THE EFFECT OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL GROUP INVESTIGATION (GI) TYPE TO CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE STUDENTS IN TOPIC OPTIC GEOMETRY GRADE X SMAN 1 PERBAUNGAN ACADEMIC YEAR 2014/205.
THE EFFECT OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL GROUP INVESTIGATION
(GI) TYPE TO CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE STUDENT’S IN TOPIC
OPTIC GEOMETRY GRADE X SMAN 1 PERBAUNGAN
ACADEMIC YEAR 2014/2015
By:
Elmina Sari Panjaitan
ID.Number 4113121017
Bilingual Physics Education Program
THESIS
Submitted to Acquire Eliglible Sarjana Pendidikan
PHYSICS DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2015
i
iii
THE EFFECT OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL GROUP
INVESTIGATION (GI) TYPE TO CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE
STUDENT’S IN TOPIC OPTIC GEOMETRY GRADE X SMAN 1
PERBAUNGAN ACADEMIC YEAR 2014/2015
ELMINA SARI PANJAITAN (4113121017)
ABSTRACT
The objectives of this research was to analysis the Cooperative Learning Model to
student’s Learning Outcomes by using Cooperative learning model Group
Investigation type to conceptual knowledge student’s. The research was done in
SMAN Perbaungan which consists of two class, they were experimental class and
control class. The sample in this research were taken with cluster random
sampling. The research instrument had twenty questions in multiple choice forms
with five options, the instrument tested validated. After that do the treatment in
experiment class taught by cooperative learning model of GI type to conceptual
knowledge student’s and in control class taught by conventional learning model
and then done the post-test. After that was done the data analysis technique like
average value, standard deviation, normality test, homogeneity test, hypothesis
test. In experimental class and control class the average value of pretest were
39.62 and 37.90 that means the capability of students are same, while the value of
posttest in experimental class and control class were 78.37 and 69.68, from the
research get the conclusion that there was effect of Cooperative learning model
Group Investigation type to conceptual knowledge student’s. First, it could be
seen by the result of outcomes learning that get from each class, the outcomes
value from the experiment class was higher than control class. Second, it could be
seen the active of students when the model of cooperative type Group
Investigation were happened. Third, it could be seen the conceptual knowledge
from the experiment class was higher than control class.
Keyword : Cooperative, Group Investigation, Conceptual Knowledge, student’s
learning outcomes.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
Ratification Sheet
Biography
Abstract
Preface
Table of Content
List of Figure
List of Table
List of Appendix
i
ii
iii
iv
vi
viii
ix
x
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
1.2.
1.6.
1.7.
Background
Problem Identification
Problem Limitation
Problem Formulation
Research Objective
Research Benefit
Operational Definition
1
4
4
5
5
6
6
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1.
2.1.1
2.1.2.
2.1.3.
2.1.3.1.
2.1.3.2.
2.1.3.3.
2.1.4.
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
2.5.
Framework Theoretical
Definition of Learning
Definition of Learning Outcome
Definition of Learning Model
Cooperative Learning Model
Syntax Cooperative Learning Model
Cooperative Learning Model GI
Definition Conventional Learning
Learning Materials
Group Investigation Journal
The conceptual framework
Hypothesis of Research
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
3.1.
Research Location
3.2.
Population and Sample Research
7
7
8
16
17
19
20
23
24
34
37
38
39
39
vii
3.2.1.
3.2.2.
3.3.
3.3.1.
3.3.2.
3.4.
3.4.1.
3.4.2.
3.5.
3.6.
3.6.1.
3.6.2.
3.6.3.
3.6.4.
3.6.5.
3.7.
Population of Research
Sample of Research
Research Variable
Independent Variable
Dependent Variable
Type and Research Design Research Instrument
Type of Research
Design of Research
Research Procedure
Data Analysis Techniques
Determine Average Value
Determine The Standard Deviation
Normality Test
Homogeneity Test
Hypothesis Test
Research Instrument
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1.
Research Result
4.1.1 .
Pre-test Score and post test of Students
4.1.2.
Data Analysis of Post-test
4.1.2.1
Normality Test of pre-test data
4.1.2.2
Homogeneity test of Pre-test
4.1.2.3
Hypothesis Test of Pre-test
4.1.3
Post Test Value of students
4.1.4
Data analysis of Post-test
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
40
40
42
42
42
42
43
43
46
49
49
51
51
51
52
52
4.1.4.1
Normality Test of Post-test Data
54
54
4.1.4.2
4.1.4.3
4.1.5
4.2.
Homogeneity test of post-test
Hypothesis test of Post-test
Outcomes Learning in Higher Cognitive
Research Findings
54
55
55
56
4.3.
