THE DIFFERENCE OF MATHEMATICAL PROBLEM SOLVING ABILITY BY USING STUDENT TEAMS ACHIEVEMENT DIVISION (STAD) AND DIRECT INSTRUCTION (DI) ON SYSTEM LINEAR EQUATION TWO VARIABLE IN GRADE VIII SMP NEGERI 11 MEDAN ACADEMIC YEAR 2013/2014.
THE DIFFERENCE OF MATHEMATICAL PROBLEM SOLVING ABILITY
BY USING STUDENT TEAMS ACHIEVEMENT DIVISION (STAD) AND
DIRECT INSTRUCTION (DI) ON SYSTEM LINEAR EQUATION
TWO VARIABLE IN GRADE VIII SMP NEGERI 11
MEDAN ACADEMIC YEAR 2013/2014
By:
Faradilla Bafaqih
ID. Number 409312007
Bilingual Mathematics Education Program
THESIS
Submitted to Eligible to Get SarjanaPendidikan Degree
MATHEMATICS DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2014
PREFACE
Praise be to Allah the Lord of the universe for His blessings and mercy so that the thesis
with the title “The Difference of Mathematical Problem Solving Ability by Using Student Teams
Achievement Division (STAD) and Direct Interaction (DI) in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 11
Medan” can be finished.
Making the thesis can not be separated from the support of various parties. Writer thanks
to:
Drs. Yasifati Hia, M.Si as thesis advisor who has made his time for giving brief and
guidance from beginning until the end of writing process of this thesis.
Prof. Dr. Asmin, M.Pd as academic advisor who has given guidance and suggestion
along the study in State University of Medan.
Dr. W. Rajaguguk, M.Pd, Prof. Dr.Muhktar, M.Pd, Dr. E. Elvis Napitupulu, MS as
thesis examiner who has given advices and suggestions from beginning of research planning
until the compiling of this thesis finished.
Prof. Dr. Ibnu Hajar, M.Si as head of State University of Medan, Prof. Drs. Motlan,
M.Sc., Ph.D as dean of mathematics and natural sciences faculty,
Drs. Syafari, M.Pd
as head of mathematics department, Drs. Yasifati Hia, M.Si as secretary of Mathematics
Departement, Drs. Zul Amry, M.Si as head of mathematics education program, Prof. Dr. rer. nat.
B. Manurung, M.Si as coordinator of bilingual program and for all lectures and staffs of
mathematics department who has helped and facilitated during compiling process of this thesis.
Dra. Khairani, M.M as principle of SMP Negeri 11 Medan who has given permission
to do research.
S. Naibaho, S.Pd as mathematics teacher and all teacher and student in VIII grade of
SMP Negeri 11 Medan who has helped writer in conducting the research.
Dear Loving mother Sri Dewi Putri Tampubolon, who have given a lot of love, ray,
motivation and spirit who help writer to finish the study.
My beloved sister Fathia A. Bafaqih, S.E and Faradifa Bafaqih and all of my big
family for all pray, maotivation and support until the end of writer’s study.
My Friends in Bilingual mathematics Education 2009, Dini, Enny, Evi, Iin, Iwan,
Joy, Noya, Nurhabibah, Qori, Retni, Rini, Rizky, Siti, Widia and my best friend in school Nia,
Rifqoh and also Diandra who has helped and given big motivation, spirit in every activity that
done by writer.
Writer realized that there are still weakness in contents and grammar of this thesis, so
writer receives critics and advices from the reader that can make this thesis be better. Hopefully,
this thesis can be useful for education world.
Medan, February
Writer,
Faradilla Bafaqih
Id. 409312007
2014
The Difference of Mathematical Problem Solving Ability by Using
Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD) and Direct Instruction (DI)
on System Linear Equation Two Variable in Grade VIII
SMP Negeri 11 Medan Academic Year 2013/2014
Faradilla Bafaqih
Id Number 409312007
ABSTRACT
Objective of this study is to know whether mathematical problem solving ability by
STAD higher than mathematical problem solving by DI on Linier Equation.
The type of research which is used in this study is Quasi Experimental Research with
Pretest and Posttest with two experiment class. Population of this study is all of the student in
VIII grade of SMP Negeri 11 Medan. They are experiment class (VIII-9) taught with STAD and
experiment class II (control class) (VIII-8) taught with DI model. The instrument that arranged
have legalized by expert validator namely lecture and teacher mathematics. Hypothesis test
method that is used is independent sample t-test.
Result of this study at α = 0.05 shown that taccount > ttable namely 3.75 > 1.675. it means
that students mathematics problem solving ability by STAD higher than mathematical problem
solving by DI on Linier equation two variable system for VIII grade in SMP Negeri 11 Medan.
