THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENT’S LEARNING OUTCOMES ON ALGEBRA USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL OF GROUP INVESTIGATION (GI) AND USING STUDENT TEAM ACHIEVEMENT DIVISION (STAD) (CASE STUDY: CLASS VII SMPN 1 MEDAN ACADEMIC YEAR 2012/2013.
THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENT’S LEARNING OUTCOMES ON
ALGEBRA USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL OF
GROUP INVESTIGATION (GI) AND USING STUDENT
TEAM ACHIEVEMENT DIVISION (STAD)
(CASE STUDY: CLASS VII SMPN 1 MEDAN
ACADEMIC YEAR 2012/2013)
By :
Togu Mangihut B
ID 408111023
Bilingual Mathematics Education
THESIS
Submitted To Fulfill Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
MATHEMATICS DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2013
i
iii
THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENT’S LEARNING OUTCOMES ON
ALGEBRA USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL OF
GROUP INVESTIGATION (GI) AND USING STUDENT
TEAM ACHIEVEMENT DIVISION (STAD)
(CASE STUDY: CLASS VII SMPN 1 MEDAN
ACADEMIC YEAR 2012/2013
Togu Mangihut B (408111023)
ABSTRACT
Learning outcomes is the learning achievement of students who can be
measured after work the problems given by teacher at the time of the evaluation
carried out. This research is aimed to find out if there is a difference of students’
learning outcomes on algebra using cooperative learning model of Group
Investigation (GI) and using Student Team Achievement Division (STAD). This
research is a Quasi Experimental Research namely Posttest -Only Control Group
Design which was conducted in SMP Negeri 1 Medan. The sample is 2 sample class
chosen randomly in seventh grade.
Instrument used to collect the data of research is students’ mathematics
learning outcomes (posttest), student’s worksheet, observation sheet (teacher and
students observation sheet). This research consist of two steps, both class VII
Pythagoras as class experiment I with 28 students and VII John Locke as class
experiment II with 28 students was divided the student into small groups for each
class, then doing a treatment (Cooperative Learning Model Of GI and STAD) and in
the last meeting was given a posttest which had been calculate the validity test and
the reliability is 0.71 after tried is aimed to measure the students’ mathematics
learning outcomes. All data of research is statistically analyzed.
The result of research shows that the average score of posttest in experimental
I is 77.5 and the average score of posttest in experimental class II is 65. Then test the
hypothesis by using t-test which is tcalculate= 2.82 and ttable = 1.67 so that tcalculate > ttable
(2.82 > 1.67) consequently Ha is received and rejected the H0 that means that Group
Investigation is better than STAD in students’ mathematics Learning Outcomes and
there is significant difference.
Key word: Students’ Learning Outcomes, GI learning Model, STAD learning Model,
Quasi Experimental research, Posttest -Only Control Group Design
iv
FOREWORD
First of all, I would like to thank God Almighty for His Blessing and
chance for me so I able to finish my study and complete my Thesis which the title
is “ The Difference of Student’s Learning Outcomes on Algebra Using
Cooperative Learning Model of Group Investigation (GI) and Using Student
Team Achievement Division (STAD)” in order to fullfill one of the requirements
to obtain a Sarjana Pendidikan at the Mathematics Department in Bilingual
Mathematics Education class , Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science in
State University of Medan.
I realize that to do and complete this all isn’t an easy work, there are
many challange and problems which is faced. But , There are many people such as
family, friends, lecturer, staff and others who help me to do that all , motivate me
as long as in doing and finishing my study. I also would like to say thanks to all of
them.
My special thanks for Dr.Esther Nababan, M.Sc as my Thesis Supervisor
who has given me her advice, motivations, instructions, ideas, suggestions and
time to me in finishing my thesis. Then, I also say thanks for my Academic
Supervisor Dr.Drs.W.Rajagukguk, M.Pd for his advices,suggestions,motivations
from the beginning untill finishing my study. I would like to say thanks too for
Prof.Dian Armanto,M.Pd,M.A,M.Sc,Ph.D, for Prof.Dr.P.Siagian,M.Pd, for
Prof.Dr.Mukhtar,M.Pd as my thesis examiners for their willingness to correct and
complete this thesis. I also say thanks for Prof. Dr.Mukhtar, M.Pd as the chairman
of mathematics Department, Drs.Syafari,M.Pd as laeader of mathematics
Education Study program, Drs.Yasifati Hia, M.Si as Secretary of mathematics
department and Prof.Dr.Herbert Sipahutar,M.sc as the coordinator of Bilingual
class, Prof.Drs.Motlan, M.Sc,Ph.D as Dean of mathematics and natural Science
faculty and Prof.Dr.Ibnu Hajar Damanik,S.Pd,M.Si as Rector of State University
of Medan.
v
My specials thanks for all of my lecturer in mathematics department and
the staff who help me in giving knowledge, motivation and sugestions to finish
my study. Then, I also would like to say thanks for Drs.H.Ahmad Siregar as the
headmaster of SMPN 1 Medan and Anita Nilam S Silalahi as the mathematics
teacher at SMPN 1 Medan, all of teacher and staff in SMPN 1 Medan who help
me in doing and finishing my research.
Specials thanks for my lovely parents, J. Banjarnahor and R.Siagian and
also my beloved brother and sister Erpina Banjarnahor S.Pd and Her Husband
S.Sitompul S.Pd, Febri Gilberd Banjarnahor, Lely Handayani Banjarnahor who
always give me prays, motivations,advices,loves and supports so I able to finish
my study and this thesis.
Specials thanks for my best friends “SERAPHIM” (Blessing G. Hutagaol,
Janna Sri Bina Br Barus, Putri Welpha Hutajulu) and Brother Rustam Efendi
Simamora for their love,pray,support and friendship. Special thanks to “Tusam
Family” (Efrida Fitri, Farah Diba,Yenni Khairina, Desri , Winny, Rizky and
Kakak Poppy) for their support, love,pray and friendship. I also say thanks for
Eva Puspita, Siti Rafiah,Misna Fitriani and all of my beloved friends in
Mathematics Bilingual class 2008 for their support,,spirit, help and kindness
during my study in state University of Medan. May God bless them all.
Witter realize that there are also many weaknesses and insufficiency in
this thesis, for that writter hopes suggestion and critic in making this thesis better.
Writter hopes this thesis will give advantage for reader and the world of
education.
