THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENT’S MATHEMATICAL COMMUNICATION ABILITY TAUGHT BY COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL THINK-TALK-WRITE TYPE WITH NUMBERED HEAD TOGETHER TYPE ATSMP NEGERI 1 LUBUK PAKAM.

(1)

THE DI FFERENCE OF STUDENT’S MATHEMATI CAL COMMUNICATION ABILITY TAUGHT BY COOPERATIVE

LEARNING MODEL THINK-TALK-WRITE TYPE WITH NUMBERED HEAD TOGETHER TYPE AT

SMP NEGERI 1 LUBUK PAKAM

by:

Meiva Marthaulina IDN 4103312019

Mathematics Education Study Program

Thesis

Submitted in Fulfilment of The Requirements for Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan

DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN MEDAN

(2)

The Difference of Student’s Mathematical Communication Ability Taught by Cooperative Learning Model Think–Talk–Write Type with Numbered Head

Together Type at SMP Negeri 1 Lubuk Pakam

Meiva Marthaulina Lestari Siahaan (IDN 4103312019) ABSTRACT

The research method was quasi experiment. The purpose of this research was to know whether any difference in student’s mathematical communication ability in cooperative learning Think–Talk–Write (TTW) type with Numbered Head Together (NHT) type.

The population of this research was all students at SMP Negeri 1 Lubuk Pakam. The sample was two classes which each consist of 36 students, VII A as experimental class I which taught by cooperative learning model type TTW and VII B as experimental class II which taught by cooperative learning model type NHT. The sample was taken by cluster random sampling. Collecting data technique of this research was mathematical comunication ability test that was given in the end of learning either in experimental class I or experimental class II. The type of this test was essay test.

Before doing hypothesis test, it would be done normality and homogeneity test beforehand. From the result of those tests, sample was taken from normal distributed and homogeneous variance. From the data analysis of each of experimental class were obtained that the average of posttest score in TTW classroom is higher than in NHT classroom. It was also obtained that score of mathematical communication indicators in TTW classroom is higher than in NHT classroom. From the data analysis of posttest score by using t-test with significance level α = 0.05, then it was obtained that tcalculated = 4.687 and ttable = 1.667. It means that tcalculated > ttable then H0 is rejected and Ha is accepted.

So, it can be concluded that there is difference of student’s mathematical communication ability who taught by cooperative learning model type TTW with NHT at SMP Negeri 1 Lubuk Pakam. Based on research that has been done, mathematics teachers are suggested to use cooperative learning model type TTW or NHT as learning model alternative in improving student’s mathematical communication ability.

(3)

CONTENTS

Page

Authentication Sheet i

Biography ii

Abstract iii

Preface vi

Table of Contents vi

List of Figure ix

List of Table x

List of Appendix xi

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Problems Identification 9

1.3 Problem Formulation 9

1.4 Problems Limitation 9

1.5 The Objective of Research 9

1.6 The Benefit of Research 10

1.7 Operational Definition 10

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 12

2.1 Communicating Process as Medium for Learning Mathematics 12 2.2 Mathematical Communication Ability 12

2.2.1 The Aspect of Communication 15

2.2.2 The Factors of Mathematical Communication 16

2.3 Cooperative Learning Model 17

2.3.1 The Definition of Cooperative Learning 17 2.3.2 The Eminent Thinking of Cooperative Learning 18

2.3.3 The Result of Cooperative Learning 19

(4)

2.3.5 The Steps of Cooperative Learning Model 20

2.3.6 Variation in Cooperative Learning 20

2.3.7 Cooperative Learning Model TTW Type 22

2.3.8 Cooperative Learning Model NHT Type 23

2.3.9 Constructivism Theory 24

2.4 Relevant Research 25

2.5 Conceptual Framework 25

2.6 Hypothesis 27

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD 28

3.1 Place and Time of Research 28

3.2 Population and Sample 28

3.3 Variable and Instrument of Research 28

3.3.1Variable of Research 28

3.3.2 Instrument of Research 29

3.4 Design of Research 34

3.5 Technique of Collecting Data 35

3.6 Technique of Data Analysis 37

3.6.1 Normality Test 37

3.6.2 Homogeneity Test 37

3.6.3 Hypotheses Test 38

CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 The Description of Research Result 39

4.1.1 The Score of Mathematical Communication Ability Test 39 4.1.2 The Description of Student’s Mathematical Communication Ability 40 4.2 The Analysis Data of Research Result 42

4.2.1 Normality Test 42

4.2.2 Homogeneity Test 42

(5)

