THE EFFECT OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL TYPE GROUP INVESTIGATION TO STUDENT`S LEARNING OUTCOMES ON LINEAR MOTION TOPIC IN 10TH GRADE SMA SANTO THOMAS 3 MEDAN A.Y. 2014/2015.



฀REFACE
฀raise and gratitude to God Almighty Jesus Christ, for all the graces and
blessings that provide health and wisdom to the author that this study can be
completed properly in accordance with the planned time.
Thesis entitled " The Effect of Cooperative Learning Model Type Group
Investigation to Student’s Learning Outcomes on Linear Motion Topic in 10th
Grade SMA Santo Thomas 3 Medan A.Y. 2014/2015", prepared to obtain a
Bachelor's degree of ฀hysics Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural
Science in State University of Medan.
On this occasion the author like to thank to my father Drs. Jonas Ramza
Sitinjak, my mother Rasmendawaty br. Sinurat, my sisters Jesica Vitasari Sitinjak
and Josephin Triprani Sitinjak and my brother Jogi Arif Guruh Sitinjak that
already give support and spirit to finish this thesis. Thanks also to my grandfather
Manahan T. Sitinjak, my grandmother ฀erdamen br. Ginting and all of my family
who have gave advice to author. Thanks also to ฀rof. Dr. Sahyar, M.S., MM, as
Thesis Advisor who has provided guidance and suggestions to the author since the
beginning of the study until the completed of this thesis writing. Thanks also to
฀rof. Drs. Motlan, M.Sc., ฀h.D., Dr. Derlina, M.Si and Drs. J. H. ฀anggabean,
M. Si who have provided input and suggestions to complete this thesis. Thanks

also presented to ฀rof. Dr. Mara Bangun Harahap, M.Si.,M.M as the academic
supervisor and to coordinator of bilingual ฀rof. Dr. rer.nat. Binari Manurung,
M.Si, and the entire lecturer and staff in physics department of FMI฀A UNIMED
who have helped the author. Appreciation were also presented to headmaster of
SMA Santo Thomas 3 Medan Muda Mikael Ginting, S.฀d., M.Si and all teachers
in SMA Santo Thomas 3 Medan that have helped author during this research.
Especially thanks to my girlfriend Sally Fransiska who have helped, prayed and
gave supported me, for all of my friends in Bilingual ฀hysics Class 2010, James,
Rikcy, Indra, Jeneva, and Riando, Lindu, Evi, Uli, Christine, Nur Azizah, Fitri,
Roffi, Rindy, Feggi and Kartika, who have helped author until this thesis finished.
Thanks also to my ฀฀L friends, Rikcy, Fery, Rany, Rabiah, Cici, Anggi, Shela

4

And Wulida and all of my friend NHKB฀ Jetun who have helped and gave
support during writting this thesis.
The author has endeavored to as much as possible in completing this
thesis, but the author is aware there are many drawbacks in terms of both content
and grammar, then the authors welcome any suggestions and constructive
criticism from readers for this thesis perfectly. The author hope the contents of

this paper would be useful in enriching the reportoire of knowledge.

Medan,

March 2015

Author,

Jovan F. D. Sitinjak



฀HE EFFEC฀ OF COOPERA฀IVE LEARNING MODEL ฀YPE GROUP
INVES฀IGA฀ION (GI) ฀O S฀UDEN฀S’ LEARNING OU฀COME
ON LINEAR MO฀ION ฀OPIC IN 10 ฀H GRADE SMA
SAN฀O ฀HOMAS 3 MEDAN A.Y. 2014/2015
Jovan F. D. Sitinjak (Reg. Number : 4103322014)
ABS฀RAC฀
฀he objectives of this research is to know whether students’ learning
outcome by using cooperative learning model type group investigation is better