Medan,
January 2013
Writter
Togu Mangihut B
ID. 408111023
x
LIST OF TABLE
Page
Table 2.1 Syntax of the cooperative learning model
26
Table 2.2 Progression Score Calculating
36
Table 2.3 Comparison of GI and STAD type of cooperative learning
38
Table 2.4 the Difference Phase of GI and STAD
39
Table 3.1 Research Design Table
52
Table 3.2 Blue print of Posttest
56
Table 3.4 Criteria of Student’s activities
58
Table 3.4 Criteria of Teacher’s activities
59
Table 4.1 Summary Data of Student’s Learning Outcomes
64
Table 4.2 Normality Test Result of Students’ Learning Outcomes
65
Table 4.3 Homogeneity Test Result Of Student’s Learning Outcomes
66
Table 4.4 the Summary Result of Hypothesis Test
66
xi
LIST OF APPENDIX
Page
Appendix 1. Lesson Plan GI I
77
Appendix 2. Lesson Plan GI II
85
Appendix 3. Lesson Plan GI III
93
Appendix 4. Lesson Plan STAD I
98
Appendix 5. Lesson Plan STAD II
105
Appendix 6. Lesson plan STAD III
111
Appendix 7. SAS for GI Class
116
Appendix 8. SAS for STAD Class
130
Appendix 9. Quiz for STAD
135
Appendix 10. Observation Sheet of Student’s Activities GI
136
Appendix 11. Observation Sheet of Student’s Activities STAD
142
Appendix 12. Observation Sheet of Teacher’s Activities
148
GI
Appendix 13. Observation Sheet of Teacher’s Activities
154
Appendix 14. Research Instrument
160
Appendix 15. Posttest Of Student’s Learning Outcomes
163
Appendix 16. Blue Print Of Posttest
165
Appendix 17. Calculation Table of Validity and Reliability Instrument
168
Appendix 18. Validity Test and Reliability Test
169
Appendix 19. Group Division Both Experiment Class
172
Appendix 20. Data of Posttest Score both Class Experiment
174
Appendix 21. Normality Test of Learning Outcomes Data
175
Appendix 22. Homogeneity Test of Learning Outcomes Data
177
Appendix 23. Hyphotesis Test
178
xii
Appendix 24. Table of Critical Value Liliefors Test
179
Appendix 25. Table of Area Normal Curve 0 to z
180
Appendix 26. Table of t-distribution
181
Appendix 27. Documentation
182
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Education is a very important thing and it has a strategic role in the
development of human civilization in the world. Therefore, almost all
countries, including Indonesia put the variables of education in developing
human resources to face the development of civilization nation and state.
As expressed by Trianto (2009:4) that entered the 21st century national
education system face very complex challenges in preparing the quality of
human resources to compete in the era of globalization. Appropriate measures
to prepare qualified human resources and the only place that can be in view
and a tool for building high-quality human resources is education. However,
the quality of education in Indonesia is now considered by many people is still
low. Kunandar (2009: 1) mentions several indicators, namely:
1.
Graduates from high school or college are not ready to enter the
workforce due to lack of competency
2.
Rank Human Development Index (HDI) of Indonesia is still low. In
2004 Indonesia ranked 111th of 117 countries, ranking 110th in 2005
under Vietnam is ranked 108th. Later in the year 2010 ranked 111th
and in 2012 Indonesia down to 124th of the 187 countries ranked.
3.
Report of International Educational Outcomes (IEA) that the reading
skills of elementary school students Indonesia was ranked 38 of the 39
countries surveyed.
4.
Quality among the nation's colleges / Program for International
Student Assessment (PISA) 2003 show Indonesia ranks 38th of 41
countries in science then mathematics and reading was ranked 39th
compared with south Korea is ranked 8th in science, mathematics and
reading ranked third on the ranking of seventh.
5.
Competitiveness World Report Year book 2000, the competitiveness
of Indonesia's human resources positions in 46 of 47 countries.
2
6.
The position of favorite universities in Indonesia, UI and UGM are at
61 and 68 of the 77 universities in Asia (Asia week, 2000)
7.
Underdevelopment of Indonesia in the field of science and technology
compared to neighboring countries such as Malaysia, Singapore and
Thailand.
Mathematics is one of the basic sciences in school curriculum and
must be learned in educational institutions. Based on the data above,
Indonesia ranks are located in 39th of the 41 states and this must be very
worrying. This problem must be improved immediately and be seriously
handled because the usefulness of mathematics and very important both in
development thinking, mastery of science and technology and its role in
several other scientific subjects. It is also expressed by the Daniel Muijs and
David Reynolds (2008: 332) which states mathematics is the main means for
developing the ability of logical thinking and higher cognitive skills in
children and plays an important role in several other scientific fields such as
physics, engineering, statistics and others. Therefore, it is necessary teach
students to mastery the mathematics early on creating, face and master
modern technology for globalization era. Then, Cornelius in Abdurrahman
(2003: 253) show several reasons for studying mathematics, namely:
1. Means of a distinct and logical thinking
2. Means to solve problems of daily life
3. Means to know the patterns, relationships and generalization of
experience
4. Means to develop creativity
5. Means to increase awareness of cultural development.
Based on the above quotation through the learning of mathematics is
expected that students can develop the ability to think, reason, develop
creativity, communicate and present ideas and information and solve problems
in daily activities.
Although mathematics is one of the important aspect to develop a
nation, in fact, the mathematics ability of student still low like in expectation.
3
It can be concluded that the teaching and learning process is not able give the
good effect in increase the learning outcomes of students. It also can be seen
from the Ujian Nasional result in 2012, Mendikbud M.Nuh explains that most
of students failed in mathematics. From the above quotations provide clear
information that until now the learning outcomes results mathematics students
have not achieved the desired level.
(http://edukasi.kompas.com/read/2012/06/02/10035432/Banyak.Siswa.Tak.Lu
lus.Ujian.Matematika)
Furthermore Trianto (2009: 5) states that a major problem in learning
on formal education (school) today is the low absorptive capacity of learners
where can be seen from the average of the students’ results of study that is still
very bad. This outcomes is certainly as the result of the condition where
learning still in conventional dimensions and do not touch the realism of
learners themselves, namely how to actually learn it (learning to learn) and
also caused by the process of learning until today still provide the teacher
dominance and does not provide access for students to develop independently
through the development and their thought processes.
