THE COMPARISON OF PROBLEM SOLVING SKILLS OF STUDENT USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING JIGSAW APPROACH AND THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) APPROACH ON PRISM SUBTOPIC IN VIII GRADE AT SMP N 1 TEBING TINGGI.

THE COMPARISON OF PROBLEM SOLVING SKILLS OF STUDENT USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING JIGSAW APPROACH AND

THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) APPROACH ON PRISM SUBTOPIC IN VIII GRADE AT SMP NEGERI 1

TEBING TINGGI

By: Yanti Rambe ID. Number 408 111 024

Mathematics Education Study Program

A THESIS

Submitted to fulfill the requirement for the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan

MATHEMATICS DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF MATHEMATIC AND SCIENCE STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

MEDAN 2012

Title : The Comparison of Problem Solving Skills of Student using Cooperative Learning Jigsaw Approach and Think Pair Share (TPS) Approach on Prism Subtopic in VIII Grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi

Name : Yanti Rambe

ID. Number : 408 111 024

Study Program : Mathematics Bilingual Education Department : Mathematics

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Praise be to Allah SWT, most gracious, most merciful and master of the judgment. Thanks are to Allah who gave the strength and ability to the writer, so that this thesis can be finished. An innovation and greeting to Rasulullah SAW, who brought people from the darkness into lightness. The title of this research was “The Comparison of Problem Solving Skills using Cooperative Learning Jigsaw Approach and Think Pair Share (TPS) Approach on Prism Subtopic in VIII Grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi” as a partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Sarjana Pendidikan of the Mathematics Department, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science State University of Medan.

In this occasion, the writer would like to express thank you very much to her supervisor Drs.Parapat Gultom, MSIE, Ph.D for his advice, motivation, suggestion and guidance to finish this thesis. To her lecturer examinator Prof.Dian Armanto, M.Pd,MA, M.Sc, Ph.D, Dr.Edi Syahputra,M.Pd, and Mulyono,S.Si, M.Si, for their correction with valuable comments to correct the manuscript of scientific writing, to her academic lecturer Dr.W.Rajagukguk,M.Pd for his advice support to her.

The writer also would like to express thank you to Mr. Prof. Dr. Ibnu Hajar,M.Si as ahead of university and staff in office of university head, to Mr. Prof. Drs. Motlan, M.Sc,Ph.D as a dean of Mathematic and Natural Science Faculty and staff in Mathematic and Natural Science Faculty, to Mr. Prof. Dr Mukhtar, M.Pd as a head of Mathematics Department, Mr.Drs. Syafari, M.Pd as ahead of Mathematics Education Program, Mr. Prof.Dr.Herbert Sipahutar, M.S, M.Sc as a coordinator of Bilingual Program, Mr. Drs.Yasifati Hia,M.Pd as secretary of Mathematic Department, Mrs. Dr. Iis Siti Jahro, M.Si as secretary of Bilingual program, and all staff in Mathematic Department and Bilingual Program to help the writer.

The writer also would like to express thank you to head master of SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi Mr. Drs.H.Adrul who gave permission to do the research,

to mathematic teacher Mrs. Esni Purba,S.Pd, Mr. Saheri, S.Pd and all teacher and staff in SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi that help the writer to do the research.

The writer also would like to express her deepest love gratitude to her father Bismar Rambe, A.Md, her mother Rosmini Ritonga, her sister Nur Asiyah, Nur Laila, Fitriana, her brother Faisal, Hamzah, Amril, Yusuf, Maju affectionately which gave birth and enlarge to writer, gave morale support, material and pray and so all her family. To her lovely friends Rida, Eva, Ira, Siti Rahmadani, Fatimah, Emil, Siti Rafiah, Misna and all friends in mathematics bilingual program 2008 thank you very much for your support, helping to finish this thesis. The writer has effort as maximal as she can in doing this thesis. But with her humble heart, the writer hopes construct suggestion and critics from the reader for perfection this thesis. The writer hopes this thesis can be useful and give many function to the reader specifically about subject matter which was researched in this thesis.

iii

THE COMPARISON OF PROBLEM SOLVING SKILLS USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING JIGSAW APPROACH AND THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) APPROACH ON PRISM SUBTOPIC IN VIII GRADE AT SMP

NEGERI 1 TEBING TINGGI Yanti Rambe (ID. Number 408 111 024)

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this research is to know whether cooperative learning jigsaw and think pair share (TPS) approaches can increase problem solving skills of student, is there any difference of problem solving skills of student using cooperative learning jigsaw and think pair share approaches, what kinds of mistake that student made in solving problem using cooperative learning jigsaw and think pair share approaches on prism sub topic in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi.

The population of this research is all students in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi that divided into four classes. The sample of this research is 52 students that divided into two classes; those are 26 students in VIII-1 was taught using cooperative learning jigsaw approach and 26 students in VIII-2 was taught using cooperative learning think pair share (TPS) approach.