Discussion
57
CHAPTER IV CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1
5.2
Conclusion
Suggestion
61
62
REFERENCES
63
APPENDIX
65
ix
LIST OF TABLE
Table. 2.1
Major Types of knowledge in the knowledge dimension
11
Table 2.2
The Dimension and Related Cognitive Process
13
Table 2.3
Syntax Cooperative Learning Model
19
Table 2.4
Group Investigation Phases
21
Table 2.5
The advantages and disadvantages of GI
22
Table 2.6
Characteristic of Shadows in mirror
31
Table 2.7
Group Investigation Journal
36
Table 3.1
The design of the research
40
Table 3.2
The Specification learning outcomes test
47
by Anderson’s taxonomy
Table 4.1
Pre-test Score and Post-test Score in Experiment
49
Class and Control Class
Table 4.2
The comparison of pre-test value in 2 classes
50
Table 4.3
Normality test of pre-test data in Experiment
51
and Control Class
Table 4.4
Homogeneity Test of Pre-test Data
51
Table 4.5
Hypothesis Test of Pre-test Data
52
Table 4.6
Post-test Data in Experiment Class and Control Class
53
Table 4.7
Normality Test of Post-test Data in Experiment
and control class
54
Table 4.8
Calculating homogeneity test
54
Table 4.9.
Hypothesis Test of Post-test Data
55
Table 4.10
The percentage of value in level higher cognitive
56
in Experiment Class and Control Class
viii
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 2.1
Light interacts with atoms as sound interacts with tuning forks
24
Figure 2.2
Ordinary Plane Mirror Beneath
25
Figure 2.3
Solid Lines Mirror Beneath
25
Figure 2.4
The reflection light
25
Figure 2.5
The Law of Reflection
25
Figure 2.6
Instead of measuring the angles of incident and reflected rays
26
Figure 2.7
The Extended Reflected Rays
26
Figure 2.8
Example of Mirror
27
Figure 2.8
Example of a surface of clear glass
27
Figure 2.9
Diffuse Reflection
27
Figure 2.10
Example of radio wave
28
Figure 2.11
Example of refraction
28
Figure 2.12
Example of light from hot road
29
Figure 2.13
Example of refraction
30
Figure 2.14
Example of refraction
31
Figure 3.1
The overview of Research Planning
42
Figure 4.2
Column Diagram Pre-test value data in
50
Experiment Class and Control Class
Figure 4.3
Column Diagram Post-test value data in
53
Experiment Class and Control Class
Figure 4.4
Column the percentage of value in level higher
cognitive in experiment class and control class
56
x
LIST OF APPENDIX
Appendix 1
Lesson Plan (1)
65
Appendix 2
Lesson Plan (2)
75
Appendix 3
Lesson Plan (3)
85
Appendix 4
Students Worksheet I
96
Appendix 5
Students Worksheet II
100
Appendix 6
Students Worksheet II I
105
Appendix 7
Grating Optical Instruments In The Subject
Matter Optic Geometry
111
Appendix 8
Test
127
Appendix 9
Key Answer of Test
133
Appendix 11 Pre-Test and Post Test Data of Experiment Class
134
Appendix 12 Pre-Test and Post Test Data of Control Class
136
Appendix 13 Calculation of Average Score and Deviation
Standard of Pre-test and Post-test in Experiment Class
137
Appendix 14 Calculation of Average Score and Deviation
Standard of Pre-test and Post-test in Control Class
138
Appendix 15 Normality test
139
Appendix 16 Homogeneity Test Data
143
Appendix 17 Hypothesis Test
146
Appendix 18 Level of Higher Cognitive of Post Test
in Experiment Class and Control Class
151
Appendix 19 The Critical Value of L for Liliefors Test
157
Appendix 20 List of Percentil Value of t Distribution
158
Appendix 21 Table of Large Area under the Normal 0 to z
159
Appendix 22 Table of F-Distribution
160
Appendix 23 Figure of students in experiment and control class
162
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
According to Indonesian dictionary education words have meaning or how
to process or act of educating. By definition language education is the process of
changing attitudes and code conduct of a person or group in a mature business
man through teaching and training efforts. Awareness about the importance of
education has prompted various efforts and attention of the whole society against
any development of education, particularly developments in the field of
technology and information, then the learning process should be able to develop
students' skill in order to have quality fully human resources both to meet the
challenge there. In the learning process of teachers are required to be able to
choose appropriate learning models according to the circumstances of the student
in order to achieve success in learning.
Physics is one of the science subjects in schools that teach a variety of
knowledge that can develop the power of reason, the analysis, so that almost all of
the problems connected with nature can be understood so interesting to learn. To
understand the physics broadly, it must begin with the ability of the understanding
of the basic concepts in physics. A student in learning physics said to be less
successful if the change in behavior that occurs has not been able to determine the
discretion to achieve result that has been set correctly in the allotted time. To
achieve maximum learning outcomes, many aspects that influencing, including
aspects of teacher quality, level of desire learners to learn, teaching and learning
methods media, and others.
Based on interview the researcher to one of physics teacher Mrs.Ir.Julina
at SMAN 1 Perbaungan at October 16th, 2014 when researcher is training teacher
in that school, she stated that during the learning and teaching using only
conventional learning to explain the learning material coupled with the provision
of independent tasks to students after giving an explanation in the classroom. She
1
2
also said that the average value in physics are not satisfy, where the average value
are 65 has not reached the minimum completeness criteria, minimum value
specified criteria completeness of school at 70 to declare the student completed
the study of physics. Value achieved by students categorized enough, but not
purely from the results of their own learning abilities but has additional from
teacher, including the assessment of teachers to personal tasks, student attendance,
and student discipline during the process of learning. The problems faced by
students in the learning process that students are difficult in understanding the
material taught by teachers using learning model that has not enable all students.
