THE DIFFERENCE OF PROBLEM BASED LEARNING AND COOPERATIVE TYPE OF THINK PAIR SHARE TOWARD STUDENTS MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT ON TOPIC OF STATISTICS IN GRADE XI SMA NEGERI 2 BALIGE.

THE DIFFERENCE OF PROBLEM – BASED LEARNING MODEL AND
COOPERATIVE TYPE OF THINK – PAIR – SHARE TOWARD
STUDENTS’ MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT ON TOPIC
OF STATISTICS IN GRADE XI SMA NEGERI 2 BALIGE

By:
Yohannes
ID 4113111083
Mathematics Education Study Program

THESIS
Submitted to Fulfill the Requirement for Getting
the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan

MATHEMATICS DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2015

iv

PREFACE
First of all, the author is grateful to the God Almighty for His blessing and
chance for me to finish the study and complete the thesis entitled “The Difference
of Problem – Based Learning Model and Cooperative Type of Think – Pair – Share
toward Students’ Mathematics Achievement on Topic of Statistics in Grade XI
SMA Negeri 2 Balige.” The authors recognize that the completion of this thesis
thanks to the help of the moral and material from various parties.
The author’s special sincerest thanks is expressed to Mr. Drs. Syafari, M.Pd
as his thesis supervisor for his advices, encouragements, suggestions and
knowledge that have been contributed to help the author in compiling this thesis so
that this thesis could be finished. Then author also say thanks to Mr. Dr. Waminton
Rajagukguk, M.Pd as his academic supervisor for his advices, suggestion,
motivations from beginning until finishing the study. The author’s special thanks
are also given to Mr. Prof. Dr. Bornok Sinaga, M.Pd, Mr. Drs. Zul Amry, M.Si,
Ph.D, and Mr. Dr. KMS. Amin Fauzi, M.Pd as thesis examiner for their willingness
to correct, giving advices, encouragements, suggestions and knowledge that have
been contributed to help the author in compiling this thesis.
The author also give thanks to Mr. Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd as the
Rector of State University of Medan, Mr. Prof. Drs. Motlan Sirait, M.Sc, Ph.D as

the Dean of Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Mr. Dr. Edy Surya, M.Si
as the Head of Mathematics Department, Mr. Drs. Yasifati Hia, M.Si as the
Secretary of Mathematics Department and Mr. Prof. Dr. rer.nat Binari Manurung,
M.Si as the Coordinator of Bilingual Program for all the valuable guidance and
contribution to complete this thesis. Big thanks for all the lecturers of Mathematics
Department and all administrative staff at the faculty, department, and bilingual
program for their guidance and administrative assistance given. Then, also give
thanks to Mr. Aldon Samosir, S.Pd as Headmaster of SMA Negeri 2 Balige, Mr.
Marudut Simangunsong, S.Pd as Mathematics Teacher at SMA Negeri 2 Balige and
also all of teachers and staff in SMA Negeri 2 Balige who help author in doing and
finishing the research.

v

This thesis can’t be compiled well without the everlasting love and pray
from author’s beloved parents, St. Pintor Mencius Naibaho and Herlina Ginting,
also for authors’s beloved sisters Nansie Rosamei Naibaho, SE and her husband
Jimmi Situmorang, SE, Shinta Seftiany Naibaho, S.Pd and her husband Leo
Nainggolan, S.Sos, and for my young brother Hervin Naibaho for their support,
motivation, material and pray so that author can face the problem during his

academic year at the university.
This thesis was compiled from the strength, spirit, and endless friendship
ever given by author’s best friends (Debby Masteriana, Nelly Yunita Malau, and
Widi Aulia Widakdo). Also big thanks for family of BilMath 2011: Evan, Tika, Oji,
Vera, Anna, Dewi, Yerni, Lita, Kris, Aprita, Tari, Roni, Samantha, Dwi, Leni,
Mawaddah, Sapta, Aci, Sifa, Elvi, and Galang for all support and togetherness
during first semester until eight semester. For all partner of PPLT Unimed Bilingual
2014 of SMA Negeri 2 Balige, for my senior and junior in mathematics department,
my students when author was doing practice in SMA Negeri 2 Balige, thanks for
the support and motivation to finish my study.
Finally, the author realize that there are also many weakness and
insufficiency in this thesis, for that the author hopes suggestion and critic in making
this thesis to be better. Author also hopes this thesis will give advantage for reader
and the world of education.