Analysis result of gain for problem solving using t testing with significant level =0,05 for the first hypothesis is tcalculate = 14,7639 and ttable = 1,706, so that

tcalculate > ttable. So,Cooperative learning jigsaw approach can increase problem solving

skills of student on prisms subtopic in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi. For the second hypothesis, tcalculate = 6,1916 and ttable = 1,706 so that tcalculate > ttable. So,

cooperative learning Think Pair Share (TPS) approach can increase problem solving skills of student on prisms subtopic in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi. For the third hypothesis, tcalculate = 2,324 and ttable = 2,008 so that -2,009 < tcalculate < 2,009.

Because of that, the criteria -t /2(50) < tcal < t /2 (50) is rejected. So, there is significant

difference of problem solving skills that taught using cooperative learning jigsaw approach and Think Pair Share (TPS) approach on prism subtopic in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing tinggi.

The kinds of mistake that student made after taught using jigsaw approach are: (a) errors in determining the height and base of prism, the height of triangle and trapezoid, and drawing the prism, (b) wrote not complete information from the problem, (c) wrote wrong formula of surface area, volume and the height of prism, (d) wrote not complete strategy to solve the problem, (e) errors in calculation and algebra operation, (f) errors in calculating area and perimeter of prism base, (g) errors for using Pythagorean theorem, (h) did not make re-evaluation correctly.

The kinds of mistake that student made after taught using think pair share approach are same with jigsaw approach, but they did not make errors in determining the height and base of prism.

Key Words: Cooperative Learning Jigsaw Approach, Cooperative Learning Think Pair Share approach, Problem Solving Skills

CONTENTS

Page

Legalization Paper i

Bibliography ii

Abstract iii

Acknowledgement vi

Contents Figure List Table List Appendix List v x xi xiii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1Background

1.2Identification of Problem 1.3The Scope of Problem 1.4Research Question 1.5Research Objectives 1.6Research Benefits 1.7Operational Definition

1 5 6 6 6 7 7

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Theoretical Framework

2.1.1 Cooperative Learning

2.1.1.1 Overview of Cooperative Learning

2.1.1.2 The Element and Principal in Cooperative Learning 2.1.1.3 Cooperative Learning Effects

2.1.1.4 Cooperative Learning Phases

2.1.1.5 Why must Cooperative Learning can be Applying in Teaching Math

2.1.1.6 Approaches to Cooperative Learning

9 9 9 10 10 11 12 13 vi

2.1.2 Jigsaw Approach

2.1.2.1 The Steps of jigsaw

2.1.2.2 The Lesson Plan of Jigsaw Approach

2.1.2.3 The Advantages and Weakness of Jigsaw Approach 2.1.3 Think Pair Share (TPS) Approach

2.1.3.1 The Steps of Think Pair Share (TPS)

2.1.3.2 The Advantages and Weakness of Think Pair Share (TPS) Approach

2.1.4 Technique to Give Recognition of Group 2.1.5 Problem Solving Skill of Mathematics

2.1.5.1 Evaluation Tools for Problem Solving Skills 2.1.6 The Mistake in Learning Mathematic

2.2 Subject Matter 2.2.1 Prisms

2.2.2 Surface Area of Prisms 2.2.3 Volume of Prisms 2.3 Relevant Research 2.4 Conceptual Framework 2.4 Research Hypothesis

15 16 17 18 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 26 26 27 28 29 31

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1Research Time and Place

3.2Population and Sample 3.2.1Population 3.2.2Sample 3.3Research Variable

3.3.1Independent Variable 3.3.2Dependent variable 3.4Research Design

3.5Research Procedure

3.6Instrument of Data Collecting

32 32 32 32 32 32 33 33 33 37 vii

3.6.1Kinds of Instrument 3.6.1.1 Skill Test

3.6.2Instrument Analysis Technique 3.6.2.1 Validation of Instrument 3.6.2.2 Reliability of Instrument 3.7Data Analysis Technique

3.7.1Normality test 3.7.2Homogeneity test 3.7.3Gain score

3.7.4Hypothesis testing

3.8 Level of Problem Solving Skill of Student in Mathematic Problem

37 37 37 37 38 39 39 40 40 41 44

3.9 Observation Result of Learning Process 45

CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION 4.1 The Result of Problem Solving skills

4.1.1 Pre test of First and Second Experment Classes 4.1.2 Post test of First and Second Experment Classes 4.1.3 Gain of First and Second Experment Classes 4.1.4 Normality Testing of Data

4.1.5Homogeniety Testing of Data 4.16 Hypothesis Testing

47 47 48 49 50 51 52 4.1.7 Description of student mistake for solving problem in the First