Based on the above opinion, it is very urgent for educators; especially
teachers to understand the characteristics of the materials and learners. In
addition, other factors that have an important role in determining the learning
objectives of the study is a model of learning. The learning process can be
followed very well and attracted students’ attention when teachers use learning
models which is suitable for learning material. Therefore, the learning of
mathematics must be based upon the characteristics of mathematics itself and
the students themselves.
Algebra is a language of symbols and relationships. Algebra is used to
solve everyday problems. With the symbolic language of relationships that
emerge problems solved simply. Learning algebra is not simply learned about
its abstract but also learn to solve problems of everyday life. In elementary
school learn arithmetic. The symbols used are the figures that directly stated
amount or recognized as a disciple of a certain number. Because the language
4
of algebra uses symbols not only the number but also the letter forms used in
junior high school algebra class VII is a very real need to understand the
students and need of special attention.
The beginning Algebraic form of a majority of students is not easy.
Students' competency in understanding and preparing the algebra class VII
student is a prerequisite for being able or competent in solving verbal problems
involving both equality and inequality and development. Because of these
basic skills need attention before entering into the equations and inequalities as
well as to function in algebra is taught in class VIII and IX (Al krismanto in
Diklat instruktur/ pengembangan Matematika SMP jenjang Dasar 2004)
Algebra is one of the subject matter of mathematics lessons taught in
school. Algebraic equations that contain some form of variable and constant
symbols and tend to be abstract enough make it difficult and foreign for student
to resolve any issues in this matter. From interviews given to the researcher
mathematics teacher at SMPN 1 Medan that is Elliati Nasution on June, 02nd
2012 obtained the information that students still have difficulty in
distinguishing coefficient, variable, constants, operating algebra operation,
equations and inequalities form and apply it in solving the equation algebra in
daily life examples.
Then Anita Silalahi, one math teacher at SMP Negeri 1 Medan also
mentioned the difficulty in distinguishing coefficient students, constants, and
variables. As mentioned example addition and multiplication; 2x + 3y and (2x)
x (3x), students still tend to answer 5xy and 6x. Form of algebra problems in
daily life also make students faces difficulties as a matter of following: in a
shop, Alim buy 5 books. After that he paid to the shopkeeper Rp 50,000 and
Rp 25,000 get back. What is the price of one of the books purchased by Alim?
To answer this question student must understand the problem asked and have
some skills such as problem solving. Students are much less active in this
matter; the less problem solving skills lead to some students also tended to be
indifferent as spoken and it make the learning outcomes become low.
5
Cooperative learning model is still rarely used in the process of
learning and teachers have not used cooperative learning type STAD and GI,
more frequent use of the learning model of lectures and continued by
discussions. As a result, students become less active so that students have
difficulty in understanding and solve the algebra problem and also have an
impact on learning outcomes based on test scores and dissatisfactory for some
students’ score.
Cooperative learning model can be used as an alternative model that is
expected to activate students in teaching and learning mathematics, this means
that students should be active and interact with others, exchange information
and solve problems. Slavin in Sanjaya (2009: 239) suggests two important
reasons for using cooperative learning model, namely:
1.
Several studies show that the use of cooperative learning can improve
student outcomes while increasing the ability of social relationships,
fostering self-acceptance and lack of other people and can improve selfesteem and others esteem.
2.
Cooperative learning can realize the needs of students in learning to
think, to solve problems, and integrate knowledge and skills.
From the above explanation, cooperative learning can improve
learning systems so far have weaknesses and lack. Cooperative learning can
also improve students' skills in solving math problems, because students are
able to explain ideas - ideas that are difficult to each other by translating into a
language that teachers use to their own language.
One model of cooperative learning can be developed in a cooperative
learning math is a type of Group Investigation and STAD. Group investigation
is the method emphasizes more choice and control students to plan what you
want to be studied and investigated. First of all groups of students placed in
small groups, each group is given a different task or project. In the group
discussion and each member must contribute to determine what research topics
they take. Others share their own division of labor for each group member.
During the investigation they will engage in activities of thinking, such as
6
making a summary synthesis, hypotheses, conclusions and present the final
report so that the students strive for active learning and problem solving are
investigated.
Hayu Pertiwi Sesani (2010) state that the succes of one of
mathematics instruction is determine by the selection of appropriate learning
method. From the models of learning that has been developed, one model of
learning that is assumed to support the creation of a dinamic learning situation
not saturated and can support creativity and interaction among students and
teachers are learning model investigation. Then , in topic algebra itself group
investigation learning method can be an alternative for teacher to be applied in
the classroom because it can motivate student to be more active and creative
among in learning mathematics so that can increase the learning outcomes.
(http://eprints.umm.ac.id/id/eprint/2321)
STAD is a study that involves competence between groups; students
are grouped in various ways based on ability, gender, race, and ethnicity. First
of all, students learn the material together with a group of friends and then they
were tested individually through quizzes, quiz grades each member to
determine scores obtained by their group. Thus, each member should seek
active and involved, supporting one another in mastering both the ability to
think, solve problems or to be taught by teachers in order to obtain the
maximum value in the quiz if they want to get a high score.
From the description above in order to active and involve students in
teaching and learning is very important. Through cooperative learning type GI
and STAD, learning of mathematics can be more interesting, fun, and also
enable students to improve problem solving skills that can increase student
outcomes.
Based on this background that the researcher is described, intend to do
a research with the title "The Difference between student’s learning outcomes
on Algebra using cooperative learning model Group Investigation and using
Student Teams Achievement Division”. Case study is in class VII SMPN 1
Medan academic year 2012/2013".
7
1.2 Problem Identification
1. Low absorptive capacity of learners caused by the process of learning
still provide the teacher dominance and doesn’t provide access for
student’s thought process
2. Algebra in junior high school especially class VII is a very real need
to be understood by the students and need of special attention
3. Students are much less active in algebra topic and tend to be
indefferent as spoken then make the learning outcomes become low
4. Teachers are more likely to use methods of lectures and discussions on
the learning process
5. Cooperative learning model Group Investigation and Student Teams
Achievement Division can be an alternative model to improve
student’s learning outcomes.
1.3 Problem Limitations
1. Students’ learning outcomes on the subject of algebra
2. Cooperative learning model of Group Investigation (GI) and of
Student Teams Outcomes Division (STAD) is as the learning model
1.4 Problem Formulation
a. Is there any difference in students' learning outcomes by using
cooperative learning type GI and type STAD on the subject of algebra
class VII SMPN 1 Medan academic year 2012/2013?
b. How is the difference of students’ activity and teacher activity in
cooperative learning type GI and type STAD on the subject of algebra
class VII SMPN 1 Medan academic year 2012/2013?