Medan,

June 2015

Author,

Yohannes
ID. 4113111083

iii

THE DIFFERENCE OF PROBLEM – BASED LEARNING MODEL AND
COOPERATIVE TYPE OF THINK – PAIR – SHARE TOWARD
STUDENTS’ MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT ON TOPIC
OF STATISTICS IN GRADE XI SMA NEGERI 2 BALIGE
Yohannes (ID 4113111083)
ABSTRACT
The research is aimed to find out if there is a difference between Problem –
Based Learning (PBL) Model and Cooperative Type of Think – Pair – Share (TPS)
Model toward students’ mathematics achievement on topic statistics. The type of
this research is Quasi Experiment Research which was conducted in SMA Negeri
2 Balige. The population of this research is all regular students at SMA Negeri 2
Balige. The sampling technique applied was cluster random sampling. The
experiment class I that is chosen XI Science 6 consist of 32 students, meanwhile
the experiment class II that is chosen XI Science 7 consist of 31 students. The

instrument used to measure the students’ mathematics achievement was a multiple
choice test. The normality test used of Liliefor’s test and the homogeneity test by
using Fisher test. The data analysis technique was t-test at the level of significance
 = 5%.
Before doing the hypothesis test, it would be done normality and
homogeneity test beforehand. From the result of those tests, sample was taken from
normal distributed and homogeneous variance. From the data analysis of each of
experimental class were obtained that the average score of posttest in experiment
class I is 16.03 and the average score of posttest in experiment class II is 14.06.
Then the test of hypothesis by using t-test which is tcalculate = 3.057 and ttable = 2.000
so that tcalculate > ttable (3.057 > 2.000). Consequently Ho is rejected and accept Ha.
So, it can be concluded that there is a difference between Problem – Based
Learning (PBL) Model and Cooperative Type of Think – Pair – Share (TPS) Model
toward students’ mathematics achievement. Based on the research that has been
done, mathematics teachers are suggested to use Problem – Based Learning model
or Think – Pair – Share model as learning model alternative in improving students’
mathematics achievement.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Sheet of Agreement