Experiment Class

55

4.1.8 Description of student mistake for solving problem in the Second Experiment Class

60

4.1.9 Level of Problem Solving Skill of Student in Mathematic Problem 66

4.1.10 Observation Result of Learning Process 68

4.2 Discussion 69

4.2.1 Discussion of the Result of Problem Solving Skills of Student 69

4.2.2 Discussion of Student Mistake for Solving problem 71

4.2.2.1 For the First Experiment Class using Cooperative Learning 71 viii

Jigsaw Approach

4.2.2.2For the Second Experiment Class using Cooperative Learning Think Pair Share approach

75

4.2.2.3The Comparison of Student Mistake in the First and Second Experiment Classes

78

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1 Conclusion 80

5.2 Suggestion 81

REFERENCES 82

APPENDIX 84

TABLE LIST

Table 2.1 Cooperative Learning Phase

Page 12

Table 2.2 Approaches to Cooperative Learning 14

Table 2.3 The Steps of Think Pair Share (TPS) 20

Table 2.4 Calculating of Gaining Score 21

Table 2.5 Example of Giving Gaining Score 22

Table 2.6 Technique of Giving Score For Each Step in Problem Solving 25

Table 3.1 Research Design 33

Table 3.2 Criteria of Student Mastering Level 45

Table 4.1 Pretest result of the first and second experiment classes 47

Table 4.2 Post test result of the first and second experiment classes 48

Table 4.3 Gain of the first and second experiment classes 49

Table 4.4 Result of Normality Testing 51

Table 4.5 Result of Homogeneity Testing 51

Table 4.6 The Result of Hypothesis Testing 53

Table 4.7 Description of Student Misatake for number 1using jigsaw approach

55

Table 4.8 Description of Student Misatake for number 2 using jigsaw approach

56

Table 4.9 Description of Student Misatake for number 3 using jigsaw approach

57

Table 4.10 Description of Student Misatake for number 4 using jigsaw approach

59

Table 4.11 Description of Student Misatake for number 1using TPS approach

61

Table 4.12 Description of Student Misatake for number 2using TPS approach

62

Table 4.13 Description of Student Misatake for number 3using TPS approach

63 xi

Table 4.14 Description of Student Misatake for number 4using TPS approach

65

Table 4.15 Level of Problem solving Skills 66

Table 4.16 The average of observation result of learning process 69

FIGURE LIST

Page

Figure 2.1 Jigsaw Teams 15

Figure 2.2 Jigsaw Steps 17

Figure 2.3 Example of prism 27

Figure 2.4 Triangular Prism and its nets 27

Figure 2.5 Dividing Cuboids become Two Triangular Prisms 28

Figure 3.1 Research Procedures Scheme 36

Figure 4.1 Average of pre test, post test and gain 49

Figure 4.2 Level of Problem Solving 67

Figure 4.3 Students Mistake in Understanding Problem Number 2,3,1,and 4 using Jigsaw

72

Figure 4.4 Student Mistake for arranging Strategy using Jigsaw Approach 73

Figure 4.5 Mistake in calculating using Jigsaw 74

Figure 4.6 Mistake in Putting Some Values 74

Figure 4.7 Student’s Mistake for Understanding Problem using TPS Approach

76

Figure 4.8 Student’s Mistake for Arranging Strategy to Solve Problem 77

Figure 4.9 Student’s Mistake in Implementing the Planning 78

APPENDIX LIST

Appendix 1 First Lesson Plan for Experiment Class A

Page 84

Appendix 2 Second Lesson Plan for Experiment Class A 91

Appendix 3 First Lesson Plan for Experiment Class B 98

Appendix 4 Second Lesson Plan for Experiment Class B 104

Appendix 5 Student Work Sheet I 110

Appendix 6 Student Work Sheet II 115

Appendix 7 Blue Print of Pre-test 120

Appendix 8 Blue Print of Post-test 121

Appendix 9 Pre-test Question 122

Appendix 10 Alternative Solution of Pre-test 124

Appendix 11 Post-test Question 127

Appendix 12 Alternative Solution of Post-test 129

Appendix 13 Observer Assessment Scale 132

Appendix 14 Validator Assessment Paper 134

Appendix 15 Validator Names 135

Appendix 16 Observation Paper of Learning Process Using Cooperative Learning Jigsaw Approach

136

Appendix 17 Observation Paper of Teacher Activity for cooperative learning Think Pair Share (TPS) Approach

138

Appendix 18 Technique of Giving Score For Mathematic Problem Solving

140

Appendix 19 Validation Analysis of Validator Agreement for Pre Test 141

Appendix 20 Validation Analysis of Validator Agreement for Post Test 143

Appendix 21 Reliability Analysis of Pre Test 145

Appendix 22 Reliability Analysis of Post Test 147

Appendix 23 Pre Test for the First Experiment Class 149

Appendix 24 Pre Test for the Second Experiment Class 150

Appendix 25 Post Test for the First Experiment Class 151

Appendix 26 Post Test for the Second Experiment Class 152 Appendix 27 Pre Test and Post Test Mark for the First and Second

Experiment Classes

153

Appendix 28 Calculation of Normality Testing 154

Appendix 29 Calculation of HomogenietyTesting 158

Appendix 30 Calculation of Gain Score 160

Appendix 31 Calculation of Hypothesis Testing 162

Appendix 31 Documentation of Research 165

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

In the 21st century, national education system is trying to set up human resources quality to compete in the global era. The tool for building human resources with high quality is education. The Government has organized repairs to improve the quality of education, but the facts have not shown satisfactory achievement especially in mathematics achievement.