4.3 Research Discussion 45

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1 Conclusion 48

5.2 Suggestion 48

(6)

LIST OF TABLE

Page Table 2.1 The Syntax of Cooperative Learning Model 20 Table 2.2 The Comparison of Approach to Cooperative Learning 21 Table 3.1 The Blueprint of Mathematical Communication Ability

Test 30

Table 3.2 The Criteria of Giving Score of Mathematical

Communication Ability Test 31

Table 3.3 Scoring Guideline of Mathematical Communication

Ability Test 32

Table 3.4 Classification of Validity Interpretation 33

Table 3.5 The Result of Problem Validity 33

Table 3.6 Classification of Reability Interpretation 34 Table 4.1 Data of Mathematical Communication Ability Test

in Both of Experimental Class 39

Table 4.2 Mean of Mthematical Communication Ability Indicators 41 Table 4.3 The Result of Normality Test of Mathematical

Communication Ability Score in Both of Experimental Class 42 Table 4.4 The Result of Homogenity Test of Mathematical

Communication Ability Score in Both of Experimental Class 43

Table 4.5 The Result of Hypotheses Test 43

(7)

LIST OF FIGURE

Page Figure 1.1 Student’s Answer for The First Problem 4 Figure 1.2 Student’s Answer for The Second Problem 5 Figure 1.3 The Third Problem of Observation Test 5 Figure 1.4 Student’s Answer for The Third Problem 6 Figure 2.1 The Result which obtained by Students Cooperative Learning 19

Figure 3.1 Procedure of Research 36

Figure 4.1 The Diagram of Mathematical Communication Ability

Test in Both of Experimental Class 40

Figure 4.2 The Diagram of Student’s Mathematical Communication

(8)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 5.1 Conclusion

Based on the result of research and discussion can be concluded that there is difference of student’s mathematical communication ability which taught by cooperative learning model TTW type (experimental class I) with NHT type (experimental class II) at SMP Negeri 1 Lubuk Pakam. The three indicators of mathematical communication ability at class which taught by cooperative learning model type TTW is higher than class which taught by cooperative learning model type NHT. For indicator the ability of stating mathematical problem into mathematical model and solving it, student taught by cooperative learning model TTW type is higher than student taught by cooperative learning model NHT type. For indicator the ability of explaining mathematical problem into figure, student taught by cooperative learning model TTW type is higher than student taught by cooperative learning model NHT type. For indicator the ability of explaining problem situations by own words and doing calculation , student taught by cooperative learning model TTW type is higher than student taught by cooperative learning model NHT type.

5.2 Suggestion

Based on research that has been done, mathematics teachers are suggested to use cooperative learning model type TTW or NHT as learning model alternative in improving student’s mathematical communication ability. Based on communication aspect that will be achieved, cooperative learning model TTW type is more effective than cooperative learning NHT type because the syntaxes of cooperative learning model TTW type including all communication aspects.

(9)

REFERENCES

Ansari, B., (2012), Komunikasi Matematik dan Politik Suatu Perbandingan : Konsep dan Aplikasi, Banda Aceh, Pena.

Arends, R., (2008), Learning To Teach, Pustaka Pelajar, Yogyakarta.

Arikunto,S., (2006), Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik, Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.

Arikunto,S., (2007), Manajemen Penelitian, Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.

Asmin and Mansyur., (2012), Pengkuran dan Penilaian Hasil Belajar Dengan Analisa Klasik dan Modern, Larispa Indonesia, Medan.

Best, J.W., (1981), Research in Education, Prantice – Hall, USA.

BSNP, (2006), Standar Isi Untuk Satuan Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah, BSNP, Jakarta.

Candiasa, M., (2005), Analisis Data dengan SPSS, IKIP Negeri Singaraja , Singaraja.

Cohen, et al., (2007), Research Methods in Education, Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, London.

Daryanto, (2013), Inovasi Pembelajaran Efektif, Yrama Widya, Bandung. FMIPA Universitas Negeri Medan, (2012), Pedoman Penulisan Proposal dan

Skripsi, FMIPA Universitas Negeri Medan, Medan.

Hillen, K.,(2006), Discourse and Cooperative Learning in The Math Classroom, Paper of Research Project, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Hudojo, H., (2005), Pengembangan Kurikulum dan Pembelajaran Matematika, Universitas Negeri Malang (UM Press) , Malang.

Isjoni, (2009), Cooperative Learning, Alfabeta, Bandung.

Ishabu, S., (2013), Online Mathematics Module : The Improve Learning Results and Creativity Student To Lesson Operation Count Numbers Through Cooperative Learning Type NHT, Journal of Mathematics Education 3 : 2225 – 0522.