than conventional learning in the subject matter linear motion in class X SMA
SAN฀O ฀HOMAS 3 MEDAN A.Y. 2014/2015
฀he research method was quasi experimental. ฀he populations were all X
IPA grade students in first semester that consist of 3 classes SMA Santo ฀homas 3
Medan. ฀he samples of this research conduct two classes and consist of 62
students, 31 from experiment class and 31 from control class and define by
random cluster sampling. ฀he results that were obtained: pre-test mean value of
experiment class was 42.26 and 41.45 for control class and then post-test mean
value of the experiment class was 80.48 and 64.03 was the mean value for control
class. Standard deviation in pre-test were 7.62 in experiment class and 7.55 in
control class and standard deviation in post-test for two classes were 6.87 and
8.89. ฀hen, based on observation that done by observers by using observation
sheet of students’ affective and psychomotor. Students’ affective score on last
meeting of experiment and control class are 91.83 and 87.10 and students’
psychomotor score on last meeting of experiment and control class are 85.01 and
80.78 .
From data, concluded that there was the Effect of Cooperative Learning
Model ฀ype Group Investigation on Students’ Learning Outcome on Linier
Motion ฀opic in 10th Grade SMA Santo ฀homas 3 Medan. Its conclude that
learning outcome by using

Cooperative Learning Model ฀ype Group
Investigation is better than by using Conventional Learning on Linier Motion
฀opic in 10th Grade SMA Santo ฀homas 3 Medan A.Y. 2014/2015.
Key word: Cooperative Learning Model ฀ype Group Investigation, Students’
Learning Outcome, .



฀ONOENO
฀egimitation

i

Biography

ii

Abstract

iii


Preface

iv

Content

vi

Figure ฀ist

ix

Table ฀ist

x

Appendix ฀ist

xi


฀hapter I Intropuction

1

1.1

Background

1

1.2

Problem Identification

5

1.3

Problem ฀imitation


5

1.4

Problem Formulation

5

1.5

Research Objectives

6

1.6

Research Benefit

6


฀hapter II Literature Review

7

2.1

Definition of ฀earning and ฀earning Outcome

7

2.1.1

Definition of ฀earning

7

2.1.2

Definition of ฀earning Outcome


8

2.2

Cooperative ฀earning Model Type Group Investigation

10

2.2.1

Model of ฀earning Definition

10

2.2.2

Definition Of Cooperative ฀earning

10


2.2.3

Group Investigation (GI)

12

2.3

Conventional ฀earning

14

2.4

Subject Matter

15

2.4.1


Motion is relative

15

2.4.2

Distance and Displacement

15

7

2.4.3

2.4.4
2.4.5

Speed and Velocity

17

2.4.3.1 Average Speed and Average Velocity

17

2.4.3.2 Instantaneous Speed and Velocity

18

Acceleration and Deceleration

20

2.4.4.1 Acceleration

20

Uniform Motion With Constant Velocity and Acceleration 21
2.5.4.1 Uniform Motion With Constant Velocity

21

2.5.4.2 Uniform Motion With Constant Acceleration

23

2.5

Group Investigation Journal

31

2.6

The Difference with Another Research Before

34

2.7

Conceptual Framework

35

2.8

xypothesis of Research

36

฀hapter III Research Methopology

37

3.1

Research ฀ocation

37

3.2

Population and Sample Research

37

3.2.1

Population of Research

37

3.2.2

Sample of Research

37

3.3

3.4

3.5

Research Variable

37

3.3.1

Independent Variable

37

3.3.2

Dependent Variable

37

Type and Research Design

37

3.4.1

Type of Research

37

3.4.2

Design of Research

37

Research Instrument
3.5.1

Instrument of Student ฀earning Outcome at

Experiment Class

3.5.2

38
38

3.5.1.1 Instrument of Cognitive Domain

38

3.5.1.2 Instrument of Affective Domain

40

3.5.1.3 Instrument of Psychomotor Domain

42

Validity Test

44

8

3.6

Research Procedure

44

3.7

Data Analysis Techniques

46

3.7.1

Determine Average Value

46

3.7.2

Determine the Standard Deviation

46

3.7.3

Normality Test

46

3.7.4

xomogenity Test

47

3.7.5

xypothesis Test

47

฀hapter IV Research Result anp Discussion

49

4.1.

Research Result

49

4.1.1. Pretest Score of Student in Experiment and Control Class

46

4.1.2. Data Analysis of Pretest

51

4.1.2.1 Normality Test of Pretest Data

51

4.1.2.2 xomogeneity Test of Pretest

51

4.1.2.3 xypothesis Test of Pretest

52

4.1.3. Post test Score of Student in Experiment and Control Class 53
4.1.4

4.1.5
4.2.

Data Analysis of Post Test

54

4.1.4.1 Normality Test of Post Test

54

4.1.4.2 xomogeneity test of Post Test

54

4.1.4.3 xypothesis test of Post Test

55

Observation

55

Discussion

58

฀hapter V ฀onclusion anp Suggestion

60

5.1.