To increase student achievement, government has made efforts to improve learning quality in schools. The Application of Educational Unit Level Curriculum (KTSP) demand paradigm change in education and learning in schools. According to Komaruddin (in Trianto, 2009: 8), some of those changes are learning orientation which teacher centered at first to student centered; methodology which was dominated by expository at first become participatory and approach which textual at first to contextual.

One of the interesting innovations that accompany the change of paradigm was found and implemented of innovative-progressive learning models that are able to develop and explore the knowledge of students concretely and independently. The selection of learning model was adapted to characteristics of material, student and learning methodologies in order to increase the activity and creativity of students.

One of some topics that quite difficult to understand of student at the junior high school is geometry. Based on the identification of problems at the time of training activities in Mathematics P4TK, many teachers find difficulties to teach flat area and polyhedral volume (Yeni, 2011: 64).

That statement was also supported by the results of initial observations and interviews conducted with Mr. Saheri as mathematic teacher at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi. He stated that the level of student understanding in polyhedral is still low and the results of tests carried out to the students are still under the standard. The student achievement average of middle test before remedial of in

2

two classes are 40,68 and 39,24. The minimum successful criteria (KKM) of mathematic are 75.

Many mistakes are made when students solve geometry problems, especially polyhedral. This is supported by a research that conducted by Anis Sunarsi as a student in University of Sebelas Maret on 2009. Her research analyzes some of the mistakes made by students for solving problem of surface area and volume of prism and pyramid. Those mistakes are: (1) Mistake in receiving information and mistake associated with the concept of prism and pyramid; (2) Mistake in the received information, that is an error in writing down what is known and what is asked in problem; (3) Mistake associated with the concept of the prism and the pyramid, that is a mistake in using and applying the formula; (4) Mistake in finding the surface area of pyramid; (5) Mistake in finding the volume of the pyramid; (5) Mistake in determining the base and top of prisms and mistake in determining the polyhedral shape that is requested.

Those mistakes shown that student have low ability in solving problem. This can be concluded from problem solving indicator that formulated by Polya, that is: (1) understanding the problem; (2) Planning the solution; (3) solve the problem according to planning and; (4) to re-evaluate the procedures and results of the solution (Tarhadi and friends, 2006: 122)

The low ability of student in solving problem due to the learning of geometry at this moment still tends to be teacher centered so that can lead to underdevelopment of the thinking skills of students. For example, the prism sub topic of polyhedral that is often taught using conventional teaching, the teacher explained the formula of volume and surface area of prism and then the student should be able to memorize the formula for solving the given problem.

The teacher said that if they carried out student centered learning, curriculum targets can not work as expected. One of the reasons is takes relatively long time, but the curriculum must be completed. But teachers are required to use variation methods, not only lectures but also other methods that more emphasis on active learning, creative, effective and fun.

3

Polyhedral is one of the sub topics in mathematics that are closely related to daily life. This can facilitate student active to construct their own concept and also fun. It is not easy thing to realize students discover and construct their own concept of polyhedral through experience, and then it can be concluded in a common formula. But if not done at all, there will be no change in learning practices that aim to enhance students' cognitive development and creativity. Thus required an effort to locate, establish and develop appropriate learning model and accordance with the conditions of student learning, that is active, creative, effective and fun.

One model that can be applied is a cooperative learning model. Cooperative learning is a model that emphasizes learning activities of student in small groups so that student can work together to achieve learning objectives. Students in cooperative learning groups learn to discuss, help each other, and invite each other to overcome learning problems. Cooperative learning makes student condition to be active and give each other support in the working group to resolve problems in learning.

Johnson and Johnson (in Trianto, 2009: 57) stated that the purpose of cooperative learning is to maximize student learning to improve academic achievement and understanding of both individuals and groups. Zanroni (in Trianto, 2009: 57) also stated the benefits of the implementation of cooperative learning is to reduce inequalities in education, especially input form at the level of individual.

The experts have also shown that cooperative learning can improve student performance in academic tasks, excels in helping students understand difficult concepts and develop critical thinking skills (Trianto, 2009: 59).

To support statement above, Richard I. Arends (2009) also said that cooperative learning model was developed to achieve at least three important instructional goals: academic achievement, tolerance and acceptance of diversity, and social skills development.