CONTENTS
Page
AUTHENTICATION SHEET
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ABSTRACT
PREFACE
CONTENTS
FIGURE LIST
TABLE LIST
APPENDIX LIST
ii
iii
iv
v
vii
x
xi
xii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
1.2. Problem Identification
1.3. Problem Limitations
1.4. Problem Formulation
1.5. Research Purpose
1.6. Benefits of Research
1
5
5
5
5
6
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW LITERARURE
2.1. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1.1. Definition of Learning
2.1.2. Mathematics Learning
2.1.3. Learning Outcomes
2.1.4. Mathematic Problem Solving
2.1.5. Cooperative Learning
2.1.6. Model Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD)
2.1.7. Direct Instruction
2.1.8. Different Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD)
and Direct Interaction
2.1.9 Learning Material
2.2. Conceptual Framework
2.3. Hypothesis
7
7
8
9
9
12
14
20
23
23
28
29
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. Type of Research
3.2. Location and Time of Research
3.3. Population and Sample
3.3.1. Population
3.3.2. Sample
3.4. Research Variables
3.4.1. Variables
3.4.2. Dependent Variable
3.5. Research Procedure
3.6. Data Collection Tools
3.6.1. Problem Solving Ability Test
3.6.2. Technique Giving Problem Solving Score
3.6.3. Criteria Level of Students Problem Solving Ability
3.7. Data Analysis
3.7.1. Calculating Mean Score
3.7.2. Calculating Variants
3.7.3. Calculating Standard Division
3.7.4. Normality Test
3.7.5. Homogeneity Test
3.7.6. Hypothesis Test
CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Result of Research
4.1.1. Pretest Score Experiment and Control Class
4.1.2. Posttest Score Experiment and Control Class
4.1.3. Average Pretest and Posttest
in Experiment and Control Class
4.1.4. Test Data Analysis
4.1.4.1. Normality Test
4.1.4.2. Homogeneity Test
4.1.5. Hypothesis Test
4.2. Relevant Research
4.3. Finding Research
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
31
33
33
34
34
35
35
35
36
36
37
37
39
39
40
42
43
43
44
45
47
48
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclusion
5.2. Suggestion
REFERENCE
49
49
50
TABLE LIST
Page
Table 2.1.6.1 Phase of Cooperative STAD
18
Table 2.1.6.2 Calculating Test Score
18
Table 2.1.6.3 Group Award
19
Table 2.1.6.4 Processing in Determining Group Award
19
Table 2.1.6.5 Advantage and Disadvantages of STAD
20
Table 2.1.7
22
Phase of Direct Instruction
Table 2.1.7.1 Advantage and Disadvantages of Direct Instruction
22
Table 2.1.8
Different STAD and Direct Instruction
23
Table 3.6.2
Technique In Giving Problem Solving Score
34
Table 3.6.3
Criteria Level of Students Problem Solving
35
Table 4.1.1
Pretest Score Experiment and Control Class
39
Table 4.1.2
Posttest Score Experiment and Control Class
41
Table 4.1.3
Average Pretest and Posttest
in Experiment and Control Class
42
Table 4.1.4.1 Result of Normality Test
43
Table 4.1.4.2 Result of Homogeneity Test
44
Table 4.1.4.1 Result of Hypothesis Test
45
FIGURE LIST
Page
Figure 2.1.1 Intersection Graph
26
Figure 3.5.1 Research Procedure
32
Figure
Result of Pretest
39
Figure
Result of Posttest
41
Figure
Average Pretest and Posttest
42
ii
APPENDIX LIST
Appendix 1 Lesson Plan I (experiment I)
Page
53
Appendix 2 Lesson Plan II (experiment I)
59
Appendix 3 Lesson Plan I (experiment II)
65
Appendix 4 Lesson Plan II (experiment II)
69
Appendix 5 Students Worksheet-1
74
Appendix 6 Students Worksheet -2
77
Appendix 7 Students Worksheet -3
80
Appendix 8 Students Worksheet -4
83
Appendix 9 Blue Print Pre- Test
86
Appendix 10 Blue Print Post- Test
87
Appendix 11 Pre-Test
88
Appendix 12 Alternative Solution of Pre-Test
89
Appendix 13 Scoring Guidelines Value of Pretest
93
Appendix 14 Post-Test
94
Appendix 15 Alternative Solution of Post-Test
95
Appendix 16 Scoring Guidelines Value of Posttest
101
Appendix 17 Result of Experiment Class
102
Appendix 18 Result of Control Class
104
Appendix 19 Calculation Score Mean, Variance and St.Deviation
106
Appendix 20 Normality Test
119
Appendix 21 Homogeneity Test
117
Appendix 22 Hypothesis Test
118
Appendix 23 Documentation
120
ii
CHAPTHER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
Mathematics education cannot be regardless of mathematics itself.
Therefore, for the learning of mathematics in developing the character of the
students would be better if it first revealed the characteristics of an abstract
mathematical object, namely, the empty symbols of meaning, and the agreement
axiomatic deductive reasoning, and contradiction. Purpose of mathematics
education must consider, (1) the formal goals, namely arrangements of reason
and formation of the child's personality, (2) the purpose of that is material the
application of mathematics and mathematical skills.