Conclusion

60

5.2.

Suggestion

60

References

62

฀0

฀ABLE LIS฀
฀able 2.1

Group Investigation Phases

12

฀able 2.2

Free fall from rest

26

฀able 2.3

Distance fallen in free fall

28

฀able 2.4

Group Investigation Journal

31

฀able 3.1

฀he Design of the Research

38

฀able 3.2

฀he Specification learning outcomes test

39

฀able 3.3

Assessment Criteria of Affective and Psychomotor domain 40

฀able 3.4

Guidelines for Scoring Observation of Students’ affective
in Experiment and Control Class

฀able 3.5

Guidelines for Scoring Observation of Students’
Psychomotor in Experiment Class

฀able 3.6

41
42

Guidelines for Scoring Observation of Students’
Psychomotor in Control Class

43

฀able 4.1

Pre-test and Post test Score

49

฀able 4.2

Pre-test Score in Experiment and Control Class

50

฀able 4.3

Normality ฀est of Pre-test data in
Experiment and Control Class

51

฀able 4.4

Homogeneity ฀est of Pre-฀est Data

52

฀able 4.5

Hypothesis ฀est of Pre-฀est Data

52

฀able 4.6

Post ฀est Data in Experiment and Control Class

53

฀able 4.7

Normality ฀est of Pre-test data in
Experiment and Control Class

54

฀able 4.8

Homogeneity ฀est of Post ฀est Data

54

฀able 4.9

Hypothesis ฀est of Post ฀est Data

55

฀able 4.10

Score of Students’ Affective

56

฀able 4.11

Score of Students’ Psychomotor

57



฀IGURE LIST
฀igure 2.1

When sitting on a chair, your speed is zero relative to
Earth but 30 km/s relative to the Sun

15

฀igure 2.2

Children moves east 50m then 30m west

15

฀igure 2.3

Ali moves from A to B, but Rudi moves from D to C

16

฀igure 2.4

Graph the position (x) towards to (t) of any linear motion

18

฀igure 2.5

Graph the position (x) towards to (t) of any linear motion

19

฀igure 2.6

Graph velocity toward to time

20

฀igure 2.7

Graph v-t

22

฀igure 2.8

Graph s-t

22

฀igure 2.9

Moving objects with irregular straight position so,
distance Δs and position of the end s

23

฀igure 2.10

Graph velocity toward to time

24

฀igure 2.11

(a) Graph s-t on uniform motion with
constant acceleration
(b) Graph a-t on uniform motion with
constant acceleration

฀igure 2.12

25

(a) Pretend that falling rock is equipped
with a speedometer.
(b) The rate at which the velocity changes
Each second is the same

27

฀igure 2.13

(a) Graph v-t, (b) Graph s-t

29

฀igure 2.14

Upward vertical motion

30

฀igure 3.1

The overview of research planning

45

฀igure 4.1

Column Diagram Pre-Test Value

50

฀igure 4.2

Column Diagram Post Test Value

53

฀igure 4.3

Developing of Students’ Affective

57

฀igure 4.4

Developing of Students’ Affective

58

฀฀

฀PPENDEX LEST
฀ppendex 1

Lesson Plan 1

64

฀ppendex 2

Lesson Plan 2

73

฀ppendex 3

Lesson Plan 3

82

฀ppendex 4

Worksheet 1

90

฀ppendex 5

Worksheet 2

93

฀ppendex 6

Worksheet 3

96

฀ppendex 7

Lattece of Pre-Test

99

฀ppendex 8

Pre-Test

111

฀ppendex 9

Key ฀nswer of Pre-Test

118

฀ppendex 10 Lattece of Post Test

119

฀ppendex 11 Post Test

130

฀ppendex 12 Key ฀nswer of Post Test

136

฀ppendex 13 Pre-Test and Post Test Data of Experement Class

137

฀ppendex 14 Pre-Test and Post Test Data of Control Class

138

฀ppendex 15 Calculateon of ฀verage Score and Deveateon Standard
of Pre-Test and Post-Test