(10)

Mahmudi, A., (2009), Komunikasi dalam Pembelajaran Matematika, Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika 8 : 1412-2318.

Munte, D., (2013), Perbedaan Hasil Belajar Matematika Siswa Yang Diajarkan Dengan Model Pembelajaran NHT Dengan Pembelajaran Konvensional Pada Materi Operasi Hitung Bentuk Aljabar Kelas VII Mts. Swasta Sidikalang Tahun Ajaran 2013 / 2014, Skripsi, FMIPA, Unimed, Medan. Noor, J., (2011), Metodologi Penelitian, Kencana Prenada Media Group, Jakarta. Nasution, U., (2012), Perbedaan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematika

Siswa Yang Diajar Dengan Menggunakan Model Pembelajaran

Kooperatif Tipe STAD dan NHT Pada Materi Pecahan di Kelas VII SMP Negeri 2 Kisaran Tahun Ajaran 2012 / 2013, Skripsi, FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.

NCTM, (1966), www.nctm.org (Accessed on January 10th 2014).

NCTM, (1989), Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics, NCTM,USA.

NCTM, (2000), Principle and Standard for Mathematics, NCTM, USA.

Nuharini, D., and Wahyuni, T., (2008), Buku Sekolah Elektronik Matematika 1 : Konsep dan Aplikasinya, Pusat Perbukuan Departemen Pendidikan Nasional, Jakarta.

Oktarina, S., (2012), The Implementation of Strategy Think Talk Write to Improve student’s Activity and Learning Outcomes in The Topic Circle Class VIII at SMP Swasta Sabilina, Skripsi, FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.

Qohar, Abd., (2011), Online Mathematics Module : Mathematical

Communication : What and How To Develop It in Mathematics Learning, Journal of Mathematics Education : 978 – 979 – 16353 – 7 – 0.

Siahaan, B., (2011), The Difference Student’s Mathematical Reasoning Ability in Think Talk Write (TTW) and Conventional Classroom in Topic Linear Equation System of Two Variables at SMP Negeri 1 Sei Rampah, Skripsi, FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.

Sugiyono, (2011), Statistika Untuk Penelitian, Alfabeta, Bandung.

Supriadie, D., and Darmawan, (2012), Komunikasi Pembelajaran, PT.Remaja Rosdakarya, Bandung.

(11)

UNESCO, (1998), A UNESCO-APNIEVE SOURCEBOOK for Teacher Education and Tertiery Level Education, UNESCO, Thailand.

Uno, H., (2011), Model Pembelajaran : Menciptakan Proses Belajar Mengajar Yang Efektif, Bumi Aksara, Jakarta.

Utomo, D.P., (2002), http://ejournal.umm.ac.id/ index.php/penmath /article/ view File/583/60 2umm scientific_journal.pdf (Accesed on February, 23rd 2014 ). Wichelt, L.,(2009), Communication : A Vital Skill of Mathematics, Paper of

(1)

LIST OF TABLE

Page Table 2.1 The Syntax of Cooperative Learning Model 20 Table 2.2 The Comparison of Approach to Cooperative Learning 21 Table 3.1 The Blueprint of Mathematical Communication Ability

Test 30

Table 3.2 The Criteria of Giving Score of Mathematical

Communication Ability Test 31

Table 3.3 Scoring Guideline of Mathematical Communication

Ability Test 32

Table 3.4 Classification of Validity Interpretation 33 Table 3.5 The Result of Problem Validity 33 Table 3.6 Classification of Reability Interpretation 34 Table 4.1 Data of Mathematical Communication Ability Test

in Both of Experimental Class 39

Table 4.2 Mean of Mthematical Communication Ability Indicators 41 Table 4.3 The Result of Normality Test of Mathematical

Communication Ability Score in Both of Experimental Class 42 Table 4.4 The Result of Homogenity Test of Mathematical

Communication Ability Score in Both of Experimental Class 43 Table 4.5 The Result of Hypotheses Test 43 Table 4.6 The Result of Advance Hypotheses Test 44

(2)

Figure 1.2 Student’s Answer for The Second Problem 5 Figure 1.3 The Third Problem of Observation Test 5 Figure 1.4 Student’s Answer for The Third Problem 6 Figure 2.1 The Result which obtained by Students Cooperative Learning 19

Figure 3.1 Procedure of Research 36

Figure 4.1 The Diagram of Mathematical Communication Ability

Test in Both of Experimental Class 40 Figure 4.2 The Diagram of Student’s Mathematical Communication