Mathematical is a subject that students learn formal education levels started
from elementary through high school and even in Higher Education not be
separated from mathematics. This indicated mathematics have important role in
human resource development.
According to Jeremy (2002:10) suggests mathematical finesse:
Mathematical proficiency involves five intertwined strands: (1)
understanding mathematics; (2) computing fluently; (3) applying concepts to
solve problems; (4) reasoning logically; and (5) engaging with mathematics,
seeing it as sensible, useful, and doable.
However are still there students who feel mathematics as a difficult subject?
They think of mathematics as a difficult subject and feared. It is appropriate with
Abdurrahman (2009:252) says: "from the various fields of study that has been
taught in school, mathematics is a study of the most difficult lesson to students
are not better learning disabilities and learning difficulties."
A factor can influence assessment of learning mathematics. Assessment of
performance is requiring students to demonstrate the performance, not chose to
answer a series of possible answers from the answer is already available. With a
group learning method expected that students understand the formula concept. To
iii
know understand the formula concept through patterns arranged itself, so that if
one day forgets, students can rearrange the patterns will obtain the required
formulas concepts. Group learning method combined with the model student
teams achievement division based on the theory that students will more easily
find understand difficult concepts when using this learning model. The research
is descriptive describes explains events.
Problem solving is an effort made to resolve the problems found. Solving
problems high-level aspects of thinking as a process of accepting the problem try
to resolve the problem. Problem solving is an intellectual activity to find a
solution to the problems encountered with use of sufficient knowledge of owned.
The lower ability of solving the problem is students have difficulty in learning
mathematics, lack of interest in learning teaching mathematics considers difficult
to understand because students become lazy to learn mathematics. To acquire the
ability to problem-solving students have a many experience in solving the
problem. Students who have a many training to a higher value than students are
less practiced.
Views about problem solving as a goal in mathematics curriculum means
more emphasis in mathematics learning process students worked problems than
the results obtained so that students ability learn problem-solving must be owned
by the students in learning mathematics.
Addition to causing a failure in mathematics education for low ability
students problems solving including inaccurate teachers select the instructional
model that is used to deliver learning materials.
In the conventional teaching is more often performed by teachers because it
is very simple. Teachers teach students in classrooms that have a one abilities
minimum requirement. Activities of teachers in learning activities more stands
out so learn centered dependent on teacher. For the learning of mathematics at
the Junior High School (SMP) is less press understanding of the concept.
Teachers generally select the easy and practical way to it but not how to make the
iv
students to learn. When their exercise is given only able to work on the problems
similar to those given by the teacher.
Based on the description , it is said that improving the quality of
mathematics education in school , not be separated from classroom learning
process that involves the interaction of students and teachers, so that increasing
students' problem solving abilities have a concept design to achieve specified
learning objectives.
System Linier Equation Two Variable is one of the classrooms learning
materials mathematics in SMP. This is new material for the students because it
has been studied in primary schools. However, many students have difficulties in
learning understanding the System Linier Equation Two Variable.
Sometimes students assume the material System Linier Equation Two
Variable is a difficult lesson to learn. This is supported by a test given at the time
of observation the researcher class VIII SMP Negeri 11 Medan with questions
that test understanding of students' mathematical problem solving. One of the
questions used:
Sani age 7 years older than Ari. While the number of their ages is 43 years.
What is the age of each …
Based on the test results and the answer given most students only focused
search for the answer without making strides in solving the problem. And to
resolve the problem solving, there are four steps that must be done, namely:
a.
Understanding the problem
b.
Creating lesson plans
c.
perform calculations
d.
checking back
Of the 40 students who take the test, obtain the average score 68.78.
Retrieved level overview of students' mathematical problem solving ability as
follows: there is a level of 33.05% of students who are very good problemsolving skills, 15.75% of students are good problem-solving ability level, 8.69%
v
of students whose level of problem solving ability is quite good, 11.3% of
students are low-level problem-solving ability. Of these cases can be concluded
that the level of problem solving ability of students likely to subject matter or
System Linier Equation Two Variable.
Of these data shows that students are less able to understand the problem, is
due to the low level of students' ability in solving mathematical problems.
Required math teacher is able to make students understand the matter to enhance
the problem solving in mathematics.
Related to the above description, it is necessary to think about strategies or
ways of presenting mathematical material so as to make students active and
meaningful learning. One way to develop teaching and learning strategies to
students as well as to improve its teaching mathematics is to use a learning model
students teams achievement division (STAD).
Problem solving is a process that requires the ability and skills of students in
activities. So in order to obtain meaningful learning objectives that will increase
problem solving skills, new concepts and new information must be linked to the
concepts that already exist or that have been known to students in the cognitive
structure.