139

฀ppendex 16 Normalety Test

141

฀ppendex 17 Homogeneety Test Data

145

฀ppendex 18 Hypotheses Test

147

฀ppendex 19 Observateon of Students’ ฀ffecteve en Experement Class

150

฀ppendex 20 Observateon of Students’ ฀ffecteve en Control Class

151

฀ppendex 21 Observateon of Students’ Psychomotor en Experement Class 152
฀ppendex 22 Observateon of Students’ Psychomotor en Control Class

153

฀ppendex 23 Lest of Cretecal Value for Leleefors

154

฀ppendex 24 Lest of Percentel Value for Destrebuteon t

155

฀ppendex 25 Table Of Regeon Under Normal Curve 0 to z

156

฀ppendex 26 F Destrebuteon Values

157



฀HAPTER I
Introduction
1.1 Background
Based on UU No. 20 of 2003 about National Education System says that
“฀endidikan adalah usaha sadar dan terencana untuk mewujudkan suasana
belajar dan proses pembelajaran agar peserta didik secara aktif mengembangkan
potensi dirinya untuk memiliki kekuatan spiritual keagamaan, pengendalian diri,
kepribadian, kecerdasan, akhlak mulia, serta keterampilan yang diperlukan
dirinya, masyarakat, bangsa dan negara”. The importance of education as the
capital of the younger generation, to achieve a successful and capable citizens.
Government always pay attention to the education of Indonesia. All
government’s effort is characterized by an increase in Revenue and Expenditure
National Budget of education, curriculum changing, foster educators, cooperating
with other countries to better the quality of education etc. But, The government
can not fend for themselves, which is required for the participation of all
education stakeholders include: the Department of Education, superintendent,
principal, teacher, parent, school committee, school board, community, business
and industries world, as well as all parents agency concerned directly or indirectly
to the educational activities in schools (Wau : 20฀3). The cooperation is
performed to achieve national education goals are written in UU RI No. 20
Chapter II Subsection 3 Of 2003 is to develop the potential of student to become a
man of faith and fear of God Almighty, noble, healthy, knowledgeable, skilled,
creative, indep endent, and become citizens of a democratic and responsible.
School as an institution which is learning activities take place. An
excellent school is able to act as an educational process (educational process that
emphasizes on educating and teaching activities), the process of socialization
(social processes, especially for student), and the place of transformation process
(the process of behavioral changing towards a better). In the school, teacher is the
most influential stakeholder toward the quality and abilities of learner, because
teacher interact and communicate directly and very close to the learner. Learner is

2

educated by teacher at school every day. The ability of teacher to educate is very
influential to success or failure the learning activities at school. For the teacher
must be able to present learning activities more active, creative, and fun to
produce better in the future. So, it can be conclude the education is very important
and key to the success of nation.
One of the subject that is taught in school, especially in high school is
physics. Physics is the science that studies about natural phenomenon. Therefore,
physics is one of the lessons is quite interesting because it relates directly to
natural phenomena and knowledge can be applied in daily life.
But in fact physics is one lesson that has the lowest score. This is caused
by the large number of student who doesn’t like physics because they think
physics is a difficult subject to understand, especially when faced with a
complicated formulas and calculations. This fact is in accordance with the results
of observations conducted by researchers at SMA Santo Thomas 3 Medan.
Researcher use questioner instrument to observe student interest in physics
subject. From the observation result, At the class there was ±73% student said rare
learn physics in group, ±฀6% student said always and just ±฀฀% said never learn
physics in group discussion. Before learn physics, just ±฀6% student prepare them
self before learn physics, then ±79% student sometimes do the preparation, and
there was ±5% student don’t do anything. And then there was ±24% student
interest to solve physics problem by them self, then ±76% student interest to
solve physics problem with discussion. From the observation result above,
researcher conclude that student in SMA Santo Thomas 3 Medan wasn’t interest
to learn physics and rarely learn physics. And this will be influenced the student
outcome in learning physics.
Researcher also interviewed physics teachers class X SMA Santo Thomas
3 Medan, Mrs. M. Naibaho. She said because she teaches at science class, student
interest with physics but the problem is time. She said that she need more time to
teach, because it just 3 meeting in weeks. Then she said that not all students a

