting (Control Class)
156
nd
Appendix 17 Affective Assessment 2 Meeting (Control Class)
160
Appendix 18 Affective Assessment 3rd Meeting (Control Class)
164
Appendix 19 Psychomotoric Assessment 1st Meeting (Control Class)
168
Appendix 20 Psychomotoric Assessment 2nd Meeting (Control Class)
172
Appendix 21 Psychomotoric Assessment 3rd Meeting (Control Class)
176
Appendix 22 Mark Tabulation of Pretest in Control Class
180
Appendix 23 Mark Tabulation of Postest in Control Class
181
Appendix 24 Mark Tabulation of Pretest in Experiment Class
182
Appendix 25 Mark Tabulation of Postest in Experiment Class
183
Appendix 26 Learning Outcomes Data in Control Class
184
Appendix 27 Learning Outcomes Data in Experiment Class
185
Appendix 28 Calculation of Mean Value and Standard Deviation
in Experiment Class
186
xii
Appendix 29 Calculation of Mean Value and Standard Deviation
in Control Class
188
Appendix 30 Normality Test
190
Appendix 31 Homogenity Test
194
Appendix 32 Hypothesis Test
196
Appendix 33 List of Critical Value for Liliefors
200
Appendix 34 List of Percentil Value of t Distribution
201
Appendix 35 Table of Area in below Normal Curve 0 to z
202
Appendix 36 Research Documentation
203
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
Physics is the basic of science that learns natural phenomena
systematecally. Physics is subject that give us information and concept of natural
phenomena occur in our daily life. Physics is an interesting subject, because we
can directly observe in our daily lives. But in reality many students stating that
physics is difficult, because many of the formulas should be memorized. This fact
is reinforced by the results of their low physical exam. The low physics learning
outcomes can be caused by various factors, among others, the low interest in
students to learn physics, the way teachers teach less attractive, and less precise
model of learning materials in teaching physics.
Based on interviews with physics teacher in SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi,
physics learning outcomes is still low. This is evident from the mark of
summative examination‘s students with an average 67, whereas the value of
Mastery Minimal Criteria of physics is 75. In the learning process, teachers using
conventional methods, learning process was teacher centered. In the learning
process, the teacher explains the material and noting formulas and work on the
problems. So that became synonymous with physics formulas and learning
becomes less attractive.
Table 1.1 Percentage Student Reached KKM
No
Year
Class
KKM value
% Student
Graduate
1.
X
75
13 %
2010
2.
XI
80
15%
3.
XII
80
14%
4.
X
75
15%
2011
5.
XI
80
12%
6.
XII
80
14%
7.
X
75
12%
2012
8.
XI
80
16%
9.
XII
80
14%
Source : SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi, 2013
2
From the table above we can make conclusion that student’s learning
outcomes of physics subject is still low. And from the questionnaire given by
researcher in observation, student is not interest in physics subject, because their
consider that physics is the difficult lesson, and teacher who teached them less
engange them in learning, teacher just give lecturing and give them exercise about
physics. So from this case, researcher want to use the model of teaching that can
engage the student learning, and make the student as the center of learning. So,
they get the knowledge of physics and feel interest to study physics. So, from that,
teacher have role as facilitator of learning, and motivating student to learn.
Teachers are a crucial component in the implementation of a learning
strategy. Teachers in the process of learning have very important role. The
teacher's role is not only as a model or good example for the students he teaches,
but also as a learning manager. Thus the effectiveness of teachers the rests process
learning. Therefore, the success of a learning process is largely determined by the
quality or the ability of teachers. According to Norman Kirby in Sanjaya, W
(2011:52) states: "One underlying emphasis should be noticeable: that the quality
of the teacher is essential, constant feature in the success of any educational
system."
In line with the problems above, the learning process of physics required
an innovative learning model that can encourage student learning, making
students more active, and learning more fun, so that with increasing student
motivation will also increase learning outcomes. One alternative to student
motivation is to engage students in learning. Teachers must be able to create a
comfortable atmosphere for learning and fun, as well as to actively involve
students in the learning process .Therefore, the learning model used is a model
that attracted students, enhance the spirit of learning, and fun. One alternative
learning model that evokes the spirit of learning and engage students is
cooperative learning.
3
According to Bruce,J and Marsha Weil (2003:13), ”Cooperative learning
procedures facilitate learning across all curriculum areas and ages, improving selfesteem, social skill and solidarity, and academic learning goals ranging from the
acquisition of information and skill through the modes of inquiry of academic
disciplines.”
Based on the issues that have been presented previously, the writter tries to
do research in an effort to improve student learning outcomes by implementing
cooperative learning model type numbered heads together (NHT) with some
methods of learning.
According to Slavin (2005:256), “Cooperative learning type NHT is a
better approach to learning allows students to be more active and take full
responsibility for understanding the subject matter both in groups and
individually.”
Therefore NHT learning model can be applied in day-to-day on the subject
at the junior high or high school students. In this study the writter chose the
dynamic electric topic because it is contextual topic explained with the steps of
cooperative learning type NHT. In addition, cooperative learning model type NHT
has not been used for research In SMA N 1 Berastagi. Dynamic Electricity also
allows students to learn to identify concepts through visual aids and group
discussions. Based on the description the writter wanted to do research on NHT
model to improve student learning outcomes in grade X SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi
Academic Year 2012/2013 on dynamic electric topic.