Based on the above background, the writer is interested in doing research
on: “The Difference of Mathematical Problems Solving Ability by Using
Students Teams Achievement Division (STAD) and Direct Instruction (DI)
on System Linear Equation Two Variable in Grade VIII SMP Negeri 11
Medan.”
vi
1.2. Problem Identification
Based on the background identification of problems:
1. The low ability problem solving in mathematics
2. The learning process used by teachers can not improve problem solving
abilities
3. Learning outcomes of students still low
4. Many students are difficult to get the problem solving in completing the case
by applying concept
1.3. Problem Limitations
From the problem above, so authors focus on difference on student
mathematical problem solving ability by using Students Teams Achievement
Division (STAD) and Direct instruction (DI) on system linear equation two
variable in grade VIII SMPN 11 Medan.
1.4. Problem Formulations
Research question in this study is:
1. Is a mathematical problem solving ability by using Students Teams
Achievement Division (STAD) higher than mathematical problems solving
ability by using Direct instruction (DI) on system linear equation two variable
in grade VIII SMPN 11 Medan?
2. How learning outcomes of student by using Students Teams Achievement
Division (STAD) and learning outcomes of student by using direct instruction
(DI) on system linear equation two variables in grade VIII SMPN 11 Medan?
1.5. Research Objectives
1. To know is the difference of mathematical problems solving ability by using
Students Teams Achievement Division (STAD) and Direct Instruction in
grade VIII at SMPN 11 Medan ?
vii
2. To know how student learning outcomes using Students Teams Achievement
Division (STAD) ?
1.6. Benefits of Research
1. For teachers, it can extend the learning by using STAD to help students.
2. As an input for the students that work in groups can completed solution
3. As input consideration for other researchers.
50
REFERENCES
Arends, R.I., et al. 2007. Learning To Teach. Seventh Edition. New York: McGrawHill.
Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2006. Procedure Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik. Jakarta:
Rineka Cipta
Best, J.W. and Kahn, J.V. 2007. Research in Education. -9th ed. New delhi: PrenticeHall of India Private Limited
Creswell, John W. 2008. Educational Research. New Jersey: Pearson Education. Inc
Devlin,
K.
2007.
What
is
Conceptual
Understanding?
[Online].
http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_09_07.html
Dirjen
Dikdasmen.
2001.
Pemahaman
Concept
Matemamatis.
http://mediaharja.blogspot.com/2012/05/pemahaman-concept matematis.html
Fakultas Matematika dan Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam Universitas Negeri Medan. 2011.
Pedoman Penulisan Proposal dan Skripsi Mahasiswa Program Studi
Kependididkan FMIPA Unimed. Medan: FMIPA Unimed
Galloway, D. and Edward, A. 1992. Secondary School Teaching & Educational
Psychology: The Effective Teacher Series. New York: Longman Publishing.
Gagne, Robert. 1994. Principles of Instructional Design. Canada: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston
Hamalik, O. 2010. Proses Belajar Mengajar. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara
Hudojo, H. 2001. Mengajar Belajar Matematika. Jakarta: Depdikbud
51
Indiana. 2013. Cooperative Learning. www.indiana.edu/safeschl. Access at May
4,2013
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. 1987. Learning together and alone: Cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Joyce, B., Weil., & Calhoun, E. 2008. Models Of Teaching. -8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill
Muslimin. 2000. Pembelajaran Kooperatif. Surabaya: UNESA UNIVERSITY
PRESS.
NCTM. 1986. Principle and Standard for School Mathematics. Reston: The National
Council of Teacher Mathematics, Inc.
Polya, George. 2004. How To Solve It. Expanded Princeton Science Library Edition
Rosenshine, B. 1995. Advances in research on instruction. The Journal Of
Educational Research,88(5), 262 - 268
Sanjaya, Wina. 2010. Strategi Pembelajaran berorientasi Standar Process
Pendidikan. Jakarta: Kencana
Simamora, Windhy. 2011. Perbedaan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematika
Siswa yang Diajarkan Menggunakan Model Advance Organizer Melalui Peta
Konsep dengan Pembelajaran Konvensional. Medan: FMIPA Unimed
Slameto. 2010. Belajar dan Faktor - Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya. Jakarta:
Penerbit Rineka Cipta
Slavin, Robert E. 2005. Cooperative Learning. Bandung: Nusa Media
Slavin, Robert E. 2006. Educational psychology: theory and practice.-8th ed. Boston.
Pearson.
Sudjana. 2002. Metode Statistika. Bandung: PT. Tarsito Bandung
Sutherland, R. 2007. Teaching for learning Mathematics. London: McGraw-hill
52
Trianto. 2009. Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif-Progresive. Jakarta :
Kencana
Wickelgren, Wayne A.1974. HOW TO SOLVE MATHEMATICAL PROBLEMS. New
York: DOVER PUBLICATIONS, INC.
Winataputra, Erman. 1999. Stratrgi Belajar Mengajar Matematika. Jakarta:
Universitas Terbuka
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Faradilla Bafaqih was born in Medan, April 02nd 1991. She is the second child from three
children. Her father Faisal Bafaqih and mother’s Sri Dewi Putri Tampubolon. In 1996, writers
studied in primary school SD Harapan 1 Medan and was graduated in 2002. In 2002, the waiter
continued her study in junior high school SLTP Pertiwi Medan and graduated 2005. In 2005,
writer also continued her study in senior high school SMA Negeri 7 Medan and was graduated in
2008.