They assume that physics is the most difficult lesson and when they face various
types of formula and calculation the physics. Students are also difficult to
investigate the questions of physics when they face the problem to answer the
questions. Based on interview about the laboratory, the teacher tells that’s seldom
to use. In that school just has one laboratory for science that’s combined with one,
there are physic, biology and chemistry lab. The problems about the lab are the
teachers seldom lazy to ask students discuss in lab because they have many
reasons, so that they just tell by conventional model.
In the learning process involves the variety of activities to do to get
optimal results. One way that can be used in order to obtain optimal results
desired as is focused in the learning process. This can be done by selecting one
appropriate learning model for the selection of appropriate learning model
essentially is an effort to optimize student learning outcomes. One of the learning
models that allows students to interact one each other is a model of cooperative
learning. Cooperative learning models can motivate students, utilizing all social
energy of students, each taking responsibility. Cooperative learning model is
useful to help students learn ranging from basic skills to solve complex problems.
According Slavin (2005) in cooperative learning, students will sit together in
groups of four people to master the material presented teachers. There are several
types that can be applied in cooperative learning model, among others: 1) Student
Team Achievement Division (STAD), 2) Jigsaw, 3) Think Pair Share (TPS), 4)
3
Number Head Together (NHT) and Group Investigation (GI ) is planning a
general classroom setting where students work in small groups using cooperative
inquiry, discussion groups, as well as planning and cooperative projects, in this
case the students were released to form his own group consisting of two to six
members.
To solve the problem, the researcher changes the conventional learning
model with cooperative learning model and also the Conceptual knowledgeis used
about the learning outcome by using the Andersons’ cognitive start from C4 until
C6 about analyze, evaluate and create. Cooperative learning models have some
types. One type of cooperative learning model to build students' confidence and
encourage their participation in the classroom is a Group Investigation cooperative
learning model. It is one form of cooperative learning that emphasizes the
participation and activities of the students to find their own materials
(information) lesson will be studied through the suitable materials, from a
textbook or students can search through the internet. It is often seen as the most
complex model and the most difficult to implement in a cooperative learning. It
involves students from planning, both in determining the topic as well as a way to
learn through investigation. It requires the students to get a good ability to
communicate well in a group process skill .The teachers who use it generally
divided in to five till six students with heterogeneous characteristics. The division
of the group can be also based on the pleasure of friends or common interest to a
particular topic. The students choose the topics that they want to learn, following a
thorough investigation of the various sub topics, then preparing and presenting a
report to the class at all.
In some of the studies that have been done to apply the cooperative model
of type Group Investigation obtained improving student learning outcomes. As
Ahmad Fauzi (2012) who conducted research in SMAN 1 Sumbul with dynamic
electric materials have different results when using the cooperative model of GI
type with direct learning model that has 16.37% increase in the average results of
his study reached 60.63 become 72.50. Weakness obtained by researcher is the
4
lack of planning early in the organization of the group and the capability of
beginning students. Suheni (2013) conducted a study on the subject matter
Temperatures in class VII SMP, obtain an average value of 75.3 where the value
exceeds the value with the criteria. Researcher also obtained that with this model
of learning activities of students in becoming active.
Based on explanation above the writer wants to do the research with title
“The Effect of Cooperative Learning Model Group Investigation (GI) Type
to Conceptual knowledge Student’s in Topic Optic Geometry Grade X
SMAN 1 Perbaungan Academic Year 2014/2015”.
1.2. Problem Identification
Based on the background that already explained, so the problem
identification in this research are:
1. The physic teacher still use the conventional learning
2. Students' learning outcomes of physics is still low in cognitive
3. During the lessons teacher never do jokes so that the lessons feel bored
4. Student rarely do physic experiments and rarely to use laboratory
5. Interaction between students and teachers in cooperative learning is still
low
1.3. Problem Limitation
Based on the problem identification, researcher limits this problem items
namely:
1. Sub topic that will be learn is Reflection in the mirrors and Refraction in
the lens
2. Cooperative learning model of type group investigation is used in
research
5
3. Physics student learning outcomes in the Conceptual knowledgedomain
bounded in grade X SMA
1.4. Problem Formulation
Based on the limitation problem, so the problem formulation are:
1. How is the physics outcome learning of students during the teaching and
learning process by using the conventional learning in the topic Optic
Geometry grade X SMAN 1 Perbaungan Academic Year 2014/2015?
2. How are the physics outcome learning of students during the teaching
and learning process by using cooperative learning model Group
Investigation (GI) type to conceptual knowledge student’s in topic
Optic Geometry grade X SMAN 1 Perbaungan Academic Year
2014/2015?
3. Are learning outcome physic for students by using in cooperative
learning model group investigation type to conceptual knowledge
student’s better than conventional learning in topic Optic Geometry
grade X SMAN 1 Perbaungan Academic Year 2014/2015?
1.5. Research Objective
There are some research objective items, namely:
1. To analyze student's learning outcomes by using Conventional in topic
Optic Geometry grade X SMAN 1 Perbaungan Academic Year
2014/2015.
2. To analyze student's learning outcomes by using Cooperative learning
model Group Investigation (GI) type to conceptual knowledge student’s
in topic Optic Geometry grade X SMAN 1 Perbaungan Academic Year
2014/2015.