3

good mark, some student have not good enough mark in physics. She said that
student didn’t want to review the lesson at home.
Researchers also observe three physics teacher when they teach at SMA
Santo Thomas 3 Medan. From the observation, researcher finds that most of
physics teacher, use conventional learning to explain physics phenomenon in front
of the class. And this will be influenced the student outcome in learning physics.
There are many things that cause low result of this study, one of which is
the use of learning methods that teacher is less variable and the model is still used
conventional teaching models. Djamarah ( 2009:26 ) states "When teacher teach
when only using one of the methods it will be boring, uninterested student
attention on the lesson " . The use of model made ​by teacher in the teaching of
physics, still using conventional learning model and method used approach is the
method of lecture and discussion. Meanwhile, in the subject of physics, which
requires not only how student solves problem

by memorized formula, but

students must be able to understand the concepts of physics. And understanding of
concepts by student, can’t be done with the lecture method and the conventional
learning, because the model and the method will only create an atmosphere of
teacher-centered learning . And learning environment like this, it will only make
student passive but also makes the student doesn’t have the opportunity to develop
their understanding of physics concepts.
To solve the above problems, researcher changes conventional learning
model toward cooperative learning model. Cooperative learning model consists of
several kinds, one of which cooperative learning model type Group Investigation
(GI) is a model that doesn’t require student to memorize facts and formulas, but a
model that guide student to identify the topic, planning investigations in group,
carrying out investigation, reported, and presented research result. Group
investigation is a cooperative learning method and has as hallmark student
working in small group, actively constructing their knowledge, with the
enhancement of student learning and student satisfaction (Marlowe and Page :
2005). Group Investigation includes for important components (“the four I’s”) :
investigation, interaction, interpretation, and intrinsic motivation (Daniel Zigaro :

4

2008). All component, help student to understand physics clearly, because the
student will learn by them self and find the answer with their team. And it will
make student have a good teamwork and can memorize the lesson for a long time.
Cooperative learning model group investigation had been examined by
previous student by (Adolf: 20฀2) the result of research conducted by Adolf at
SMAN ฀ Kec. Binjai, states that there is difference in physics learning outcomes
using cooperative learning model group investigation of the average pretest score
30.88 after learning the type of cooperative group investigation model of the
average value increased to 7฀.50. (Mery:20฀0) result of research conducted by
Mery at SMAN ฀ Percut Sei Tuan, stating that during the student learning
outcomes using the model of cooperative group investigation

the learning

outcome get increased. At the first meeting of the average value of 33.55, and at
the second meeting of the average value of 70.84.
From the research that has been done, the researcher argued that there are
some weaknesses, namely, (Adolf:20฀2) failed to give more attention and
guidance to student who is less active and in the use of instructional media is still
less, (Mery:20฀0) is less efficient in the use of time, and student need more
motivation to explore their statement. The advantages of the current research, will
motivate students who less active and more attention to the details of the
allocation and the use of instructional media, researchers use lab tools that are
already available in the laboratory of SMA Santo Thomas 3 Medan, to raise the
interest of student in participating teaching and learning activities .
Based on explanation above the writer wants to do the research with title
“The Effect of ฀ooperative Learning Model Type Group Investigation (GI)
To Students’ Learning Outcome On Linear Motion in 10th Grade SMA Santo
Thomas 3 Medan A.Y. 2014/2015”.

5

1.2 Problem Identification
Based on the background that already consider, so the problem
identification in this research are:
฀. Student learn in group rarely
2. Students’ learning outcome of physics is low
3. Student don’t do a preparation before physics class
4. The physics teacher still use the conventional learning
1.3 Problem Limitation
Based on the problem identification, writer limits this problem, namely:
฀. Learning model is cooperative learning model type group investigation
2. Subject matter that will be learn is linear motion
3. Subject of this research is ฀0th grade student in SMA Santo Thomas 3
Medan
1.4 Problem Formulation
Based on the limitation problem, so the problem formulation are:
฀. How is students’ learning outcome (cognitive, affective and psychomotor)
using cooperative learning model type group investigation in the subject
matter linear motion in class X SMA Santo Thomas 3 Medan A.Y.
20฀4/20฀5?
2. How is students’ learning outcome (cognitive, affective and psychomotor)
using and conventional learning in the subject matter linear motion in class
X SMA Santo Thomas 3 Medan A.Y. 20฀4/20฀5?
3. Is students’ learning outcome by using cooperative learning model type
group investigation better than conventional learning in the subject matter
linear motion in class X SMA Santo Thomas 3 Medan A.Y. 20฀4/20฀5?