Writter fully aware that cooperative learning has been studied by the
students. The results of previous studies reviewed were: Ertha (2012) states that:
"There is a significant improvement in student learning outcomes about 61.23%
after implementing NHT model. In other research, average student’s pre-test mark
is 46.41 and after implementation of numbered heads together model, student’s
post-test mark of experiment class is 78.46 that researched by Ebtan Sihotang in
2012. In his thesis, stated that cooperative learning type of NHT improved student
4
learning outcomes about 59.11%." Susanti (2009) stated that: "There is increasing
on student learning outcomes taught by cooperative model types numbered head
together by 49.37%."
The general difference with previous research is in method of teaching. In
this research I use experiment method, so student more understand dynamic
electricity while implementing NHT model. In this research, writter will develop
the applicating Numbered Heads Together model to know student’s learning
outcomes.
Based on the description above writter conducted a research using
cooperative learning model type numbered heads together (NHT) on student’s
physics learning outcomes on dynamic electricity in grade X SMA Negeri 1
Berastagi. The title taken by writter is : "The Difference of Student’s Physics
Learning Outcomes using Cooperative Learning Model Type Numbered Heads
Together with Direct Instruction Model in grade X SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi "
1.2. Problem’s Identification
Based on the above background, the main points of the problem is
formulated as follows:
1. Lack of student motivation to learn physics
2. Student only memorizing the formula of physics without understanding
the matter
3. Student still have low team work to do discussion
4. Student’s learning activity is passive and student become have low
learning outcomes
5. Teacher seldom use learning model in teaching and learning activity, so
the learning become boring and not interesting
5
6. Teacher only explain the matter and give the exercise to student, so
student think that physics only calculating, finally student think physics is
difficult.
1.3. Problem Limitation
Based on the background problems described above and the identification
of problems that have been described, the study is quite extensive and limited
ability and time researchers, the researchers made the extent of the problem is
important. The extent of the problem that will be examined are:
1. Implementation of cooperative learning model type numbered head
together (NHT) in class.
2. Student learning outcomes by implementing cooperative learning model
type numbered head together (NHT).
3. The topic is dynamic electric, and the sub topic is current, voltage, and
ohm’s law will implement in Grade X SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi Academic
Year 2012/2013.
1.4. Problem Statement
Based on the background of the issues, identifying problems, and
limitation issues, the problems in this study can be formulated as follows:
1. How student’s physics learning outcomes (affective, psychomotoric, and
cognitive) use cooperative learning model type numbered head together on
dynamic electricity topic in grade X SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi Academic
Year 2012/2013?
2. How student’s physics learning outcomes (affective, psychomotoric, and
cognitive) use direct instruction model on dynamic electricity topic in grade
X SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi Academic Year 2012/2013?
3. Is there the difference of student’s physics learning outcomes (affective,
psychomotoric, and cognitive) use cooperative learning model type
6
numbered head together and direct instruction model on dynamic electricity
topic in grade X SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi Academic Year 2012/2013?
1.5. Objectives
Based on the background of the issues, identifying problems, limitation
issues, and the problems in this study, the objectives of this research can be
formulated as follows:
1. Identify student’s physics learning outcomes (affective, psychomotoric,
and cognitive) use cooperative learning model type numbered head together
on dynamic electricity topic in grade X SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi Academic
Year 2012/2013.
2. Identify student’s physics learning outcomes (affective, psychomotoric,
and cognitive) use direct instruction model on dynamic electricity topic in
grade X SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi Academic Year 2012/2013.
3. Identify the difference of student’s physics learning outcomes (affective,
psychomotoric, and cognitive) use cooperative learning model type numbered
head together and direct instruction model on dynamic electricity in grade X
SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi Academic Year 2012/2013.
1.6. Advantages of Research
The research expected to be useful for:
•
Physics Teacher
1. Become a reference for physics teachers to use Numbered Head
Together model for teaching physics in available physics topic.
•
Student
1.
Increasing student interest and curiosity about physics.
2. Increasing student’s physics learning outcomes
after applicate
cooperative learning model type numbered heads together.
3. Make student usuall to discuss with their group discussion and develop
team work and responsibility.
7
•
Researcher
1. Gain the knowledge about implementation Numbered Head Together in
physics subject
2. Adding experience about teaching by using Numbered Head Together
and know the influence in student’s physics learning outcomes
•
Next Researcher
1. As a reference for further research on the application of cooperative
learning model type numbered heads together (NHT).
64
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
Based on the research result, data analysis, and discussion so can
be concluded that :
1. Student’s physics learning outcomes (affective, psychomotoric, and
cognitive) use cooperative learning model type numbered heads together
on dynamic electric topic in grade X SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi is, affective
is 56.45 medium category, psychomotoric is 62.49 medium category, and
cognitive is 71.25 good category.
2. Student’s physics learning outcomes (affective, psychomotoric, and
cognitive) use direct instruction model on dynamic electricity topic in
grade X SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi, affective is 18.35 bad category,
psychomotoric is
15.87 bad category, and cognitive is 60.48 enough
category.
3. There is a difference of
student’s physics learning outcomes use
cooperative learning model type numbered head together and direct
instruction model on dynamic electricity topic in grade X SMA Negeri 1
Berastagi Academic Year 2012/2013. In this research, student’s physics
learning outcomes using numbered heads together better than direct
instruction learning.
5.2 Suggestion
Based on research result and discussion before, researcher give
suggestions as follows :
•
For Student
Student learn about the material before study in class. So student easy to
understand the material.
•
For Physics Teacher
65
Physics teacher should help the researcher to guide the student to do
discussion. And together with the researcher observe the activity of
student.
•
For School
School provide the instrument and material that use in learning process.
So, student more understand the physics learning material.
•
For Next Resercher
Next Researcher should have good time management so, every phase of
Numbered Heads Together done in efficient time and lesson close on time.