i

Biography

ii

Abstract

iii

Preface

iv

Table of Contents

vi

List of Figure

ix

List of Table

x

List of Appendix

xi

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

1

1.1. Background of Study

1

1.2. Problem Identification

5

1.3. Problem Limitation

5

1.4. Problem Formulation

5

1.5. Objectives of Study

7

1.6. Benefits of Study

7

1.7. Operational Definition

7

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

8

2.1. Theoritical Framework

8

2.1.1. Definition of Learning

8

2.1.2. Vygotsky’ Learning Theory

9

2.1.3. Mathematics Achievement

11

2.1.4. Problem – Based Learning (PBL) Model

13

2.1.4.1. Problem – Based Learning (PBL)

13

2.1.4.2. Steps of Problem – Based Learning (PBL)

15

2.1.4.3. Advantages and Disadvantages of PBL

18

2.1.5. Cooperative Learning Model

19

2.1.5.1. Cooperative Learning

19

vii

2.1.5.2. Characteristics of Cooperative Learning

21

2.1.5.3. Step of Cooperative Learning Model

21

2.1.5.4. Cooperative Learning Type of TPS

22

2.1.5.5. Steps of Think – Pair – Share (TPS)

23

2.1.5.6. Advantages and Disadvantages of TPS

23

2.1.6. The Differences between PBL and TPS Learning Model
2.2. Statistics

24
25

2.2.1. Center of A Distribution (Cenral Tendency)

25

2.2.2. Measures of Spread

27

2.2.3. Interpretation of Data

29

2.3. Relevant Study

31

2.4. Conceptual Framework

31

2.5. Hypothesis of Study

32

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METODOLOGY

33

3.1. Type of Study

33

3.2. Place and Time of Study

33

3.3. Population and Sample of Study

33

3.4. Variable and Instrument of Study

34

3.4.1. Variable of Study

34

3.4.2. Instruments of Study

35

3.4.2.1. Validy Test

36

3.4.2.2. Reliability Tes

36

3.4.2.3. Difficulty Level Index

37

3.4.2.4. Discrimination Power of The Test

38

3.5. Design of Study

39

3.6. Procedure of Study

40

3.7. Technique of Analyzing Data

41

3.7.1. Normality Test

41

3.7.2. Homogeneity Test

42

3.8. Test of Hypothesis

43

viii

CHAPTER IV: RESULT AND DISCUSSION

33

4.1. Statistic Descriptive Analysis

47

4.1.1. Students’ Mathematics Achievement Taught By
Problem – Based Learning Based on Pre – Test

47

4.1.2. Students’ Mathematics Achievement Taught By Cooperative
Type of Think – Pair – Share Based on Pre – Test

49

4.1.3. Students’ Mathematics Achievement Taught By
Problem – Based Learning Based on Post – Test

50

4.1.4. Students’ Mathematics Achievement Taught By Cooperative
Type of Think – Pair – Share Based on Post – Test
4.2. Assumption Analysis Test

51
52

4.2.1. Normality Test of Pre – Test

52

4.2.2. Variance Homogeneity Test of Pre – Test

53

4.2.3. Normality Test of Post – Test

54

4.2.4. Variance Homogeneity Test of Post – Test

55

4.2.5 Hypothesis Test

55

4.2.5.1. Hypothesis Test of Pre – Test

55

4.2.5.2. Hypothesis Test of Post – Test

56

4.3. Discussion of Study Result

56

4.4. Weakness of Study

57

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

59

5.1. Conclusion

59

5.2. Suggestion

59

REFERENCES

60

x

LIST OF TABLE
Table 2.1.

Step of Problem – Based Learning Model

15

Table 2.2.

Syntax of Cooperative Learning Model

20

Table 2.3.

Differences between PBL and TPS Model

23

Table 3.1.

Validity Test of Pre – Test

35

Table 3.2.

Validity Test of Post – Test

36

Table 3.3.

The Criterion of Reliability

38

Table 3.4.

Reliability Test of Pre – Test and Post – Test

38

Table 3.5.

Difficulty Level Index and Discrimination Power
of Pre – Test

Table 3.6.

40

Difficulty Level Index and Discrimination Power
of Post – Test

40

Table 3.7.

The Research Planning

42

Table 4.1.

Summary of Descriptive Statistics

47

Table 4.2.

The Students’ Mathematics Achievement Taught
by PBL Model

Table 4.3.

The Students’ Mathematics Achievement Taught
by TPS Model

Table 4.4.

49

The Students’ Mathematics Achievement Taught
by PBL Model

Table 4.5.

48

50

The Students’ Mathematics Achievement Taught
by TPS Model

51

Table 4.6.

Summary of Normality Test of Pre – Test

53

Table 4.7.

Summary of Fisher Test of Pre – Test

54

Table 4.8.

Summary of Normality Test of Post – Test

54

Table 4.9.

Summary of Fisher Test of Post – Test

55

Table 4.10.

Summary Result of Hypothesis Test of Pre - Test

55

Table 4.11.

Summary Result of Hypothesis Test of Post - Test

56

ix

LIST OF FIGURE

Figure 2.1.

Learner Knowledge and Zone of Proximal Development

9

Figure 2.2.