In 2009, the writer was accepted in Mathematics Education of Bilingual class, faculty of
Mathematics and Natural Science, State University of Medan. During the study.
BY USING STUDENT TEAMS ACHIEVEMENT DIVISION (STAD) AND
DIRECT INSTRUCTION (DI) ON SYSTEM LINEAR EQUATION
TWO VARIABLE IN GRADE VIII SMP NEGERI 11
MEDAN ACADEMIC YEAR 2013/2014
By:
Faradilla Bafaqih
ID. Number 409312007
Bilingual Mathematics Education Program
THESIS
Submitted to Eligible to Get SarjanaPendidikan Degree
MATHEMATICS DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2014
PREFACE
Praise be to Allah the Lord of the universe for His blessings and mercy so that the thesis
with the title “The Difference of Mathematical Problem Solving Ability by Using Student Teams
Achievement Division (STAD) and Direct Interaction (DI) in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 11
Medan” can be finished.
Making the thesis can not be separated from the support of various parties. Writer thanks
to:
Drs. Yasifati Hia, M.Si as thesis advisor who has made his time for giving brief and
guidance from beginning until the end of writing process of this thesis.
Prof. Dr. Asmin, M.Pd as academic advisor who has given guidance and suggestion
along the study in State University of Medan.
Dr. W. Rajaguguk, M.Pd, Prof. Dr.Muhktar, M.Pd, Dr. E. Elvis Napitupulu, MS as
thesis examiner who has given advices and suggestions from beginning of research planning
until the compiling of this thesis finished.
Prof. Dr. Ibnu Hajar, M.Si as head of State University of Medan, Prof. Drs. Motlan,
M.Sc., Ph.D as dean of mathematics and natural sciences faculty,
Drs. Syafari, M.Pd
as head of mathematics department, Drs. Yasifati Hia, M.Si as secretary of Mathematics
Departement, Drs. Zul Amry, M.Si as head of mathematics education program, Prof. Dr. rer. nat.
B. Manurung, M.Si as coordinator of bilingual program and for all lectures and staffs of
mathematics department who has helped and facilitated during compiling process of this thesis.
Dra. Khairani, M.M as principle of SMP Negeri 11 Medan who has given permission
to do research.
S. Naibaho, S.Pd as mathematics teacher and all teacher and student in VIII grade of
SMP Negeri 11 Medan who has helped writer in conducting the research.
Dear Loving mother Sri Dewi Putri Tampubolon, who have given a lot of love, ray,
motivation and spirit who help writer to finish the study.
My beloved sister Fathia A. Bafaqih, S.E and Faradifa Bafaqih and all of my big
family for all pray, maotivation and support until the end of writer’s study.
My Friends in Bilingual mathematics Education 2009, Dini, Enny, Evi, Iin, Iwan,
Joy, Noya, Nurhabibah, Qori, Retni, Rini, Rizky, Siti, Widia and my best friend in school Nia,
Rifqoh and also Diandra who has helped and given big motivation, spirit in every activity that
done by writer.
Writer realized that there are still weakness in contents and grammar of this thesis, so
writer receives critics and advices from the reader that can make this thesis be better. Hopefully,
this thesis can be useful for education world.
Medan, February
Writer,
Faradilla Bafaqih
Id. 409312007
2014
The Difference of Mathematical Problem Solving Ability by Using
Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD) and Direct Instruction (DI)
on System Linear Equation Two Variable in Grade VIII
SMP Negeri 11 Medan Academic Year 2013/2014
Faradilla Bafaqih
Id Number 409312007
ABSTRACT
Objective of this study is to know whether mathematical problem solving ability by
STAD higher than mathematical problem solving by DI on Linier Equation.
The type of research which is used in this study is Quasi Experimental Research with
Pretest and Posttest with two experiment class. Population of this study is all of the student in
VIII grade of SMP Negeri 11 Medan. They are experiment class (VIII-9) taught with STAD and
experiment class II (control class) (VIII-8) taught with DI model. The instrument that arranged
have legalized by expert validator namely lecture and teacher mathematics. Hypothesis test
method that is used is independent sample t-test.
Result of this study at α = 0.05 shown that taccount > ttable namely 3.75 > 1.675. it means
that students mathematics problem solving ability by STAD higher than mathematical problem
solving by DI on Linier equation two variable system for VIII grade in SMP Negeri 11 Medan.