6

1.5 Research Objectives
There are some research objective, namely:
฀. To know students’ learning outcome by using conventional learning in the
subject matter linear motion in class X SMA Santo Thomas 3 Medan A.Y.
20฀4/20฀5
2. To know students’ learning outcome by using cooperative learning model
type group investigation in the subject matter linear motion in class X
SMA Santo Thomas 3 Medan A.Y. 20฀4/20฀5
3. To know whether students’ learning outcome by using cooperative
learning model type group investigation is better than conventional
learning in the subject matter linear motion in class X SMA Santo Thomas
3 Medan A.Y. 20฀4/20฀5
1.6 Research Benefit
Once this study is completed then the expected benefits of this research
are:
฀. For physics teacher: As input to improve students’ learning outcome
by using better learning model like cooperative learning model type
group investigation
2. For research development: As source for another researcher to develop
research about cooperative learning model type group investigation

฀0

฀HAPTER V
฀ON฀LUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 ฀onclusion
Based on research result and data collection, can be concluded that:
1. Students’ learning outcohe in experihent class after taught by using
Cooperative Learning Model Type Group Investigation was cognitive
average score is 80.48, affective score is 91.83 in very good criteria and
psychohotor score is 85.01 in good criteria.
2. Students’ learning outcohe in control class after taught by using
Conventional learning was cognitive average score is ฀4.03, affective
score is 87.10 in good criteria and psychohotor score is 80.78 in good
criteria.
3. Students’ learning outcohe in experihent class after taught by using
Cooperative Learning Model Type Group Investigation was better than
students’ learning outcohe in control class that’s using Conventional
Learning. So, Cooperative Learning Model Type Group Investigation has
the effect on students’ learning outcohes.
5.2 Suggestion
According to the data of students’ learning outcohe and the experience of
author when applying the Cooperative Learning Model Type Group Investigation
in class, so the author gives suggestion as below:
1. Needed further research to deterhine the effect of Cooperative Learning
Model Type Group Investigation on student achievehent in other
haterials concepts, so that it can heasure the extent to which wider this
hodel is effective in learning physics.
2. For the next researcher who wants to do research using Cooperative
Learning Model Type Group Investigation, it’s better for teacher to
develop creativity in ihplehenting the learning process so that student
character can be hore ihproved. In addition, teachers can hotivate

฀1

students to be hore active so that good cohhunication between students
and students and between teachers and students.
3. For the next researcher who wants to do research using Cooperative
Learning Model Type Group Investigation expected to allocate the tihe as
efficient as possible in the learning process so that each stage of learning
can be done well.
4. For teacher can use the Cooperative Learning Model Type Group
Investigation to increase students’ learning outcohe.

฀2

฀EFE฀ENCES
Akcay, Nilufer Okur & Kemal Doymus. 2012. ฀he Effects of Group Investigation
and Cooperative Learning ฀echniques Applied in ฀eaching Force and
Motion Subjects on Students’ Academic Achievements฀ Journol Of
Educotionol Science Reseorch, Turkey Vol฀ 2 No฀ 1, June 2012
Arends, I Richard. 2008. ฀earning to Teach 7th Edition. New York, McGraw Hill
Companies, Inc
Dimyati dan Mudjiono, 2009, Belajar dan Pembelajaran, Rineka Cipta, Jakarta
Doymus, Kemal and friends.2009.Effects Of Two Cooperative ฀earning
Strategies On Teaching And ฀earning Topics Of Thermochemistry. World
Applied Science Journal, Turkey 7(1): 34-42, 2009
Hewitt, G Paul, 200฀, Conceptual Physics (Tenth Edition), Newyork, Addison
Wesley. Inc.
Joyce, Bruce & Marsha Weil. 1980. Models of Teaching 2th edition. New Jersey,
Prentice Hall, inc
Udo,

M. E., (2010). Effect of Guided-Discovery, Student- Centered
Demonstration and the Expository Instructional Strategies on Students’
Performance in Chemistry. An International Multi-Disciplinary Journal,
Ethiopia Vol. 4 (4), Serial No. 1฀, October, 2010

Kanginan, Marthen, 200฀, Fisika Untuk SMA Kelas X, Jakarta, Erlangga
Koc, Yasemin and friends.2010. The Effects of Two Cooperative ฀earning
Strategies on the Teaching and ฀earning of the Topics of Chemical
Kinetics.Journal of Turkish Science Education, Turkey Vol. 7 No. 2, June
2010
Nurachmandani, Setya, 2009, Fisika Untuk SMA X, Jakarta, Pusat Perbukuan,
Departemen Pendidikan Nasional
Sardiman, A. M., (2010), Interaksi dan Motivasi
Grafindo Persada, Jakarta