8
1.5 Research Objective
To find out the difference between the students’s learning outcomes on
algebra using cooperative learning model GI and of using cooperative learning
model STAD in class VII SMPN 1 Medan
1.6 Benefits of the research
The Benefit of this research is:
a. As an input or consideration for teachers to choose models for teaching
algebra.
b. The results of this study are expected to provide a reference in the
improvement of mathematics teaching in SMPN 1 Medan.
c. This research can be a reference for the other researcher to develop
both of these cooperative learning model but should pay attention for
the class controlling, and time effectiveness in increasing the learning
outcomes and better learning process in the class
d. This research can increase student’s learning outcomes, the activity of
students, and decrease the teacher dominance in learning process.
72
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
Based on the result of research from data analysis and test of
hypothesis then it can be concluded that:
1.
There is difference of both cooperative learning models between
Group Investigation (GI) and Student Team Achievement
Division (STAD) for topics Algebraic Expression namely
student’s learning outcomes which GI is better than STAD.
2.
In class GI for student’s activity , the students were more active
in discussing with their friend, asked their friend in group if didn’t
understand the problems, answered the teacher question and did
the exercise given by teacher in group than the STAD. But in the
STAD class, the students were more active ask to the teacher if
didn’t understand and find some difficulties and present their
result in front of the class than in class GI. The other aspects of
both models had
similar result to each other. For teacher’s
activity In class GI, namely presenting matter, communication
with students,doing evaluation and time effectiveness was higher
result than in class STAD but for the class controlling was better
than in class GI. Then , the other aspects was given similar result.
73
5.2 Suggestions
Based on the result of research and conclusion then researcher has
some suggestion, namely:
1.
For mathematics teacher, in teaching the material of algebraic
expression or other appropriate topics can be used
models
namely Group
Investigation
than
Student
learning
Team
Achievement Division as a way to improve the students’ learning
Outcomes but the both models is better than just to use simple
discussion like usual that sometimes not involved all of the
student in the class
2.
In doing each of steps or phases both of cooperative learning
model (GI and STAD), class controlling and communication with
student must have a specific attention so that the learning process
can be run well and get the maximal result.
74
REFERENCE
Abdurahman,Mulyono. 2003. Pendidikan Bagi Anak Berkesulitan Belajar.
Jakarta : Rineka cipta
Arends, Richard I.2009.Learning to Teach, Eight editions. America: McGraw Hill
Companies
Best, John W.1981. Research in Education 4th Edition. United States of
America : Prentige-Hall, Inc
Bloom, Benjamin S, George F. Madaus, J. Thomas Hasting. 1981. Evaluating
to Improve Learning. United States of America : Mc Graw-Hill, Inc.
Bruce Joy, Marsha Weil.1996. Models of Teaching, Fifth Edition. United States of
America:Needham Height Mass
Daniel Muijs and David Reynolds.2008. Effective Teaching Teori Dan Aplikasi.
Yogjakarta: Pustaka belajar
Eggen, Paul D, Donald P Kauchack, Robert J. Harder. 1979. Strategies for Teacher.
United States of America : Prentice Hall, Inc.
Ford, Cedric Culling. 1995. The Effective Teacher. New York : Cassel
Gall, Meredith D,Walter R.Borg,Joyce P.Gall. 1996. Educational Research an
Introduction 6th Edition. United States of America : Longman Publishers
Huda, Miftahul.2011.Cooperative Learning Metode Teknik Struktur Dan Model
Penerapan. Jakarta: Prenada media Group.
Hudojo,Herman.2003.Pengembangan Kurikulum Dan Pembelajaran Matematika.
Malang:FMIPA–Universitas Negeri Malang
75
Kemp,Jerrold E. 1977.Instructional Design 2nd Edition. United States of
America : David S. Lake Publishers
Klein, Stephen B.1991. Learning Principle and Application. Singapore: McGraw
Hill International Book
Kohl,Herbert. 1982. Insight the Substances and Rewards of Teaching. United States
of America : Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc.
Kunandar.2009. Guru Profesional Implementasi Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan
Pendidikan dan Sukses Dalam Sertifikasi Guru. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers
Lindquist,Mary Montgomery.1980.Selected issues Mathematics Education. United
States of America: Mc Cutchan Publishing Corporation.
Makmun, Abin Syamsudin.2003.Psikologi Kependidikan. Bandung: Remaja
Rosdakarya.
Mercer, Cecil D, Ann R. Mercer . 1989. Teaching Students with Learning Problem.
United States of America : Merrill Publishing Company
Nasution, S.2006. Kurikulum dan Pengajaran. Jakarta: Bumi aksara.
Panda, BN. 2003. How to Become a Competent/ Successful Teacher. New Delhi :
Discovery Publishing House
Popham, W James. 1981. Modern Educational Measurement. United States of
America : Prentice Hall, Inc.
Sagala, Syaiful. 2009.Konsep dan Makna Pembelajaran. Bandung : Alfabeta
Sanjaya,Wina. 2009. Strategi Pembelajaran Berorientasi Standar proses Pendidikan.
Jakarta: Kencana
76
Sanjaya, Wina. 2009.Perencanaan dan Desain Sistem Pembelajaran.
Jakarta: Kencana
Slameto. 2003. Belajar dan Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya.
Jakarta : Rineka Cipta
Slavin,Robert E.2005.Cooperative Learning Teori Riset dan Praktik.
Bandung: Nusa media
Sudijono, Anas. 2009. Pengantar Statistik Pendidikan. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers
Sudjana, 2001. Metoda Statistika. Bandung: Tarsito
Suryabrata, Sumadi. 2008. Psikologi Pendidikan. Jakarta: PT.Raja Grafindo Persada
Stepelman , Alfred S Posamentier.1990.Teaching Secondary School Mathematics:
Techniques and Enrichments Units. Columbus: Merrill
Syah,Muhibbin. 2008.Psikologi Pendidikan Dengan Pendekatan Baru. Bandung:
Remaja Rosdakarya Offset
Trianto.2009.Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif Progresif. Jakarta: Prenada
Media Group.
Uno,Hamzah.2003.Model Pembelajaran. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara
http://ipotes.wordpress.com/kelebihandankekuranganmodelpembelajarankooperatifgr
upinvestigasi.html.