Cooperative learning has several approaches, such as Student Teams Achievements Division (STAD), Jigsaw, Team Investigation, Teams Games

4

Tournament (TGT), Think Pair Share (TPS) and Number Head Together (NHT). Those approaches are distinguished from cognitive goals, social goals, team structure, topic selection, the main task, assessment and recognition.

Cooperative learning Jigsaw and Think Pair Share (TPS) approach are two alternative solutions that can be implemented in mathematic learning. Because by using both approach students will more active in learning process and then it will be expected to increase mathematic student achievement. By using Jigsaw approach student will more active because each student has responsibility in solving problem and explain their assigned topic to another student. And by using Think Pair Share approach student will more active because student has two opportunities, to work alone first and then cooperate with another student. So, before they cooperate with other student, they have preparation to make discussion. In this approach, student discuss in pairing so that they can communicate directly with their pair and it will make effective discussion in class. In Jigsaw approach, Students start out in heterogeneous home or base

teams comprised of four or five members. Members number off and then move to expert groups. Each expert group learns a different part or aspect of the assigned topic. They read and discuss learning materials provided by the teacher and help each other learn about their assigned topic. They also decide how best to present the material to others when their home teams reconvene. Each member of the team teaches their part to other home team members. (Richard I. Arends and Ann Kilcher, 2010: 316)

This gives the possibility to student engaging actively in discussion and communication with each other both in the home team and the expert group. Skills to work and learn cooperatively studied directly in the activities of the two types of grouping. Students are also given motivation to constantly evaluate their learning process.

In Think Pair Share (TPS) approach, the teacher poses a question, individual students think about (and record) their answer. Individuals then pair with another student to share their answer. The teacher calls on individuals or

5

pairs to share with the large group (Richard I. Arends and Ann Kilcher, 2010: 316). So this model provided all students time to think and opportunity to respond.

Some of the consequences of this model is students can communicate directly with other individuals, keep each other informed and exchange ideas and able to train to defend his/her opinion if that opinion is worthy to be preserved.

The successful of the use cooperative learning jigsaw and think pair share approach conducted visits of student achievement in mathematics to understand and utilize this understanding for solving mathematic problems and other sciences.

Problem solving here is an attempt to find a way out performed in achieving the goal. It is based on Polya statement in Firdaus (2009) which states that problem solving is an attempt to find out solution of a difficulty to achieve an objective that is not immediately be reached.

Problem solving skill is very important for students because of various reasons. The reason is confirmed by Branca in Firdaus (2009):

1. Problem solving skills is a common goal of teaching mathematics.

2. Problem-solving that include methods, procedures and strategies is a core and major in mathematics curriculum

3. Problem solving is a basic ability in learning mathematics.

Learning approach is developed appropriate with learning objective that will be achieved. By seeing student achievement after taught student using cooperative learning jigsaw approach and think pair share approach, then can be concluded are both of those approaches effective to achieve learning objective of mathematic and which approach that will more effective after implemented in class.

Based on explanation above, the researcher were motivated to conduct a research entitled "The Comparison of Problem Solving Skills of Student using Cooperative Learning Jigsaw Approach and Think Pair Share (TPS) Approach on Prism Subtopic in VIII Grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi”.

6

1.2Identification of Problem

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

 Many mistakes which made by students at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi for solving problem of polyhedral

 Mathematic understanding of student at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi in polyhedral is low

 Problem solving skills of student at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi on polyhedral topic is still low

 Learning polyhedral at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi is still oriented to teacher

1.3The Scope of Problem

In order to avoid misperceptions and expansion issues, this research is restricted in prism subtopic about surface area and volume in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi.

1.4 Research Question

Based on the background and identification of problem above, the research questions are:

1. Can cooperative learning Jigsaw approach increase problem solving skills of student on prism subtopic in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing tinggi? 2. Can cooperative learning Think Pair Share (TPS) approach increase

problem solving skills of student on prism subtopic in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing tinggi?

3. Is there any difference of problem solving skills of student that taught by cooperative learning Jigsaw approach and Think Pair Share (TPS) approach on prism subtopic in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing tinggi? 4. What kinds of mistake that student made for solving problem on prism

subtopic that taught by cooperative learning Jigsaw in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing tinggi?

7

5. What kinds of mistake that student made for solving problem on prism subtopic that taught by cooperative learning Think Pair Share in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing tinggi?