3. To analyze which one better use about outcome learning physics,
Conventional learning model or cooperative model Group Investigation
6
(GI) type to Conceptual knowledge student’s in topic Optic Geometry
grade X SMAN 1 Perbaungan Academic Year 2014/2015.
1.6. Research Benefit
From this research expected are:
1. To make the teacher understand about the type model and improve the
models that use cooperative in Group Investigation to high cognitive
2. For materials input to physics teachers in selecting appropriate learning
model.
3. As the source for another researcher to develop research about
cooperative learning model of group investigation type to high cognitive
4. For reference for researcher in do more research further
1.7. Operational Definition
Operational definitions are presented in this study are as follows:
cooperative learning model type Group Investigation is one type of cooperative
learning which consists of six stages used to review the facts and basic
information that govern the interaction of students. Basically the goal of
cooperative learning is to train students to be able to think and work in groups,
discussing to solve a problem and then be responsible for reporting the results of
their discussion. Six points in Group Investigation namely: 1) Identifying, 2)
Planning, 3) Investigation, 4) Presented, 5) Evaluation.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
Based pm result research and data collection can be concluded that:
1. Average value of pre-test of experiment class is 39.62 with standard deviation
39.62, after given by treatment then students are given posttest, the average
value of posttest in experiment class using Cooperative Learning model Group
Investigation type to conceptual knowledge become 78.37 that’s category good.
2. Average value pretest of control class is 37.90 with standard deviation is 6.42,
after given by treatment then the students are given post test, the average value
posttest in control class with Conventional Learning Model 69.68 that’s
category enough with standard deviation 6.57.
3. Student’s learning outcomes in experimental class higher than in control class,
so it can be concluded that there is effect of cooperative learning model Group
Investigation type to conceptual knowledge student’s in topic Optic Geometry
grade X SMAN 1 Perbaungan 2014-2015.
61
62
5.2 Suggestion
Based on discussion of research result and conclusion above, researcher gives
suggestion to school as below:
1. To help the teacher in teaching and learning process about the type model
and improve the models to use cooperative in Group Investigation to
conceptual knowledge.
2. For materials input to physics teachers in selecting appropriate learning
model and make discussion by cooperative during the lessons.
Based on discussion of research result and conclusion above, researcher gives
suggestion to further researcher as below:
1. For further researcher who wants observe using Cooperative Learning Model
Group Investigation type to conceptual knowledge, observer must make
students more active in discussion process
2. For further researcher who wants observe using Cooperative Learning Model
Group Investigation type to to do more efficiently time when do discussion,
so time to make the discussion can use during the discussion
3. For further researcher who wants observe using Cooperative Learning Model
Group Investigation type to conceptual knowledge to do more efficiently
may using a media in learning process, so it can increased more detail and
consistent to divide time to explain and give media.
63
REFFERENCES
Anas,Sudijino. (2003) . Pengantar Evaluasi. Jakarta : PT Raja Grafindo Persada
Arends, Richard I. (2008). Learning to teach . New York: Mc Graw Hill
Companies
Arifin, Zaenal. (2009). Evaluasi Pembelajaran. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya
Cutnell & Johnson.(2001). Physics . New Delhi : Wiley India.
Hewitt,G.Paul.(2006). Conceptual Physics. United State of America:St.Petersburg
Huda, Miftahul. ( 2012 ). Cooperative Learning. Yogyakarta : Pustaka Pelajar
Ibrahim,R. ( 2010 ). Perencanaan Pengajaran. Jakarta : PT Rineka Cipta
Istarani. ( 2011). 58 Model Pembelajaran Inovatif. Medan : Media Persada
Kanginan,M.(2006). Fisika untuk SMA Kelas X. Jakarta : Erlangga
Krathwohl.R.David,2002, “A Revision Of Bloom's Taxonomy”. College of
Education, The Ohio State University
Lie.( 2010 ). Cooperative Learning. Jakarta : PT. Gramedia
Mulyasa. (2009). Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
Matthew, B.R Hergenhahn. (2009). Theories of Learning. Jakarta: Kencana
Sanjaya,Wina . (2005). Pembelajaran Dalam Implementasi Kurikulum Berbasis
Kompetensi .Jakarta: Kencana
Slavin, Robert.E. (2005). Cooperative Learning. London : Allymand Bacon.
Sumarmi. (2012). Model-model Pembelajaran Geografi. Malang : Aditya Media
Publishing.
64
Sudjana. (2002). Metode Statistika. Bandung : PT Tarsito.
Siddiqui,Mujibal Hasan,2013, “Group Investigation Model of Teaching”. Indian
journal of research. Volume 3, may 4th 2013.
Doymus,2010, “The Effects of Two Cooperative Learning Strategies on the
Teaching and Learning of the Topics of Chemical Kinetis”. Journal of
Turkish science education. Volume 7, 2 june 2010.
Doymus,2012, “The Effects of Group Investigation and Cooperative Learning
Techniques Applied in Teaching Force and Motion Subjects on
Students’ Academic Achievements”. Journal of educational science
research. Volume: 2, june 1st 2012.
Simsek,Ufuk,2013, “The Effects of Cooperative Learning Methods on Students’
Academic Achievements in Social Psychology Lessons”. International
journal on new trends in education and their implication. Volume: 4,
July 3rd 2013.