Http://pmat.uad.ac.id/perkembangan–pembelajaran-matematika-di-indonesia.html
ALGEBRA USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL OF
GROUP INVESTIGATION (GI) AND USING STUDENT
TEAM ACHIEVEMENT DIVISION (STAD)
(CASE STUDY: CLASS VII SMPN 1 MEDAN
ACADEMIC YEAR 2012/2013)
By :
Togu Mangihut B
ID 408111023
Bilingual Mathematics Education
THESIS
Submitted To Fulfill Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
MATHEMATICS DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2013
i
iii
THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENT’S LEARNING OUTCOMES ON
ALGEBRA USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL OF
GROUP INVESTIGATION (GI) AND USING STUDENT
TEAM ACHIEVEMENT DIVISION (STAD)
(CASE STUDY: CLASS VII SMPN 1 MEDAN
ACADEMIC YEAR 2012/2013
Togu Mangihut B (408111023)
ABSTRACT
Learning outcomes is the learning achievement of students who can be
measured after work the problems given by teacher at the time of the evaluation
carried out. This research is aimed to find out if there is a difference of students’
learning outcomes on algebra using cooperative learning model of Group
Investigation (GI) and using Student Team Achievement Division (STAD). This
research is a Quasi Experimental Research namely Posttest -Only Control Group
Design which was conducted in SMP Negeri 1 Medan. The sample is 2 sample class
chosen randomly in seventh grade.
Instrument used to collect the data of research is students’ mathematics
learning outcomes (posttest), student’s worksheet, observation sheet (teacher and
students observation sheet). This research consist of two steps, both class VII
Pythagoras as class experiment I with 28 students and VII John Locke as class
experiment II with 28 students was divided the student into small groups for each
class, then doing a treatment (Cooperative Learning Model Of GI and STAD) and in
the last meeting was given a posttest which had been calculate the validity test and
the reliability is 0.71 after tried is aimed to measure the students’ mathematics
learning outcomes. All data of research is statistically analyzed.
The result of research shows that the average score of posttest in experimental
I is 77.5 and the average score of posttest in experimental class II is 65. Then test the
hypothesis by using t-test which is tcalculate= 2.82 and ttable = 1.67 so that tcalculate > ttable
(2.82 > 1.67) consequently Ha is received and rejected the H0 that means that Group
Investigation is better than STAD in students’ mathematics Learning Outcomes and
there is significant difference.
Key word: Students’ Learning Outcomes, GI learning Model, STAD learning Model,
Quasi Experimental research, Posttest -Only Control Group Design
iv
FOREWORD
First of all, I would like to thank God Almighty for His Blessing and
chance for me so I able to finish my study and complete my Thesis which the title
is “ The Difference of Student’s Learning Outcomes on Algebra Using
Cooperative Learning Model of Group Investigation (GI) and Using Student
Team Achievement Division (STAD)” in order to fullfill one of the requirements
to obtain a Sarjana Pendidikan at the Mathematics Department in Bilingual
Mathematics Education class , Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science in
State University of Medan.
I realize that to do and complete this all isn’t an easy work, there are
many challange and problems which is faced. But , There are many people such as
family, friends, lecturer, staff and others who help me to do that all , motivate me
as long as in doing and finishing my study. I also would like to say thanks to all of
them.
My special thanks for Dr.Esther Nababan, M.Sc as my Thesis Supervisor
who has given me her advice, motivations, instructions, ideas, suggestions and
time to me in finishing my thesis. Then, I also say thanks for my Academic
Supervisor Dr.Drs.W.Rajagukguk, M.Pd for his advices,suggestions,motivations
from the beginning untill finishing my study. I would like to say thanks too for
Prof.Dian Armanto,M.Pd,M.A,M.Sc,Ph.D, for Prof.Dr.P.Siagian,M.Pd, for
Prof.Dr.Mukhtar,M.Pd as my thesis examiners for their willingness to correct and
complete this thesis. I also say thanks for Prof. Dr.Mukhtar, M.Pd as the chairman
of mathematics Department, Drs.Syafari,M.Pd as laeader of mathematics
Education Study program, Drs.Yasifati Hia, M.Si as Secretary of mathematics
department and Prof.Dr.Herbert Sipahutar,M.sc as the coordinator of Bilingual
class, Prof.Drs.Motlan, M.Sc,Ph.D as Dean of mathematics and natural Science
faculty and Prof.Dr.Ibnu Hajar Damanik,S.Pd,M.Si as Rector of State University
of Medan.
v
My specials thanks for all of my lecturer in mathematics department and
the staff who help me in giving knowledge, motivation and sugestions to finish
my study. Then, I also would like to say thanks for Drs.H.Ahmad Siregar as the
headmaster of SMPN 1 Medan and Anita Nilam S Silalahi as the mathematics
teacher at SMPN 1 Medan, all of teacher and staff in SMPN 1 Medan who help
me in doing and finishing my research.
Specials thanks for my lovely parents, J. Banjarnahor and R.Siagian and
also my beloved brother and sister Erpina Banjarnahor S.Pd and Her Husband
S.Sitompul S.Pd, Febri Gilberd Banjarnahor, Lely Handayani Banjarnahor who
always give me prays, motivations,advices,loves and supports so I able to finish
my study and this thesis.
Specials thanks for my best friends “SERAPHIM” (Blessing G. Hutagaol,
Janna Sri Bina Br Barus, Putri Welpha Hutajulu) and Brother Rustam Efendi
Simamora for their love,pray,support and friendship. Special thanks to “Tusam
Family” (Efrida Fitri, Farah Diba,Yenni Khairina, Desri , Winny, Rizky and
Kakak Poppy) for their support, love,pray and friendship. I also say thanks for
Eva Puspita, Siti Rafiah,Misna Fitriani and all of my beloved friends in
Mathematics Bilingual class 2008 for their support,,spirit, help and kindness
during my study in state University of Medan. May God bless them all.
Witter realize that there are also many weaknesses and insufficiency in
this thesis, for that writter hopes suggestion and critic in making this thesis better.
Writter hopes this thesis will give advantage for reader and the world of
education.