1.5 Research Objectives

The Objectives of this research are:

1. To find out whether cooperative learning Jigsaw approach can increase problem solving skills of student on prisms subtopic in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing tinggi

2. To find out whether cooperative learning Think Pair Share (TPS) approach can increase problem solving skills of student on prisms subtopic in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing tinggi

3. To find out is there any difference of problem solving skills of student taught by cooperative learning Jigsaw approach and Think Pair Share (TPS) approach on prisms subtopic in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing tinggi

4. To find out the kinds of mistake that student made for solving problem on prism subtopic that taught by cooperative learning Jigsaw in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing tinggi

5. To find out the kinds of mistake that student made for solving problem on prism subtopic that taught by cooperative learning Think Pair Share in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing tinggi

1.6Research Benefits

The benefits which expected of this research are: a. The benefits for author

Increasing knowledge of the authors in conducting research in educational field in the future

Gaining experience in applying learning model and provide a quality learning

8

b. The benefits for education

As consideration for the teachers in formal educational institutions in an effort to improve student achievement in mathematics

As a comparison for the next researchers in examining similar issues

1.7Operational Definition

The operational definitions in this research are:

a. Cooperative learning Jigsaw approach is learning model where student involve in two teams or groups, those are home teams and expert groups. First students are assigned to four or five students heterogeneous as the home team. Each member in this team has different part of learning material. The student that has same part is grouped in expert group and then discuss their part in that group. After that, they come back to home team and teach her/his own part to other member in home team. In this model, each team member is responsible for mastering their part and then teaching that part to the other member inhome team.

b. Cooperative learning Think Pair Share approach is a learning model that give more time to student to think and then answering and sharing with the other. In this model, teacher poses a question first, then individual students think about (and record) their answer. Individuals then pair with another student to share their answer. The teacher calls on individuals or pairs to share with the large group.

c. Problem solving skill is skill that shown by student in understanding problem, arrange planning to solve problem, implement planning and re-evaluate or verification for all step that have been done

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1Conclussion

Based on the result research from data analysis, can be obtained some conclussion, those are:

1. Problem solving skills of student that taught using cooperative learning Jigsaw approach has average of post test 72,5 and average of gain 49,135. By testing hypothesis using t-testing, can be concluded that cooperative learning Jigsaw approach can increase problem solving skills of student on prism sub topic in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi.

2. Problem solving skills of student that taught using cooperative learning Think Pair Share approach has average of post test 81,5 and average of gain 53,4615. By testing hypothesis using t-testing, can be concluded that cooperative learning Think Pair Share approach can increase problem solving skills of student on prism sub topic in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi.

3. By testing hypothesis using t-test of the gain average in the first and second experiment classes, then can be concluded that there is significant difference of problem solving skills of student that taught using cooperative learning Jigsaw approach and Think Pair Share approach on prism subtopic in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing tinggi.

4. The kinds of mistake that student made after taught using Jigsaw approach are: (a) errors in determining the height and base of prism, the height of triangle and trapezoid, and drawing the prism, (b) wrote not complete information from the problem, (c) wrote wrong formula of surface area, volume and the height of prism, (d) wrote not complete strategy to solve the problem, (e) errors in calculation and algebra operation, (f) errors in calculating area and perimeter of prism base, (g) errors for using Pythagorean theorem, (h) did not make re-evaluation correctly.

81

5. The kinds of mistake that student made after taught using Think Pair Share approach are: (a) errors in determining the height of triangle and trapezoid, and drawing the prism, (b) wrote not complete information from the problem, (c) wrote wrong formula of surface area, volume and the height of prism, (d) wrote not complete strategy to solve the problem, (e) errors in calculation and algebra operation, (f) errors in calculating area and perimeter of prism base, (g) errors for using Pythagorean theorem to find the height of triangle and trapezoid, (h) did not make re-evaluation correctly.

5.2Suggestion

Based on research result, then the suggestions that can be given by writer are: 1. For mathematic teacher who want to use cooperative learning Jigsaw approach, give more attention to time allocation for each phase so that learning process can be done better.

2. For mathematic teacher, cooperative learning Jigsaw and Think Pair Share approaches can be used as alternative learning approach because it can be increase problem solving skills of student.

3. For mathematic teacher who want to give some topic to student, make sure

that student has mastered prerequisite material so that learning process more effective.

4. For students, especially students in SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi are suggested to cooperate in discussion based on rule from the teacher.

5. For the next researcher, to make deeper analysis about the mistakes that student made in solving problem using both of those approaches.

82

REFERENCES

Arends, Richard I., (2009), Learning to Teach Eight Edition, Mc. Graw-Hill International International Edition, New York

Arends, Richard I, and Kilcher, Ann, (2010), Teaching for Student Learning, Routledge, New York

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

Astuti, A Yuni, (2010), Buku Panduan Pendidik Matematika untuk SMP/ MTs, Jepe Press Media Utama, Surabaya

Cohen, Louis, and friends, (2007), Research Methods in Education, Routledge, New York.

Creswell, John W, (2008), Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, And Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, Pearson, USA.