Doymus,2009, “Effects of Two Cooperative Learning Strategies on Teaching and
Learning Topics of Thermochemistry” .World applied science journal.
Volume : 7, 2009.
(GI) TYPE TO CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE STUDENT’S IN TOPIC
OPTIC GEOMETRY GRADE X SMAN 1 PERBAUNGAN
ACADEMIC YEAR 2014/2015
By:
Elmina Sari Panjaitan
ID.Number 4113121017
Bilingual Physics Education Program
THESIS
Submitted to Acquire Eliglible Sarjana Pendidikan
PHYSICS DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2015
i
iii
THE EFFECT OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL GROUP
INVESTIGATION (GI) TYPE TO CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE
STUDENT’S IN TOPIC OPTIC GEOMETRY GRADE X SMAN 1
PERBAUNGAN ACADEMIC YEAR 2014/2015
ELMINA SARI PANJAITAN (4113121017)
ABSTRACT
The objectives of this research was to analysis the Cooperative Learning Model to
student’s Learning Outcomes by using Cooperative learning model Group
Investigation type to conceptual knowledge student’s. The research was done in
SMAN Perbaungan which consists of two class, they were experimental class and
control class. The sample in this research were taken with cluster random
sampling. The research instrument had twenty questions in multiple choice forms
with five options, the instrument tested validated. After that do the treatment in
experiment class taught by cooperative learning model of GI type to conceptual
knowledge student’s and in control class taught by conventional learning model
and then done the post-test. After that was done the data analysis technique like
average value, standard deviation, normality test, homogeneity test, hypothesis
test. In experimental class and control class the average value of pretest were
39.62 and 37.90 that means the capability of students are same, while the value of
posttest in experimental class and control class were 78.37 and 69.68, from the
research get the conclusion that there was effect of Cooperative learning model
Group Investigation type to conceptual knowledge student’s. First, it could be
seen by the result of outcomes learning that get from each class, the outcomes
value from the experiment class was higher than control class. Second, it could be
seen the active of students when the model of cooperative type Group
Investigation were happened. Third, it could be seen the conceptual knowledge
from the experiment class was higher than control class.
Keyword : Cooperative, Group Investigation, Conceptual Knowledge, student’s
learning outcomes.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
Ratification Sheet
Biography
Abstract
Preface
Table of Content
List of Figure
List of Table
List of Appendix
i
ii
iii
iv
vi
viii
ix
x
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
1.2.
1.6.
1.7.
Background
Problem Identification
Problem Limitation
Problem Formulation
Research Objective
Research Benefit
Operational Definition
1
4
4
5
5
6
6
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1.
2.1.1
2.1.2.
2.1.3.
2.1.3.1.
2.1.3.2.
2.1.3.3.
2.1.4.
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
2.5.
Framework Theoretical
Definition of Learning
Definition of Learning Outcome
Definition of Learning Model
Cooperative Learning Model
Syntax Cooperative Learning Model
Cooperative Learning Model GI
Definition Conventional Learning
Learning Materials
Group Investigation Journal
The conceptual framework
Hypothesis of Research
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
3.1.
Research Location
3.2.
Population and Sample Research
7
7
8
16
17
19
20
23
24
34
37
38
39
39
vii
3.2.1.
3.2.2.
3.3.
3.3.1.
3.3.2.
3.4.
3.4.1.
3.4.2.
3.5.
3.6.
3.6.1.
3.6.2.
3.6.3.
3.6.4.
3.6.5.
3.7.
Population of Research
Sample of Research
Research Variable
Independent Variable
Dependent Variable
Type and Research Design Research Instrument
Type of Research
Design of Research
Research Procedure
Data Analysis Techniques
Determine Average Value
Determine The Standard Deviation
Normality Test
Homogeneity Test
Hypothesis Test
Research Instrument
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1.
Research Result
4.1.1 .
Pre-test Score and post test of Students
4.1.2.
Data Analysis of Post-test
4.1.2.1
Normality Test of pre-test data
4.1.2.2
Homogeneity test of Pre-test
4.1.2.3
Hypothesis Test of Pre-test
4.1.3
Post Test Value of students
4.1.4
Data analysis of Post-test
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
40
40
42
42
42
42
43
43
46
49
49
51
51
51
52
52
4.1.4.1
Normality Test of Post-test Data
54
54
4.1.4.2
4.1.4.3
4.1.5
4.2.
Homogeneity test of post-test
Hypothesis test of Post-test
Outcomes Learning in Higher Cognitive
Research Findings
54
55
55
56
4.3.
Discussion
57
CHAPTER IV CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1
5.2
Conclusion
Suggestion
61
62
REFERENCES
63
APPENDIX
65
ix
LIST OF TABLE
Table. 2.1
Major Types of knowledge in the knowledge dimension
11
Table 2.2
The Dimension and Related Cognitive Process
13
Table 2.3
Syntax Cooperative Learning Model
19
Table 2.4
Group Investigation Phases
21
Table 2.5
The advantages and disadvantages of GI
22
Table 2.6
Characteristic of Shadows in mirror
31
Table 2.7
Group Investigation Journal
36
Table 3.1
The design of the research
40
Table 3.2
The Specification learning outcomes test
47
by Anderson’s taxonomy
Table 4.1
Pre-test Score and Post-test Score in Experiment
49
Class and Control Class
Table 4.2
The comparison of pre-test value in 2 classes
50
Table 4.3
Normality test of pre-test data in Experiment
51
and Control Class
Table 4.4
Homogeneity Test of Pre-test Data
51
Table 4.5
Hypothesis Test of Pre-test Data
52
Table 4.6
Post-test Data in Experiment Class and Control Class
53
Table 4.7
Normality Test of Post-test Data in Experiment
and control class
54
Table 4.8
Calculating homogeneity test
54
Table 4.9.