Medan,
January 2013
Writter
Togu Mangihut B
ID. 408111023
x
LIST OF TABLE
Page
Table 2.1 Syntax of the cooperative learning model
26
Table 2.2 Progression Score Calculating
36
Table 2.3 Comparison of GI and STAD type of cooperative learning
38
Table 2.4 the Difference Phase of GI and STAD
39
Table 3.1 Research Design Table
52
Table 3.2 Blue print of Posttest
56
Table 3.4 Criteria of Student’s activities
58
Table 3.4 Criteria of Teacher’s activities
59
Table 4.1 Summary Data of Student’s Learning Outcomes
64
Table 4.2 Normality Test Result of Students’ Learning Outcomes
65
Table 4.3 Homogeneity Test Result Of Student’s Learning Outcomes
66
Table 4.4 the Summary Result of Hypothesis Test
66
xi
LIST OF APPENDIX
Page
Appendix 1. Lesson Plan GI I
77
Appendix 2. Lesson Plan GI II
85
Appendix 3. Lesson Plan GI III
93
Appendix 4. Lesson Plan STAD I
98
Appendix 5. Lesson Plan STAD II
105
Appendix 6. Lesson plan STAD III
111
Appendix 7. SAS for GI Class
116
Appendix 8. SAS for STAD Class
130
Appendix 9. Quiz for STAD
135
Appendix 10. Observation Sheet of Student’s Activities GI
136
Appendix 11. Observation Sheet of Student’s Activities STAD
142
Appendix 12. Observation Sheet of Teacher’s Activities
148
GI
Appendix 13. Observation Sheet of Teacher’s Activities
154
Appendix 14. Research Instrument
160
Appendix 15. Posttest Of Student’s Learning Outcomes
163
Appendix 16. Blue Print Of Posttest
165
Appendix 17. Calculation Table of Validity and Reliability Instrument
168
Appendix 18. Validity Test and Reliability Test
169
Appendix 19. Group Division Both Experiment Class
172
Appendix 20. Data of Posttest Score both Class Experiment
174
Appendix 21. Normality Test of Learning Outcomes Data
175
Appendix 22. Homogeneity Test of Learning Outcomes Data
177
Appendix 23. Hyphotesis Test
178
xii
Appendix 24. Table of Critical Value Liliefors Test
179
Appendix 25. Table of Area Normal Curve 0 to z
180
Appendix 26. Table of t-distribution
181
Appendix 27. Documentation
182
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Education is a very important thing and it has a strategic role in the
development of human civilization in the world. Therefore, almost all
countries, including Indonesia put the variables of education in developing
human resources to face the development of civilization nation and state.
As expressed by Trianto (2009:4) that entered the 21st century national
education system face very complex challenges in preparing the quality of
human resources to compete in the era of globalization. Appropriate measures
to prepare qualified human resources and the only place that can be in view
and a tool for building high-quality human resources is education. However,
the quality of education in Indonesia is now considered by many people is still
low. Kunandar (2009: 1) mentions several indicators, namely:
1.
Graduates from high school or college are not ready to enter the
workforce due to lack of competency
2.
Rank Human Development Index (HDI) of Indonesia is still low. In
2004 Indonesia ranked 111th of 117 countries, ranking 110th in 2005
under Vietnam is ranked 108th. Later in the year 2010 ranked 111th
and in 2012 Indonesia down to 124th of the 187 countries ranked.
3.
Report of International Educational Outcomes (IEA) that the reading
skills of elementary school students Indonesia was ranked 38 of the 39
countries surveyed.
4.
Quality among the nation's colleges / Program for International
Student Assessment (PISA) 2003 show Indonesia ranks 38th of 41
countries in science then mathematics and reading was ranked 39th
compared with south Korea is ranked 8th in science, mathematics and
reading ranked third on the ranking of seventh.
5.
Competitiveness World Report Year book 2000, the competitiveness
of Indonesia's human resources positions in 46 of 47 countries.
2
6.
The position of favorite universities in Indonesia, UI and UGM are at
61 and 68 of the 77 universities in Asia (Asia week, 2000)
7.
Underdevelopment of Indonesia in the field of science and technology
compared to neighboring countries such as Malaysia, Singapore and
Thailand.
Mathematics is one of the basic sciences in school curriculum and
must be learned in educational institutions. Based on the data above,
Indonesia ranks are located in 39th of the 41 states and this must be very
worrying. This problem must be improved immediately and be seriously
handled because the usefulness of mathematics and very important both in
development thinking, mastery of science and technology and its role in
several other scientific subjects. It is also expressed by the Daniel Muijs and
David Reynolds (2008: 332) which states mathematics is the main means for
developing the ability of logical thinking and higher cognitive skills in
children and plays an important role in several other scientific fields such as
physics, engineering, statistics and others. Therefore, it is necessary teach
students to mastery the mathematics early on creating, face and master
modern technology for globalization era. Then, Cornelius in Abdurrahman
(2003: 253) show several reasons for studying mathematics, namely:
1. Means of a distinct and logical thinking
2. Means to solve problems of daily life
3. Means to know the patterns, relationships and generalization of
experience
4. Means to develop creativity
5. Means to increase awareness of cultural development.
Based on the above quotation through the learning of mathematics is
expected that students can develop the ability to think, reason, develop
creativity, communicate and present ideas and information and solve problems
in daily activities.
Although mathematics is one of the important aspect to develop a
nation, in fact, the mathematics ability of student still low like in expectation.
3
It can be concluded that the teaching and learning process is not able give the
good effect in increase the learning outcomes of students. It also can be seen
from the Ujian Nasional result in 2012, Mendikbud M.Nuh explains that most
of students failed in mathematics. From the above quotations provide clear
information that until now the learning outcomes results mathematics students
have not achieved the desired level.
(http://edukasi.kompas.com/read/2012/06/02/10035432/Banyak.Siswa.Tak.Lu
lus.Ujian.Matematika)
Furthermore Trianto (2009: 5) states that a major problem in learning
on formal education (school) today is the low absorptive capacity of learners
where can be seen from the average of the students’ results of study that is still
very bad. This outcomes is certainly as the result of the condition where
learning still in conventional dimensions and do not touch the realism of
learners themselves, namely how to actually learn it (learning to learn) and
also caused by the process of learning until today still provide the teacher
dominance and does not provide access for students to develop independently
through the development and their thought processes.
Based on the above opinion, it is very urgent for educators; especially
teachers to understand the characteristics of the materials and learners. In
addition, other factors that have an important role in determining the learning
objectives of the study is a model of learning. The learning process can be
followed very well and attracted students’ attention when teachers use learning
models which is suitable for learning material. Therefore, the learning of
mathematics must be based upon the characteristics of mathematics itself and
the students themselves.