Components of PBL Approach

14

Figure 2.3.

Approximating a Histogram with a Smooth Curve

29

Figure 3.1.

The Chart of Procedures of Study1

43

Figure 4.1.

Histogram of Data Distribution Achievement Taught by
Problem – Based Learning Model

Figure 4.2.

Histogram of Data Distribution Achievement Taught by
Think – Pair - Share Model

Figure 4.3.

49

Histogram of Data Distribution Achievement Taught by
Problem – Based Learning Model

Figure 4.4.

48

51

Histogram of Data Distribution Achievement Taught by
Think – Pair - Share Model

52

xi

LIST OF APPENDIX

Appendix 1

Score List Middle Examination of Odd Semester

64

Appendix 2

Lesson Plan I PBL Classroom

65

Appendix 3

Lesson Plan II PBL Classroom

75

Appendix 4

Lesson Plan I TPS Classroom

89

Appendix 5

Lesson Plan II TPS Classroom

99

Appendix 6

SAS 1 PBL Classroom

112

Appendix 7

Alternative Solution of SAS 1 PBL Classroom

118

Appendix 8

SAS 2 PBL Classroom

124

Appendix 9

Alternative Solution of SAS 2 PBL Classroom

131

Appendix 10 SAS 3 PBL Classroom

138

Appendix 11 Alternative Solution of SAS 3 PBL Classroom

147

Appendix 12 SAS 1 TPS Classroom

154

Appendix 13 Alternative Solution of SAS 1 TPS Classroom

160

Appendix 14 SAS 2 TPS Classroom

164

Appendix 15 Alternative Solution of SAS 2 TPS Classroom

170

Appendix 16 SAS 3 TPS Classroom

174

Appendix 17 Alternative Solution of SAS 3 TPS Classroom

181

Appendix 18 Instrument of Pre – Test

187

Appendix 19 Solution of Instrument of Pre – Test

193

Appendix 20 Blueprint of Instrument Pre – Test

198

Appendix 21 Instrument of Post – Test

200

Appendix 22 Solution of Instrument of Post – Test

206

Appendix 23 Blueprint of Instrument Post – Test

210

Appendix 24 Observation Sheet of Learning Process PBL Class

212

Appendix 25 Observation Sheet of Learning Process TPS Class

216

Appendix 26 Validity Test of Instrument Pre – Test

220

xii

Appendix 27 Validity Test of Instrument Post – Test

223

Appendix 28 Reliability Test of Instrument Pre – Test

226

Appendix 29 Reliability Test of Instrument Post – Test

229

Appendix 30 Discrimination Power and Difficulty Level of Pre – Test

232

Appendix 31 Discrimination Power and Difficulty Level of Post – Test

235

Appendix 32 Code Name and Attendance of Students in PBL Classroom 238
Appendix 33 Code Name and Attendance of Students in TPS Classroom 239
Appendix 34 Group Division Both Classroom