Hypothesis Test of Post-test Data
55
Table 4.10
The percentage of value in level higher cognitive
56
in Experiment Class and Control Class
viii
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 2.1
Light interacts with atoms as sound interacts with tuning forks
24
Figure 2.2
Ordinary Plane Mirror Beneath
25
Figure 2.3
Solid Lines Mirror Beneath
25
Figure 2.4
The reflection light
25
Figure 2.5
The Law of Reflection
25
Figure 2.6
Instead of measuring the angles of incident and reflected rays
26
Figure 2.7
The Extended Reflected Rays
26
Figure 2.8
Example of Mirror
27
Figure 2.8
Example of a surface of clear glass
27
Figure 2.9
Diffuse Reflection
27
Figure 2.10
Example of radio wave
28
Figure 2.11
Example of refraction
28
Figure 2.12
Example of light from hot road
29
Figure 2.13
Example of refraction
30
Figure 2.14
Example of refraction
31
Figure 3.1
The overview of Research Planning
42
Figure 4.2
Column Diagram Pre-test value data in
50
Experiment Class and Control Class
Figure 4.3
Column Diagram Post-test value data in
53
Experiment Class and Control Class
Figure 4.4
Column the percentage of value in level higher
cognitive in experiment class and control class
56
x
LIST OF APPENDIX
Appendix 1
Lesson Plan (1)
65
Appendix 2
Lesson Plan (2)
75
Appendix 3
Lesson Plan (3)
85
Appendix 4
Students Worksheet I
96
Appendix 5
Students Worksheet II
100
Appendix 6
Students Worksheet II I
105
Appendix 7
Grating Optical Instruments In The Subject
Matter Optic Geometry
111
Appendix 8
Test
127
Appendix 9
Key Answer of Test
133
Appendix 11 Pre-Test and Post Test Data of Experiment Class
134
Appendix 12 Pre-Test and Post Test Data of Control Class
136
Appendix 13 Calculation of Average Score and Deviation
Standard of Pre-test and Post-test in Experiment Class
137
Appendix 14 Calculation of Average Score and Deviation
Standard of Pre-test and Post-test in Control Class
138
Appendix 15 Normality test
139
Appendix 16 Homogeneity Test Data
143
Appendix 17 Hypothesis Test
146
Appendix 18 Level of Higher Cognitive of Post Test
in Experiment Class and Control Class
151
Appendix 19 The Critical Value of L for Liliefors Test
157
Appendix 20 List of Percentil Value of t Distribution
158
Appendix 21 Table of Large Area under the Normal 0 to z
159
Appendix 22 Table of F-Distribution
160
Appendix 23 Figure of students in experiment and control class
162
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
According to Indonesian dictionary education words have meaning or how
to process or act of educating. By definition language education is the process of
changing attitudes and code conduct of a person or group in a mature business
man through teaching and training efforts. Awareness about the importance of
education has prompted various efforts and attention of the whole society against
any development of education, particularly developments in the field of
technology and information, then the learning process should be able to develop
students' skill in order to have quality fully human resources both to meet the
challenge there. In the learning process of teachers are required to be able to
choose appropriate learning models according to the circumstances of the student
in order to achieve success in learning.
Physics is one of the science subjects in schools that teach a variety of
knowledge that can develop the power of reason, the analysis, so that almost all of
the problems connected with nature can be understood so interesting to learn. To
understand the physics broadly, it must begin with the ability of the understanding
of the basic concepts in physics. A student in learning physics said to be less
successful if the change in behavior that occurs has not been able to determine the
discretion to achieve result that has been set correctly in the allotted time. To
achieve maximum learning outcomes, many aspects that influencing, including
aspects of teacher quality, level of desire learners to learn, teaching and learning
methods media, and others.
Based on interview the researcher to one of physics teacher Mrs.Ir.Julina
at SMAN 1 Perbaungan at October 16th, 2014 when researcher is training teacher
in that school, she stated that during the learning and teaching using only
conventional learning to explain the learning material coupled with the provision
of independent tasks to students after giving an explanation in the classroom. She
1
2
also said that the average value in physics are not satisfy, where the average value
are 65 has not reached the minimum completeness criteria, minimum value
specified criteria completeness of school at 70 to declare the student completed
the study of physics. Value achieved by students categorized enough, but not
purely from the results of their own learning abilities but has additional from
teacher, including the assessment of teachers to personal tasks, student attendance,
and student discipline during the process of learning. The problems faced by
students in the learning process that students are difficult in understanding the
material taught by teachers using learning model that has not enable all students.