CONTENTS
Page
AUTHENTICATION SHEET
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ABSTRACT
PREFACE
CONTENTS
FIGURE LIST
TABLE LIST
APPENDIX LIST
ii
iii
iv
v
vii
x
xi
xii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
1.2. Problem Identification
1.3. Problem Limitations
1.4. Problem Formulation
1.5. Research Purpose
1.6. Benefits of Research
1
5
5
5
5
6
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW LITERARURE
2.1. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1.1. Definition of Learning
2.1.2. Mathematics Learning
2.1.3. Learning Outcomes
2.1.4. Mathematic Problem Solving
2.1.5. Cooperative Learning
2.1.6. Model Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD)
2.1.7. Direct Instruction
2.1.8. Different Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD)
and Direct Interaction
2.1.9 Learning Material
2.2. Conceptual Framework
2.3. Hypothesis
7
7
8
9
9
12
14
20
23
23
28
29
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. Type of Research
3.2. Location and Time of Research
3.3. Population and Sample
3.3.1. Population
3.3.2. Sample
3.4. Research Variables
3.4.1. Variables
3.4.2. Dependent Variable
3.5. Research Procedure
3.6. Data Collection Tools
3.6.1. Problem Solving Ability Test
3.6.2. Technique Giving Problem Solving Score
3.6.3. Criteria Level of Students Problem Solving Ability
3.7. Data Analysis
3.7.1. Calculating Mean Score
3.7.2. Calculating Variants
3.7.3. Calculating Standard Division
3.7.4. Normality Test
3.7.5. Homogeneity Test
3.7.6. Hypothesis Test
CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Result of Research
4.1.1. Pretest Score Experiment and Control Class
4.1.2. Posttest Score Experiment and Control Class
4.1.3. Average Pretest and Posttest
in Experiment and Control Class
4.1.4. Test Data Analysis
4.1.4.1. Normality Test
4.1.4.2. Homogeneity Test
4.1.5. Hypothesis Test
4.2. Relevant Research
4.3. Finding Research
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
31
33
33
34
34
35
35
35
36
36
37
37
39
39
40
42
43
43
44
45
47
48
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclusion
5.2. Suggestion
REFERENCE
49
49
50
TABLE LIST
Page
Table 2.1.6.1 Phase of Cooperative STAD
18
Table 2.1.6.2 Calculating Test Score
18
Table 2.1.6.3 Group Award
19
Table 2.1.6.4 Processing in Determining Group Award
19
Table 2.1.6.5 Advantage and Disadvantages of STAD
20
Table 2.1.7
22
Phase of Direct Instruction
Table 2.1.7.1 Advantage and Disadvantages of Direct Instruction
22
Table 2.1.8
Different STAD and Direct Instruction
23
Table 3.6.2
Technique In Giving Problem Solving Score
34
Table 3.6.3
Criteria Level of Students Problem Solving
35
Table 4.1.1
Pretest Score Experiment and Control Class
39
Table 4.1.2
Posttest Score Experiment and Control Class
41
Table 4.1.3
Average Pretest and Posttest
in Experiment and Control Class
42
Table 4.1.4.1 Result of Normality Test
43
Table 4.1.4.2 Result of Homogeneity Test
44
Table 4.1.4.1 Result of Hypothesis Test
45
FIGURE LIST
Page
Figure 2.1.1 Intersection Graph
26
Figure 3.5.1 Research Procedure
32
Figure
Result of Pretest
39
Figure
Result of Posttest
41
Figure
Average Pretest and Posttest
42
ii
APPENDIX LIST
Appendix 1 Lesson Plan I (experiment I)
Page
53
Appendix 2 Lesson Plan II (experiment I)
59
Appendix 3 Lesson Plan I (experiment II)
65
Appendix 4 Lesson Plan II (experiment II)
69
Appendix 5 Students Worksheet-1
74
Appendix 6 Students Worksheet -2
77
Appendix 7 Students Worksheet -3
80
Appendix 8 Students Worksheet -4
83
Appendix 9 Blue Print Pre- Test
86
Appendix 10 Blue Print Post- Test
87
Appendix 11 Pre-Test
88
Appendix 12 Alternative Solution of Pre-Test
89
Appendix 13 Scoring Guidelines Value of Pretest
93
Appendix 14 Post-Test
94
Appendix 15 Alternative Solution of Post-Test
95
Appendix 16 Scoring Guidelines Value of Posttest
101
Appendix 17 Result of Experiment Class
102
Appendix 18 Result of Control Class
104
Appendix 19 Calculation Score Mean, Variance and St.Deviation
106
Appendix 20 Normality Test
119
Appendix 21 Homogeneity Test
117
Appendix 22 Hypothesis Test
118
Appendix 23 Documentation
120
ii
CHAPTHER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
Mathematics education cannot be regardless of mathematics itself.
Therefore, for the learning of mathematics in developing the character of the
students would be better if it first revealed the characteristics of an abstract
mathematical object, namely, the empty symbols of meaning, and the agreement
axiomatic deductive reasoning, and contradiction. Purpose of mathematics
education must consider, (1) the formal goals, namely arrangements of reason
and formation of the child's personality, (2) the purpose of that is material the
application of mathematics and mathematical skills.
Mathematical is a subject that students learn formal education levels started
from elementary through high school and even in Higher Education not be
separated from mathematics. This indicated mathematics have important role in
human resource development.