240

Appendix 35 The Result of Students Pre – Test

242

Appendix 36 The Result of Students Post – Test

244

Appendix 37 Normality Test of Pre – Test and Post – Test

246

Appendix 38 Homogeneity Test of Pre – Test and Post – Test

252

Appendix 39 Statistic Hypothesis of Pre – Test

254

Appendix 40 Statistic Hypothesis of Post – Test

256

Appendix 41 Critical Value from Liliefors Test

258

Appendix 42 Table of F Distribution

259

Appendix 43 Table of T Distribution

260

Appendix 44 Pattern of Students Answer

261

Appendix 45 Research Documentation

266

Appendix 46 Letter of Supervisor Acceptance

272

Appendix 47 Letter of Research License from Math Department

273

Appendix 48 Letter of Research License from Faculty

274

Appendix 49 Letter of Conducting Research from School

275

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 conclude that: There is difference between problem – based learning
model and cooperative learning model type of think – pair – share toward students’
mathematics achievement at SMA Negeri 2 Balige. The students’ mathematics
achievement taught by Problem – Based Learning (PBL) Model is higher than
students’ mathematics achievement taught by Think – Pair – Share (TPS) Model.
5.2. Suggestion
Based on the conclusion and the relevant study can be offered some
suggestion below:
1. For mathematics teacher, Problem – Based Learning (PBL) Model or Think
– Pair – Share (TPS) Model can be alternative learning model to improve
the students’ mathematics achievement. These model can produce the
higher mathematics achievement rather than use conventional learning
which not involved student actively.
2. For mathematics teacher which provide student activity sheet, it will be
better if the problems given have any clue or scaffolding. Student activity
sheet of PBL and TPS class should be appropriate and proportional so that
students could solve the problem although the composition of group
members of PBL and TPS are different.
3. For mathematics teacher who want to use PBL or TPS as model in learning
process should be attended at class and time management. Especially for
TPS class which has many pair, teacher have to be watchful when control
the class, so that the objectives of learning can achieved well.

59

60

REFERENCES
Alice., (2007), Interactive Learning, http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/interactive/tp
share.html, accessed on January 9th 2015.
Arends, R., (2009), Learning to Teach 8th Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York.
________., (2008), Learning to Teach, Pustaka Pelajar, Yogjakarta.
Arikunto, Suharsimi., (2010), Prosedur Penelitian, Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
Asmin., (2012), Pengukuran dan Penilaian Hasil Belajar dengan Analisis Klasik
dan Modern, LARISPA, Medan.
Azer, Samy., (2008), Navigating Problem – Based Learning, Elsevier Australia,
Australia.
Beaton, A.E., et al., (1996), Science Achievement in the Middle School Years,
TIMSS International Study Center Boston College, USA.
Benjamin, Amy and John T. Crow., (2013), Vocabulary at The Center, Routledge,
New York.
Berger, K., (2004), Developing Person Through The Life Span (6th Edition), Worth
Publishing, New York.
Biehler & Snowman., (2009), Psychology Applied To Teaching: Cooperative
Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8/e. Houghton Mifflin Co.
(Chapter 4 & 11).
Bijnens, Johan., (2006), Introduction to PBL: Problem Based learning, Grabbit and
Grubbit, UK.
Brown, Tom and John Eagles., (2011), Teaching Psychiatry to Undergraduates,
The Royal College Psychiatrists, London.
Cohen, et.all., (2007), Research Methods in Education, Routledge Taylor and
Francis Grup, London.
Delisle, Robert., (1997), How to Use Problem – Based Learning in The Classroom,
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, USA.
Dobbs, Vicki., (2008), Problem Based Learning, ProQuest Information and
Learning Company, USA, Journal of Vicki Dobbs to certify the doctoral
study of Walden University.

61

Dyson, Ben and Ashley Casey., (2012), Cooperative Learning in Physical
Education: A Research – Based Approach, Routledge, New York.
Gregory, Gayle H. and Carolyn Chapman., (2007), Differentiated Instructional
Strategies: One Size Doesn’t Fit All Second Edition, Sage Publications
Company, California.
Howell, David C., (2012), Statistical Methods for Psychology, PWS Publisher,
USA.
Hudojo, H., (2005), Pengembangan Kurikulum dan Pembelajaran Matematika,
Universitas Negeri Malang (UM Press), Malang.
Jean, Loretta Everhart., (2011), Math Vitamins: Daily Dose for Students Learning
How to Solve Word Problems, iUniverse, USA.
Johnson, Robert and Patricia Kuby., (2010), Elementary Statistics, Cencage
Learning, USA.
Kothari, C.R., (2004), Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques 2nd
Revised Edition, New Age International (P) Limited Publisher, New Delhi.
Kusumah, Cipta Jayakarta,. (2009), Perbandingan Model Pembelajaran Problem
Based Learning Dengan Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Think Pair
Share