Belajar Mengajar, Raja

Simbolon, Adolf, 2012, Perbedaan Hasil Belajar Siswa Menggunakan Model
Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Group Investigation dengan Pembelajaran
Konvensiona pada Materi Pokokl , Skripsi, Medan, FMIPA Unimed.
Simsek, Ufuk. 2013. The Effect Of Cooperative ฀earning Methods On Students’
Academic Achievements In Social Psychology ฀esson.International Journal

฀3

On New Trends In Education And Their Implication, Vol. 4 No. 3, Turkey
July 2013
Slavin, R. E., 2005, Cooperative ฀earning: Theory, Research, and Practice,
Prentice Hill, London
Sudijono, A., (2009), Pengantar Evaluasi Pendikan, Rajawali Pers, Jakarta.
Sudjana, 2005, Metoda Statistika, Bandung, PT. Tarsito
Suryadana, Brian Aziz, dkk. 2012. Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif
Group Investigation (GI) Disertai Media Kartu Masalah Pada
Pembelajaran Fisika Di SMA. Jurnal Pembelajaran Fisika (JPF), Vol. 1 No
3, Indonesia Desember 2010
Trianto, (2010), Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif-Progesif, Prenada
Media, Jakarta.
Wau, Yasaratodo, 2013, Profesi Kependidikan, Medan, Unimed Press
_______.2003. Undang-undang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional Nomor 20 tahun

Dokumen yang terkait

THE EFFECT OF ROUNDTABLE MODEL IN COOPERATIVE LEARNING ON THE WRITING ACHIEVEMENT OF THE SECOND YEAR STUDENTS OF SMAN 1 ARJASA IN THE 2005 / 2006 ACADEMIC YEAR

0 4 92

THE EFFECT OF TAI (TEAM ASSISTED INDIVIDUALIZATION) COOPERATIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE ON THE EIGHTH GRADE STUDENTS’ WRITING ABILITY AT MTS. ASHRI JEMBER IN THE 2013/2014ACADEMIC YEAR

0 6 13

THE EFFECT OF USING JIGSAW TYPE II IN COOPERATIVE LEARNING ON THE EIGHTH GRADE STUDENTS’ READING COMPREHENSION ACHIEVEMENT AT SMPN 2 TANGGUL JEMBER

0 2 15

THE EFFECT OF USING QUANTUM LEARNING MODEL ON THE EIGHTH GRADE STUDENTS’ SPEAKING ACHIEVEMENT AT SMPN 11 JEMBER

1 9 44

THE EFFECT OF USING ROUNDTABLE TECHNIQUE IN COOPERATIVE LEARNING ON THE EIGHTH GRADE STUDENTS’ WRITING ACHIEVEMENT AT SMPN 1 WULUHAN - JEMBER

0 2 16

THE EFFECT OF USING STUDENTS TEAM ACHIEVEMENT DIVISION (STAD) IN COOPERATIVE LEARNING ON THE ELEVENTH YEAR STUDENTS’ VOCABULARY ACHIEVEMENT AT SMA NEGERI TEMPEH LUMAJANG

0 5 14

APPLYING COOPERATIVE LEARNING METHOD, GROUP INVESTIGATION TYPE IN BEDANA DANCE LEARNING OF JHS WIRATAMA KOTAGAJAH PENERAPAN METODE COOPERATIVE LEARNING TIPE GROUP INVESTIGASI DALAM PEMBELAJARAN TARI BEDANA DI SMP WIRATAMA KOTAGAJAH

1 23 61

THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENTS’ MATHEMATICAL ACHIEVEMENT BY USING GUIDED-DISCOVERY AND COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL JIGSAW TYPE

0 0 10

THE EFFECT OF COOPERATIVE SCRIPT LEARNING MODEL ON BIOLOGY STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN CLASS VII SMP 11 MANOKWARI

0 0 11

PENINGKATAN AKTIVITAS PEMBELAJARAN IPS MENGGUNAKAN MODEL COOPERATIVE LEARNING TIPE GROUP INVESTIGATION DI SEKOLAH DASAR

0 0 14