They assume that physics is the most difficult lesson and when they face various
types of formula and calculation the physics. Students are also difficult to
investigate the questions of physics when they face the problem to answer the
questions. Based on interview about the laboratory, the teacher tells that’s seldom
to use. In that school just has one laboratory for science that’s combined with one,
there are physic, biology and chemistry lab. The problems about the lab are the
teachers seldom lazy to ask students discuss in lab because they have many
reasons, so that they just tell by conventional model.
In the learning process involves the variety of activities to do to get
optimal results. One way that can be used in order to obtain optimal results
desired as is focused in the learning process. This can be done by selecting one
appropriate learning model for the selection of appropriate learning model
essentially is an effort to optimize student learning outcomes. One of the learning
models that allows students to interact one each other is a model of cooperative
learning. Cooperative learning models can motivate students, utilizing all social
energy of students, each taking responsibility. Cooperative learning model is
useful to help students learn ranging from basic skills to solve complex problems.
According Slavin (2005) in cooperative learning, students will sit together in
groups of four people to master the material presented teachers. There are several
types that can be applied in cooperative learning model, among others: 1) Student
Team Achievement Division (STAD), 2) Jigsaw, 3) Think Pair Share (TPS), 4)
3
Number Head Together (NHT) and Group Investigation (GI ) is planning a
general classroom setting where students work in small groups using cooperative
inquiry, discussion groups, as well as planning and cooperative projects, in this
case the students were released to form his own group consisting of two to six
members.
To solve the problem, the researcher changes the conventional learning
model with cooperative learning model and also the Conceptual knowledgeis used
about the learning outcome by using the Andersons’ cognitive start from C4 until
C6 about analyze, evaluate and create. Cooperative learning models have some
types. One type of cooperative learning model to build students' confidence and
encourage their participation in the classroom is a Group Investigation cooperative
learning model. It is one form of cooperative learning that emphasizes the
participation and activities of the students to find their own materials
(information) lesson will be studied through the suitable materials, from a
textbook or students can search through the internet. It is often seen as the most
complex model and the most difficult to implement in a cooperative learning. It
involves students from planning, both in determining the topic as well as a way to
learn through investigation. It requires the students to get a good ability to
communicate well in a group process skill .The teachers who use it generally
divided in to five till six students with heterogeneous characteristics. The division
of the group can be also based on the pleasure of friends or common interest to a
particular topic. The students choose the topics that they want to learn, following a
thorough investigation of the various sub topics, then preparing and presenting a
report to the class at all.
In some of the studies that have been done to apply the cooperative model
of type Group Investigation obtained improving student learning outcomes. As
Ahmad Fauzi (2012) who conducted research in SMAN 1 Sumbul with dynamic
electric materials have different results when using the cooperative model of GI
type with direct learning model that has 16.37% increase in the average results of
his study reached 60.63 become 72.50. Weakness obtained by researcher is the
4
lack of planning early in the organization of the group and the capability of
beginning students. Suheni (2013) conducted a study on the subject matter
Temperatures in class VII SMP, obtain an average value of 75.3 where the value
exceeds the value with the criteria. Researcher also obtained that with this model
of learning activities of students in becoming active.
Based on explanation above the writer wants to do the research with title
“The Effect of Cooperative Learning Model Group Investigation (GI) Type
to Conceptual knowledge Student’s in Topic Optic Geometry Grade X
SMAN 1 Perbaungan Academic Year 2014/2015”.
1.2. Problem Identification
Based on the background that already explained, so the problem
identification in this research are:
1. The physic teacher still use the conventional learning
2. Students' learning outcomes of physics is still low in cognitive
3. During the lessons teacher never do jokes so that the lessons feel bored
4. Student rarely do physic experiments and rarely to use laboratory
5. Interaction between students and teachers in cooperative learning is still
low
1.3. Problem Limitation
Based on the problem identification, researcher limits this problem items
namely:
1. Sub topic that will be learn is Reflection in the mirrors and Refraction in
the lens
2. Cooperative learning model of type group investigation is used in
research
5
3. Physics student learning outcomes in the Conceptual knowledgedomain
bounded in grade X SMA
1.4. Problem Formulation
Based on the limitation problem, so the problem formulation are:
1. How is the physics outcome learning of students during the teaching and
learning process by using the conventional learning in the topic Optic
Geometry grade X SMAN 1 Perbaungan Academic Year 2014/2015?
2. How are the physics outcome learning of students during the teaching
and learning process by using cooperative learning model Group
Investigation (GI) type to conceptual knowledge student’s in topic
Optic Geometry grade X SMAN 1 Perbaungan Academic Year
2014/2015?
3. Are learning outcome physic for students by using in cooperative
learning model group investigation type to conceptual knowledge
student’s better than conventional learning in topic Optic Geometry
grade X SMAN 1 Perbaungan Academic Year 2014/2015?
1.5. Research Objective
There are some research objective items, namely:
1. To analyze student's learning outcomes by using Conventional in topic
Optic Geometry grade X SMAN 1 Perbaungan Academic Year
2014/2015.
2. To analyze student's learning outcomes by using Cooperative learning
model Group Investigation (GI) type to conceptual knowledge student’s
in topic Optic Geometry grade X SMAN 1 Perbaungan Academic Year
2014/2015.
3. To analyze which one better use about outcome learning physics,
Conventional learning model or cooperative model Group Investigation
6
(GI) type to Conceptual knowledge student’s in topic Optic Geometry
grade X SMAN 1 Perbaungan Academic Year 2014/2015.