Dhoruri, A., (2010), Meningkatkan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah

Matematika Siswa SMP melalui Pembelajaran dengan Pendekatan Pendidikan Matematika Realistik (PMR),LSM Paper, FMIPA UNY

Firdaus, A., (2009), Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematika.

http://madfirdaus.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/kemampuan-pemecahan-masalah-matematika/ (Posted November 2009)

Harris, R., (2010), www.visualsalt.com, (accessed on March, 4th 2010)

Huda, Miftahul, (2011), Cooperative Learning Metode, Teknik, Struktur, dan Model Penerapan, Pustaka Pelajar, Yogyakarta

Kirkley, Jami, (2003), Principles for Teaching Problem Solving. Technical Paper, Plato Learning Indiana University.

Silver, Harvey F. and friends, (2007), The Strategic Teacher, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, USA

Sudjana, (2005), Metode Statistik, Tarsito, Bandung

Sugiono, (2008), Metode Penelitian Pendidikan Pendekatan Kuantitaive,

Kualitatif dan R & D, Alfabeta, Bandung

Sunarsi, A., (2009), Analisis Kesalahan dalam Menyelesaikan Soal pada Materi Luas Permukaan serta Volume Prisma dan Limas pada Siswa Kelas VIII Semester Genap SMP Negeri 2 Karanganyar Tahun Ajaran 2008/2009. Thesis of Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta

83

Tambunan, M., (2011), Perbedaan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematika Siswa yang Diajar dengan Model Kooperative Tipe Number Head Together (NHT) dan Students Team Achievement Division (STAD). Thesis of Mathematic and science Faculty, State University of Medan Tarhadi and friends, (2006), Perbandingan Kemampuan Penyelesaian Masalah

Matematika Mahasiswa Pendidikan Jarak Jauh dengan Mahasiswa Pendidikan Tatap Muka, Journal of Universitas Terbuka

Trianto, (2009), Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif Progresif, Kencana, Jakarta

Wardhani, S. and friends, 2010, Pembelajaran Kemampuan Masalah Matematika di SMP, PPPPTK, Yogyakarta

Yeni, E. Mukhlesi, (2011), Pemanfaatan benda-benda Manipulatif untuk

Meningkatkan Pemahaman Konsep Geometrid dan Kemampuan Tilikan Ruang Siswa Kelas V Sekolah Dasar, Educational Journal special edition

subtopic that taught by cooperative learning Think Pair Share in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing tinggi?

1.5 Research Objectives

The Objectives of this research are:

1. To find out whether cooperative learning Jigsaw approach can increase problem solving skills of student on prisms subtopic in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing tinggi

2. To find out whether cooperative learning Think Pair Share (TPS) approach can increase problem solving skills of student on prisms subtopic in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing tinggi

3. To find out is there any difference of problem solving skills of student taught by cooperative learning Jigsaw approach and Think Pair Share (TPS) approach on prisms subtopic in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing tinggi

4. To find out the kinds of mistake that student made for solving problem on prism subtopic that taught by cooperative learning Jigsaw in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing tinggi

5. To find out the kinds of mistake that student made for solving problem on prism subtopic that taught by cooperative learning Think Pair Share in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing tinggi

1.6Research Benefits

The benefits which expected of this research are: a. The benefits for author

Increasing knowledge of the authors in conducting research in educational field in the future

Gaining experience in applying learning model and provide a quality learning

8

b. The benefits for education

As consideration for the teachers in formal educational institutions in an effort to improve student achievement in mathematics

As a comparison for the next researchers in examining similar issues

1.7Operational Definition

The operational definitions in this research are:

a. Cooperative learning Jigsaw approach is learning model where student involve in two teams or groups, those are home teams and expert groups. First students are assigned to four or five students heterogeneous as the home team. Each member in this team has different part of learning material. The student that has same part is grouped in expert group and then discuss their part in that group. After that, they come back to home team and teach her/his own part to other member in home team. In this model, each team member is responsible for mastering their part and then teaching that part to the other member inhome team.

b. Cooperative learning Think Pair Share approach is a learning model that give more time to student to think and then answering and sharing with the other. In this model, teacher poses a question first, then individual students think about (and record) their answer. Individuals then pair with another student to share their answer. The teacher calls on individuals or pairs to share with the large group.

c. Problem solving skill is skill that shown by student in understanding problem, arrange planning to solve problem, implement planning and re-evaluate or verification for all step that have been done

Based on the result research from data analysis, can be obtained some conclussion, those are:

1. Problem solving skills of student that taught using cooperative learning Jigsaw approach has average of post test 72,5 and average of gain 49,135. By testing hypothesis using t-testing, can be concluded that cooperative learning Jigsaw approach can increase problem solving skills of student on prism sub topic in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi.

2. Problem solving skills of student that taught using cooperative learning Think Pair Share approach has average of post test 81,5 and average of gain 53,4615. By testing hypothesis using t-testing, can be concluded that cooperative learning Think Pair Share approach can increase problem solving skills of student on prism sub topic in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi.