According to Jeremy (2002:10) suggests mathematical finesse:
Mathematical proficiency involves five intertwined strands: (1)
understanding mathematics; (2) computing fluently; (3) applying concepts to
solve problems; (4) reasoning logically; and (5) engaging with mathematics,
seeing it as sensible, useful, and doable.
However are still there students who feel mathematics as a difficult subject?
They think of mathematics as a difficult subject and feared. It is appropriate with
Abdurrahman (2009:252) says: "from the various fields of study that has been
taught in school, mathematics is a study of the most difficult lesson to students
are not better learning disabilities and learning difficulties."
A factor can influence assessment of learning mathematics. Assessment of
performance is requiring students to demonstrate the performance, not chose to
answer a series of possible answers from the answer is already available. With a
group learning method expected that students understand the formula concept. To
iii
know understand the formula concept through patterns arranged itself, so that if
one day forgets, students can rearrange the patterns will obtain the required
formulas concepts. Group learning method combined with the model student
teams achievement division based on the theory that students will more easily
find understand difficult concepts when using this learning model. The research
is descriptive describes explains events.
Problem solving is an effort made to resolve the problems found. Solving
problems high-level aspects of thinking as a process of accepting the problem try
to resolve the problem. Problem solving is an intellectual activity to find a
solution to the problems encountered with use of sufficient knowledge of owned.
The lower ability of solving the problem is students have difficulty in learning
mathematics, lack of interest in learning teaching mathematics considers difficult
to understand because students become lazy to learn mathematics. To acquire the
ability to problem-solving students have a many experience in solving the
problem. Students who have a many training to a higher value than students are
less practiced.
Views about problem solving as a goal in mathematics curriculum means
more emphasis in mathematics learning process students worked problems than
the results obtained so that students ability learn problem-solving must be owned
by the students in learning mathematics.
Addition to causing a failure in mathematics education for low ability
students problems solving including inaccurate teachers select the instructional
model that is used to deliver learning materials.
In the conventional teaching is more often performed by teachers because it
is very simple. Teachers teach students in classrooms that have a one abilities
minimum requirement. Activities of teachers in learning activities more stands
out so learn centered dependent on teacher. For the learning of mathematics at
the Junior High School (SMP) is less press understanding of the concept.
Teachers generally select the easy and practical way to it but not how to make the
iv
students to learn. When their exercise is given only able to work on the problems
similar to those given by the teacher.
Based on the description , it is said that improving the quality of
mathematics education in school , not be separated from classroom learning
process that involves the interaction of students and teachers, so that increasing
students' problem solving abilities have a concept design to achieve specified
learning objectives.
System Linier Equation Two Variable is one of the classrooms learning
materials mathematics in SMP. This is new material for the students because it
has been studied in primary schools. However, many students have difficulties in
learning understanding the System Linier Equation Two Variable.
Sometimes students assume the material System Linier Equation Two
Variable is a difficult lesson to learn. This is supported by a test given at the time
of observation the researcher class VIII SMP Negeri 11 Medan with questions
that test understanding of students' mathematical problem solving. One of the
questions used:
Sani age 7 years older than Ari. While the number of their ages is 43 years.
What is the age of each …
Based on the test results and the answer given most students only focused
search for the answer without making strides in solving the problem. And to
resolve the problem solving, there are four steps that must be done, namely:
a.
Understanding the problem
b.
Creating lesson plans
c.
perform calculations
d.
checking back
Of the 40 students who take the test, obtain the average score 68.78.
Retrieved level overview of students' mathematical problem solving ability as
follows: there is a level of 33.05% of students who are very good problemsolving skills, 15.75% of students are good problem-solving ability level, 8.69%
v
of students whose level of problem solving ability is quite good, 11.3% of
students are low-level problem-solving ability. Of these cases can be concluded
that the level of problem solving ability of students likely to subject matter or
System Linier Equation Two Variable.
Of these data shows that students are less able to understand the problem, is
due to the low level of students' ability in solving mathematical problems.
Required math teacher is able to make students understand the matter to enhance
the problem solving in mathematics.
Related to the above description, it is necessary to think about strategies or
ways of presenting mathematical material so as to make students active and
meaningful learning. One way to develop teaching and learning strategies to
students as well as to improve its teaching mathematics is to use a learning model
students teams achievement division (STAD).
Problem solving is a process that requires the ability and skills of students in
activities. So in order to obtain meaningful learning objectives that will increase
problem solving skills, new concepts and new information must be linked to the
concepts that already exist or that have been known to students in the cognitive
structure.
Based on the above background, the writer is interested in doing research
on: “The Difference of Mathematical Problems Solving Ability by Using
Students Teams Achievement Division (STAD) and Direct Instruction (DI)
on System Linear Equation Two Variable in Grade VIII SMP Negeri 11
Medan.”
vi
1.2. Problem Identification
Based on the background identification of problems:
1. The low ability problem solving in mathematics
2. The learning process used by teachers can not improve problem solving
abilities
3. Learning outcomes of students still low
4. Many students are difficult to get the problem solving in completing the case
by applying concept
1.3. Problem Limitations
From the problem above, so authors focus on difference on student
mathematical problem solving ability by using Students Teams Achievement
Division (STAD) and Direct instruction (DI) on system linear equation two
variable in grade VIII SMPN 11 Medan.