Algebra is a language of symbols and relationships. Algebra is used to
solve everyday problems. With the symbolic language of relationships that
emerge problems solved simply. Learning algebra is not simply learned about
its abstract but also learn to solve problems of everyday life. In elementary
school learn arithmetic. The symbols used are the figures that directly stated
amount or recognized as a disciple of a certain number. Because the language
4
of algebra uses symbols not only the number but also the letter forms used in
junior high school algebra class VII is a very real need to understand the
students and need of special attention.
The beginning Algebraic form of a majority of students is not easy.
Students' competency in understanding and preparing the algebra class VII
student is a prerequisite for being able or competent in solving verbal problems
involving both equality and inequality and development. Because of these
basic skills need attention before entering into the equations and inequalities as
well as to function in algebra is taught in class VIII and IX (Al krismanto in
Diklat instruktur/ pengembangan Matematika SMP jenjang Dasar 2004)
Algebra is one of the subject matter of mathematics lessons taught in
school. Algebraic equations that contain some form of variable and constant
symbols and tend to be abstract enough make it difficult and foreign for student
to resolve any issues in this matter. From interviews given to the researcher
mathematics teacher at SMPN 1 Medan that is Elliati Nasution on June, 02nd
2012 obtained the information that students still have difficulty in
distinguishing coefficient, variable, constants, operating algebra operation,
equations and inequalities form and apply it in solving the equation algebra in
daily life examples.
Then Anita Silalahi, one math teacher at SMP Negeri 1 Medan also
mentioned the difficulty in distinguishing coefficient students, constants, and
variables. As mentioned example addition and multiplication; 2x + 3y and (2x)
x (3x), students still tend to answer 5xy and 6x. Form of algebra problems in
daily life also make students faces difficulties as a matter of following: in a
shop, Alim buy 5 books. After that he paid to the shopkeeper Rp 50,000 and
Rp 25,000 get back. What is the price of one of the books purchased by Alim?
To answer this question student must understand the problem asked and have
some skills such as problem solving. Students are much less active in this
matter; the less problem solving skills lead to some students also tended to be
indifferent as spoken and it make the learning outcomes become low.
5
Cooperative learning model is still rarely used in the process of
learning and teachers have not used cooperative learning type STAD and GI,
more frequent use of the learning model of lectures and continued by
discussions. As a result, students become less active so that students have
difficulty in understanding and solve the algebra problem and also have an
impact on learning outcomes based on test scores and dissatisfactory for some
students’ score.
Cooperative learning model can be used as an alternative model that is
expected to activate students in teaching and learning mathematics, this means
that students should be active and interact with others, exchange information
and solve problems. Slavin in Sanjaya (2009: 239) suggests two important
reasons for using cooperative learning model, namely:
1.
Several studies show that the use of cooperative learning can improve
student outcomes while increasing the ability of social relationships,
fostering self-acceptance and lack of other people and can improve selfesteem and others esteem.
2.
Cooperative learning can realize the needs of students in learning to
think, to solve problems, and integrate knowledge and skills.
From the above explanation, cooperative learning can improve
learning systems so far have weaknesses and lack. Cooperative learning can
also improve students' skills in solving math problems, because students are
able to explain ideas - ideas that are difficult to each other by translating into a
language that teachers use to their own language.
One model of cooperative learning can be developed in a cooperative
learning math is a type of Group Investigation and STAD. Group investigation
is the method emphasizes more choice and control students to plan what you
want to be studied and investigated. First of all groups of students placed in
small groups, each group is given a different task or project. In the group
discussion and each member must contribute to determine what research topics
they take. Others share their own division of labor for each group member.
During the investigation they will engage in activities of thinking, such as
6
making a summary synthesis, hypotheses, conclusions and present the final
report so that the students strive for active learning and problem solving are
investigated.
Hayu Pertiwi Sesani (2010) state that the succes of one of
mathematics instruction is determine by the selection of appropriate learning
method. From the models of learning that has been developed, one model of
learning that is assumed to support the creation of a dinamic learning situation
not saturated and can support creativity and interaction among students and
teachers are learning model investigation. Then , in topic algebra itself group
investigation learning method can be an alternative for teacher to be applied in
the classroom because it can motivate student to be more active and creative
among in learning mathematics so that can increase the learning outcomes.
(http://eprints.umm.ac.id/id/eprint/2321)
STAD is a study that involves competence between groups; students
are grouped in various ways based on ability, gender, race, and ethnicity. First
of all, students learn the material together with a group of friends and then they
were tested individually through quizzes, quiz grades each member to
determine scores obtained by their group. Thus, each member should seek
active and involved, supporting one another in mastering both the ability to
think, solve problems or to be taught by teachers in order to obtain the
maximum value in the quiz if they want to get a high score.
From the description above in order to active and involve students in
teaching and learning is very important. Through cooperative learning type GI
and STAD, learning of mathematics can be more interesting, fun, and also
enable students to improve problem solving skills that can increase student
outcomes.
Based on this background that the researcher is described, intend to do
a research with the title "The Difference between student’s learning outcomes
on Algebra using cooperative learning model Group Investigation and using
Student Teams Achievement Division”. Case study is in class VII SMPN 1
Medan academic year 2012/2013".
7
1.2 Problem Identification
1. Low absorptive capacity of learners caused by the process of learning
still provide the teacher dominance and doesn’t provide access for
student’s thought process
2. Algebra in junior high school especially class VII is a very real need
to be understood by the students and need of special attention
3. Students are much less active in algebra topic and tend to be
indefferent as spoken then make the learning outcomes become low
4. Teachers are more likely to use methods of lectures and discussions on
the learning process
5. Cooperative learning model Group Investigation and Student Teams
Achievement Division can be an alternative model to improve
student’s learning outcomes.
1.3 Problem Limitations
1. Students’ learning outcomes on the subject of algebra
2. Cooperative learning model of Group Investigation (GI) and of
Student Teams Outcomes Division (STAD) is as the learning model
1.4 Problem Formulation
a. Is there any difference in students' learning outcomes by using
cooperative learning type GI and type STAD on the subject of algebra
class VII SMPN 1 Medan academic year 2012/2013?
b. How is the difference of students’ activity and teacher activity in
cooperative learning type GI and type STAD on the subject of algebra
class VII SMPN 1 Medan academic year 2012/2013?