Terhadap

Hasil

Belajar

Siswa

Pada

Program

Diklat

Mengoperasikan Peralatan Pengalih Daya Tegangan Rendah (MP2DTR)
Di BPTP Bandung, S1 Thesis, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.
Laili, Binti Nur., (2010), Perbedaan Hasil Belajar Siswa yang Diajar dengan
Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif dan yang Diajar dengan Model
Pembelajaran Berdasarkan Masalah pada Materi Pokok Bangun Ruang
Sisi Lengkung dikelas IX SMP Giki 3 Surabaya, EngD thesis, UIN Sunan
Ampel, Surabaya.
LIPI., (2008), Masyarakat Indonesia: Majalah Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial Indonesia,
Yayasan Obor Indonesia, Jakarta.
McBurney, Donald H. and Theresa L. White., (2010), Research Methods Eighth
Edition, Wadsworth Cencage Learning, USA.
Millis, Barbara J., (2010), Cooperative Learning in Higher Education: Across the
Disciplines, Across the Academy, Stylus Publishing, Virginia.

62

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)., (2000), Principles and
Standards for School Mathematics, Reston, NCTM.
Nurgiyantoro, Burhan, et al., (2000), Statistika Terapan untuk Penelitian Ilmu-Ilmu
Sosial, Gadjah Mada University Press, Yogjakarta.
O’Connor, Andrea B., (2006), Clinical Instruction and Evaluation: A Teaching
Resource, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Canada.
Peck, Roxy and Jay L. Devore., (2010), Statistics: The Exploration and Analysis of
Data Seventh Edition, Cencage Learning, USA.
Roberts, Tim S., (2004), Online Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice, Idea
Group Inc, USA.
Ryan, G. L., and Quinn, C. N., (1994), Cognitive apprenticeship and problem based
learning. In S.E. Chen, R. Cowdroy, A. Kingsland, and M. Ostwald (Eds.)
Reflections on Problem Based Learning (p. 15-33), Australian Problem
Based Learning Network, Sydney.
Sanjaya, Wina., (2009), Kurikulum dan Pembelajaran: Teori dan praktik
Pengembangan Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan, Prenada Media
Group, Jakarta.
Silipigni, Lynn Connaway and Ronald R. Powell., (2010), Basic Research Methods
for Librarians, Greenwood Publishing Group, USA.
Slavin, Robert., (2000), Cooperate Learning: Theory, Research and Practice,
Allymand Bacon, London.
Spiegel, Murray R., (2000), Schaum’s Easy Outline: Theory and Problems of
Statistics, McGraw – Hill Companies, USA.
Sudjana., (2009), Metoda Statistika, Tarsito, Bandung.
Tan, O. S., (2003), Problem – Based Learning Innovation: Using Problems to
Power Learning in the 21st Century, Thomson Learning, Singapore.
Trianto., (2009), Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif – Progresif, Prenada
Media Group, Jakarta.
Trisna, Benny N., (2005), Pembelajaran Matematika Realistik di Kelas VIII (Topik
Persamaan Garis Lurus), Thesis, Post–graduates, Unimed, Medan.

63

Uden, Lorna and Chris Beaumont., (2006), Technology and Problem – Based
Learning, Idea Group Inc, USA.
Ulfah, Meiria Mentari., (2014), Studi Perbandingan Hasil belajar Kimia Siswa
Menggunakan Model Pembelajaran PBL (Problem Based Learning) dan
Model Pembelajaran TPS (Think Pair Share), Skripsi, UB, Bengkulu.
Zakaria, Effandi, et al., (2013), Journal: Effect of Cooperative Learning on
Secondary School Students’ Mathematics Achievement Vol 4, No.2, 98-100,
Creative Education, Malaysia, Published Online February 2013 in SciRes
(http://www.scirp.org/journal/ce).
___________________., (2010). The effects of cooperative learning on students’
mathematics achievement and attitude towards mathematics. Journal of
Social Science, 6, 272-275.