1.4. Problem Formulations
Research question in this study is:
1. Is a mathematical problem solving ability by using Students Teams
Achievement Division (STAD) higher than mathematical problems solving
ability by using Direct instruction (DI) on system linear equation two variable
in grade VIII SMPN 11 Medan?
2. How learning outcomes of student by using Students Teams Achievement
Division (STAD) and learning outcomes of student by using direct instruction
(DI) on system linear equation two variables in grade VIII SMPN 11 Medan?
1.5. Research Objectives
1. To know is the difference of mathematical problems solving ability by using
Students Teams Achievement Division (STAD) and Direct Instruction in
grade VIII at SMPN 11 Medan ?
vii
2. To know how student learning outcomes using Students Teams Achievement
Division (STAD) ?
1.6. Benefits of Research
1. For teachers, it can extend the learning by using STAD to help students.
2. As an input for the students that work in groups can completed solution
3. As input consideration for other researchers.
50
REFERENCES
Arends, R.I., et al. 2007. Learning To Teach. Seventh Edition. New York: McGrawHill.
Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2006. Procedure Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik. Jakarta:
Rineka Cipta
Best, J.W. and Kahn, J.V. 2007. Research in Education. -9th ed. New delhi: PrenticeHall of India Private Limited
Creswell, John W. 2008. Educational Research. New Jersey: Pearson Education. Inc
Devlin,
K.
2007.
What
is
Conceptual
Understanding?
[Online].
http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_09_07.html
Dirjen
Dikdasmen.
2001.
Pemahaman
Concept
Matemamatis.
http://mediaharja.blogspot.com/2012/05/pemahaman-concept matematis.html
Fakultas Matematika dan Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam Universitas Negeri Medan. 2011.
Pedoman Penulisan Proposal dan Skripsi Mahasiswa Program Studi
Kependididkan FMIPA Unimed. Medan: FMIPA Unimed
Galloway, D. and Edward, A. 1992. Secondary School Teaching & Educational
Psychology: The Effective Teacher Series. New York: Longman Publishing.
Gagne, Robert. 1994. Principles of Instructional Design. Canada: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston
Hamalik, O. 2010. Proses Belajar Mengajar. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara
Hudojo, H. 2001. Mengajar Belajar Matematika. Jakarta: Depdikbud
51
Indiana. 2013. Cooperative Learning. www.indiana.edu/safeschl. Access at May
4,2013
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. 1987. Learning together and alone: Cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Joyce, B., Weil., & Calhoun, E. 2008. Models Of Teaching. -8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill
Muslimin. 2000. Pembelajaran Kooperatif. Surabaya: UNESA UNIVERSITY
PRESS.
NCTM. 1986. Principle and Standard for School Mathematics. Reston: The National
Council of Teacher Mathematics, Inc.
Polya, George. 2004. How To Solve It. Expanded Princeton Science Library Edition
Rosenshine, B. 1995. Advances in research on instruction. The Journal Of
Educational Research,88(5), 262 - 268
Sanjaya, Wina. 2010. Strategi Pembelajaran berorientasi Standar Process
Pendidikan. Jakarta: Kencana
Simamora, Windhy. 2011. Perbedaan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematika
Siswa yang Diajarkan Menggunakan Model Advance Organizer Melalui Peta
Konsep dengan Pembelajaran Konvensional. Medan: FMIPA Unimed
Slameto. 2010. Belajar dan Faktor - Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya. Jakarta:
Penerbit Rineka Cipta
Slavin, Robert E. 2005. Cooperative Learning. Bandung: Nusa Media
Slavin, Robert E. 2006. Educational psychology: theory and practice.-8th ed. Boston.
Pearson.
Sudjana. 2002. Metode Statistika. Bandung: PT. Tarsito Bandung
Sutherland, R. 2007. Teaching for learning Mathematics. London: McGraw-hill
52
Trianto. 2009. Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif-Progresive. Jakarta :
Kencana
Wickelgren, Wayne A.1974. HOW TO SOLVE MATHEMATICAL PROBLEMS. New
York: DOVER PUBLICATIONS, INC.
Winataputra, Erman. 1999. Stratrgi Belajar Mengajar Matematika. Jakarta:
Universitas Terbuka
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Faradilla Bafaqih was born in Medan, April 02nd 1991. She is the second child from three
children. Her father Faisal Bafaqih and mother’s Sri Dewi Putri Tampubolon. In 1996, writers
studied in primary school SD Harapan 1 Medan and was graduated in 2002. In 2002, the waiter
continued her study in junior high school SLTP Pertiwi Medan and graduated 2005. In 2005,
writer also continued her study in senior high school SMA Negeri 7 Medan and was graduated in
2008.
In 2009, the writer was accepted in Mathematics Education of Bilingual class, faculty of
Mathematics and Natural Science, State University of Medan. During the study.