3. By testing hypothesis using t-test of the gain average in the first and second experiment classes, then can be concluded that there is significant difference of problem solving skills of student that taught using cooperative learning Jigsaw approach and Think Pair Share approach on prism subtopic in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing tinggi.

4. The kinds of mistake that student made after taught using Jigsaw approach are: (a) errors in determining the height and base of prism, the height of triangle and trapezoid, and drawing the prism, (b) wrote not complete information from the problem, (c) wrote wrong formula of surface area, volume and the height of prism, (d) wrote not complete strategy to solve the problem, (e) errors in calculation and algebra operation, (f) errors in calculating area and perimeter of prism base, (g) errors for using Pythagorean theorem, (h) did not make re-evaluation correctly.

81

5. The kinds of mistake that student made after taught using Think Pair Share approach are: (a) errors in determining the height of triangle and trapezoid, and drawing the prism, (b) wrote not complete information from the problem, (c) wrote wrong formula of surface area, volume and the height of prism, (d) wrote not complete strategy to solve the problem, (e) errors in calculation and algebra operation, (f) errors in calculating area and perimeter of prism base, (g) errors for using Pythagorean theorem to find the height of triangle and trapezoid, (h) did not make re-evaluation correctly.

5.2Suggestion

Based on research result, then the suggestions that can be given by writer are: 1. For mathematic teacher who want to use cooperative learning Jigsaw approach, give more attention to time allocation for each phase so that learning process can be done better.

2. For mathematic teacher, cooperative learning Jigsaw and Think Pair Share approaches can be used as alternative learning approach because it can be increase problem solving skills of student.

3. For mathematic teacher who want to give some topic to student, make sure that student has mastered prerequisite material so that learning process more effective.

4. For students, especially students in SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi are suggested to cooperate in discussion based on rule from the teacher.

5. For the next researcher, to make deeper analysis about the mistakes that student made in solving problem using both of those approaches.

Arends, Richard I., (2009), Learning to Teach Eight Edition, Mc. Graw-Hill International International Edition, New York

Arends, Richard I, and Kilcher, Ann, (2010), Teaching for Student Learning, Routledge, New York

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

Astuti, A Yuni, (2010), Buku Panduan Pendidik Matematika untuk SMP/ MTs, Jepe Press Media Utama, Surabaya

Cohen, Louis, and friends, (2007), Research Methods in Education, Routledge, New York.

Creswell, John W, (2008), Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, And Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, Pearson, USA.

Dhoruri, A., (2010), Meningkatkan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematika Siswa SMP melalui Pembelajaran dengan Pendekatan Pendidikan Matematika Realistik (PMR),LSM Paper, FMIPA UNY Firdaus, A., (2009), Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematika.

http://madfirdaus.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/kemampuan-pemecahan-masalah-matematika/ (Posted November 2009)

Harris, R., (2010), www.visualsalt.com, (accessed on March, 4th 2010)

Huda, Miftahul, (2011), Cooperative Learning Metode, Teknik, Struktur, dan Model Penerapan, Pustaka Pelajar, Yogyakarta

Kirkley, Jami, (2003), Principles for Teaching Problem Solving. Technical Paper, Plato Learning Indiana University.

Silver, Harvey F. and friends, (2007), The Strategic Teacher, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, USA

Sudjana, (2005), Metode Statistik, Tarsito, Bandung

Sugiono, (2008), Metode Penelitian Pendidikan Pendekatan Kuantitaive, Kualitatif dan R & D, Alfabeta, Bandung

Sunarsi, A., (2009), Analisis Kesalahan dalam Menyelesaikan Soal pada Materi Luas Permukaan serta Volume Prisma dan Limas pada Siswa Kelas VIII Semester Genap SMP Negeri 2 Karanganyar Tahun Ajaran 2008/2009. Thesis of Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta

83

Tambunan, M., (2011), Perbedaan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematika Siswa yang Diajar dengan Model Kooperative Tipe Number Head Together (NHT) dan Students Team Achievement Division (STAD). Thesis of Mathematic and science Faculty, State University of Medan Tarhadi and friends, (2006), Perbandingan Kemampuan Penyelesaian Masalah

Matematika Mahasiswa Pendidikan Jarak Jauh dengan Mahasiswa Pendidikan Tatap Muka, Journal of Universitas Terbuka

Trianto, (2009), Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif Progresif, Kencana, Jakarta

Wardhani, S. and friends, 2010, Pembelajaran Kemampuan Masalah Matematika di SMP, PPPPTK, Yogyakarta

Yeni, E. Mukhlesi, (2011), Pemanfaatan benda-benda Manipulatif untuk Meningkatkan Pemahaman Konsep Geometrid dan Kemampuan Tilikan Ruang Siswa Kelas V Sekolah Dasar, Educational Journal special edition