1.6. Research Benefit
From this research expected are:
1. To make the teacher understand about the type model and improve the
models that use cooperative in Group Investigation to high cognitive
2. For materials input to physics teachers in selecting appropriate learning
model.
3. As the source for another researcher to develop research about
cooperative learning model of group investigation type to high cognitive
4. For reference for researcher in do more research further
1.7. Operational Definition
Operational definitions are presented in this study are as follows:
cooperative learning model type Group Investigation is one type of cooperative
learning which consists of six stages used to review the facts and basic
information that govern the interaction of students. Basically the goal of
cooperative learning is to train students to be able to think and work in groups,
discussing to solve a problem and then be responsible for reporting the results of
their discussion. Six points in Group Investigation namely: 1) Identifying, 2)
Planning, 3) Investigation, 4) Presented, 5) Evaluation.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
Based pm result research and data collection can be concluded that:
1. Average value of pre-test of experiment class is 39.62 with standard deviation
39.62, after given by treatment then students are given posttest, the average
value of posttest in experiment class using Cooperative Learning model Group
Investigation type to conceptual knowledge become 78.37 that’s category good.
2. Average value pretest of control class is 37.90 with standard deviation is 6.42,
after given by treatment then the students are given post test, the average value
posttest in control class with Conventional Learning Model 69.68 that’s
category enough with standard deviation 6.57.
3. Student’s learning outcomes in experimental class higher than in control class,
so it can be concluded that there is effect of cooperative learning model Group
Investigation type to conceptual knowledge student’s in topic Optic Geometry
grade X SMAN 1 Perbaungan 2014-2015.
61
62
5.2 Suggestion
Based on discussion of research result and conclusion above, researcher gives
suggestion to school as below:
1. To help the teacher in teaching and learning process about the type model
and improve the models to use cooperative in Group Investigation to
conceptual knowledge.
2. For materials input to physics teachers in selecting appropriate learning
model and make discussion by cooperative during the lessons.
Based on discussion of research result and conclusion above, researcher gives
suggestion to further researcher as below:
1. For further researcher who wants observe using Cooperative Learning Model
Group Investigation type to conceptual knowledge, observer must make
students more active in discussion process
2. For further researcher who wants observe using Cooperative Learning Model
Group Investigation type to to do more efficiently time when do discussion,
so time to make the discussion can use during the discussion
3. For further researcher who wants observe using Cooperative Learning Model
Group Investigation type to conceptual knowledge to do more efficiently
may using a media in learning process, so it can increased more detail and
consistent to divide time to explain and give media.
63
REFFERENCES
Anas,Sudijino. (2003) . Pengantar Evaluasi. Jakarta : PT Raja Grafindo Persada
Arends, Richard I. (2008). Learning to teach . New York: Mc Graw Hill
Companies
Arifin, Zaenal. (2009). Evaluasi Pembelajaran. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya
Cutnell & Johnson.(2001). Physics . New Delhi : Wiley India.
Hewitt,G.Paul.(2006). Conceptual Physics. United State of America:St.Petersburg
Huda, Miftahul. ( 2012 ). Cooperative Learning. Yogyakarta : Pustaka Pelajar
Ibrahim,R. ( 2010 ). Perencanaan Pengajaran. Jakarta : PT Rineka Cipta
Istarani. ( 2011). 58 Model Pembelajaran Inovatif. Medan : Media Persada
Kanginan,M.(2006). Fisika untuk SMA Kelas X. Jakarta : Erlangga
Krathwohl.R.David,2002, “A Revision Of Bloom's Taxonomy”. College of
Education, The Ohio State University
Lie.( 2010 ). Cooperative Learning. Jakarta : PT. Gramedia
Mulyasa. (2009). Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
Matthew, B.R Hergenhahn. (2009). Theories of Learning. Jakarta: Kencana
Sanjaya,Wina . (2005). Pembelajaran Dalam Implementasi Kurikulum Berbasis
Kompetensi .Jakarta: Kencana
Slavin, Robert.E. (2005). Cooperative Learning. London : Allymand Bacon.
Sumarmi. (2012). Model-model Pembelajaran Geografi. Malang : Aditya Media
Publishing.
64
Sudjana. (2002). Metode Statistika. Bandung : PT Tarsito.
Siddiqui,Mujibal Hasan,2013, “Group Investigation Model of Teaching”. Indian
journal of research. Volume 3, may 4th 2013.
Doymus,2010, “The Effects of Two Cooperative Learning Strategies on the
Teaching and Learning of the Topics of Chemical Kinetis”. Journal of
Turkish science education. Volume 7, 2 june 2010.
Doymus,2012, “The Effects of Group Investigation and Cooperative Learning
Techniques Applied in Teaching Force and Motion Subjects on
Students’ Academic Achievements”. Journal of educational science
research. Volume: 2, june 1st 2012.
Simsek,Ufuk,2013, “The Effects of Cooperative Learning Methods on Students’
Academic Achievements in Social Psychology Lessons”. International
journal on new trends in education and their implication. Volume: 4,
July 3rd 2013.
Doymus,2009, “Effects of Two Cooperative Learning Strategies on Teaching and
Learning Topics of Thermochemistry” .World applied science journal.
Volume : 7, 2009.