8
1.5 Research Objective
To find out the difference between the students’s learning outcomes on
algebra using cooperative learning model GI and of using cooperative learning
model STAD in class VII SMPN 1 Medan
1.6 Benefits of the research
The Benefit of this research is:
a. As an input or consideration for teachers to choose models for teaching
algebra.
b. The results of this study are expected to provide a reference in the
improvement of mathematics teaching in SMPN 1 Medan.
c. This research can be a reference for the other researcher to develop
both of these cooperative learning model but should pay attention for
the class controlling, and time effectiveness in increasing the learning
outcomes and better learning process in the class
d. This research can increase student’s learning outcomes, the activity of
students, and decrease the teacher dominance in learning process.
72
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
Based on the result of research from data analysis and test of
hypothesis then it can be concluded that:
1.
There is difference of both cooperative learning models between
Group Investigation (GI) and Student Team Achievement
Division (STAD) for topics Algebraic Expression namely
student’s learning outcomes which GI is better than STAD.
2.
In class GI for student’s activity , the students were more active
in discussing with their friend, asked their friend in group if didn’t
understand the problems, answered the teacher question and did
the exercise given by teacher in group than the STAD. But in the
STAD class, the students were more active ask to the teacher if
didn’t understand and find some difficulties and present their
result in front of the class than in class GI. The other aspects of
both models had
similar result to each other. For teacher’s
activity In class GI, namely presenting matter, communication
with students,doing evaluation and time effectiveness was higher
result than in class STAD but for the class controlling was better
than in class GI. Then , the other aspects was given similar result.
73
5.2 Suggestions
Based on the result of research and conclusion then researcher has
some suggestion, namely:
1.
For mathematics teacher, in teaching the material of algebraic
expression or other appropriate topics can be used
models
namely Group
Investigation
than
Student
learning
Team
Achievement Division as a way to improve the students’ learning
Outcomes but the both models is better than just to use simple
discussion like usual that sometimes not involved all of the
student in the class
2.
In doing each of steps or phases both of cooperative learning
model (GI and STAD), class controlling and communication with
student must have a specific attention so that the learning process
can be run well and get the maximal result.
74
REFERENCE
Abdurahman,Mulyono. 2003. Pendidikan Bagi Anak Berkesulitan Belajar.
Jakarta : Rineka cipta
Arends, Richard I.2009.Learning to Teach, Eight editions. America: McGraw Hill
Companies
Best, John W.1981. Research in Education 4th Edition. United States of
America : Prentige-Hall, Inc
Bloom, Benjamin S, George F. Madaus, J. Thomas Hasting. 1981. Evaluating
to Improve Learning. United States of America : Mc Graw-Hill, Inc.
Bruce Joy, Marsha Weil.1996. Models of Teaching, Fifth Edition. United States of
America:Needham Height Mass
Daniel Muijs and David Reynolds.2008. Effective Teaching Teori Dan Aplikasi.
Yogjakarta: Pustaka belajar
Eggen, Paul D, Donald P Kauchack, Robert J. Harder. 1979. Strategies for Teacher.
United States of America : Prentice Hall, Inc.
Ford, Cedric Culling. 1995. The Effective Teacher. New York : Cassel
Gall, Meredith D,Walter R.Borg,Joyce P.Gall. 1996. Educational Research an
Introduction 6th Edition. United States of America : Longman Publishers
Huda, Miftahul.2011.Cooperative Learning Metode Teknik Struktur Dan Model
Penerapan. Jakarta: Prenada media Group.
Hudojo,Herman.2003.Pengembangan Kurikulum Dan Pembelajaran Matematika.
Malang:FMIPA–Universitas Negeri Malang
75
Kemp,Jerrold E. 1977.Instructional Design 2nd Edition. United States of
America : David S. Lake Publishers
Klein, Stephen B.1991. Learning Principle and Application. Singapore: McGraw
Hill International Book
Kohl,Herbert. 1982. Insight the Substances and Rewards of Teaching. United States
of America : Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc.
Kunandar.2009. Guru Profesional Implementasi Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan
Pendidikan dan Sukses Dalam Sertifikasi Guru. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers
Lindquist,Mary Montgomery.1980.Selected issues Mathematics Education. United
States of America: Mc Cutchan Publishing Corporation.
Makmun, Abin Syamsudin.2003.Psikologi Kependidikan. Bandung: Remaja
Rosdakarya.
Mercer, Cecil D, Ann R. Mercer . 1989. Teaching Students with Learning Problem.
United States of America : Merrill Publishing Company
Nasution, S.2006. Kurikulum dan Pengajaran. Jakarta: Bumi aksara.
Panda, BN. 2003. How to Become a Competent/ Successful Teacher. New Delhi :
Discovery Publishing House
Popham, W James. 1981. Modern Educational Measurement. United States of
America : Prentice Hall, Inc.
Sagala, Syaiful. 2009.Konsep dan Makna Pembelajaran. Bandung : Alfabeta
Sanjaya,Wina. 2009. Strategi Pembelajaran Berorientasi Standar proses Pendidikan.
Jakarta: Kencana
76
Sanjaya, Wina. 2009.Perencanaan dan Desain Sistem Pembelajaran.
Jakarta: Kencana
Slameto. 2003. Belajar dan Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya.
Jakarta : Rineka Cipta
Slavin,Robert E.2005.Cooperative Learning Teori Riset dan Praktik.
Bandung: Nusa media
Sudijono, Anas. 2009. Pengantar Statistik Pendidikan. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers
Sudjana, 2001. Metoda Statistika. Bandung: Tarsito
Suryabrata, Sumadi. 2008. Psikologi Pendidikan. Jakarta: PT.Raja Grafindo Persada
Stepelman , Alfred S Posamentier.1990.Teaching Secondary School Mathematics:
Techniques and Enrichments Units. Columbus: Merrill
Syah,Muhibbin. 2008.Psikologi Pendidikan Dengan Pendekatan Baru. Bandung:
Remaja Rosdakarya Offset
Trianto.2009.Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif Progresif. Jakarta: Prenada
Media Group.
Uno,Hamzah.2003.Model Pembelajaran. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara
http://ipotes.wordpress.com/kelebihandankekuranganmodelpembelajarankooperatifgr
upinvestigasi.html.
Http://pmat.uad.ac.id/perkembangan–pembelajaran-matematika-di-indonesia.html