COMPARISON OF STUDENT COGNITIVE ACHIEVEMENT TAUGHT BY JIGSAW AND STAD MODELS ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENTTOPIC IN8TH GRADE OF SMP N 1 SIDIKALANGACADEMIC YEAR 2012/2013.

(1)

COMPARISON OF STUDENT COGNITIVE ACHIEVEMENT

TAUGHT BYJIGSAW AND STAD MODELS ON

GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT TOPIC IN

8 GRADE OF SMP N 1 SIDIKALANG

ACADEMIC YEAR

2012/2013

By:

Maria Loretta Hutabarat I.D. Number: 408141083 Study Program: Biology Education

SKRIPSI

Submitted to Biology Education Department State University of Medan, Fulfillment of the Requirement for Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan

BIOLOGY DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

MEDAN

2013

(2)

(3)

PREFACE

The writer hardly knows where to start expressing her gratitude but for sure the gratitude goes to all those who have assisted her in the process of completing this thesis. It would be impossible to list all names but some deserves her special thankfulness.

The completion of this thesis is nothing without the support of many people around and close to the writer. First and foremost, she would like to thank Jesus Christ, The Almighty, for His guidance and Blessings until she is able to succeed in presenting this academic work as one of the requirement to obtain the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan.

In this occasion the writer would also like to thank to those who have built in completing this thesis, in particular to :

1. The Dean of FMIPA UNIMED, Prof. Drs. Motlan M.Sc.,Ph.D.

2. Thesis Supervisor and Coordinator of Bilingual Program, Prof. Dr. Herbert Sipahutar, M.Sc.

3. Head of Biology Department, Drs. Tri Harsono, M.Si.

4. All the examinors, Dr. rer.nat. Binari Manurung, M.Si., Dra. Meida Nugrahalia, M. Sc., and Dra.Martina Napitupulu, M.Sc

5. Headmaster of SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang, Jemsi Mahulae, S.Pd.

6. All Biology Teachers in SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang, S. Manullang, S.Pd, Rosintan Manalu, S.Si., Ellys Farida Aritonang, S.Pd.

7. Validator, Dr. Hasruddin, M. Pd.

8. Especially for my parents, Edison Hutabarat, SE., MM., and my mother Julia Dewi Koryati Pardede, who always support me while finished my study. My sister Winda E Hutabarat, Putri Hutabarat, my brother Johannes Hutabarat, S.H, my brother in law Rycky Siahaan, and both of my

(4)

9. All my friends, Patrick Napitupulu, S.T, Noviyanti Nasution, S.Pd., Desriana Marpaung, S. Pd., and Asruri Ramadhani, S. Pd., who have helped me during this thesis completing.

(5)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pages

THESIS APPROVAL i

BIOGRAPHY ii

ABSTRACT iii

PREFACE iv

TABLE OF CONTENS vi

LIST OF TABLES viii

LIST OF FIGURES ix

LIST OF APPENDICESS x

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1

1.1Background 1

1.2Problem Identification 3

1.3Research Scope 3

1.4Research Question 4

1.5Objectives of Research 4

1.6Significance of Research 4

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 5

2.1. Theory of Constructivism in Learning Science 5

2.2. Cooperative Learning 6

2.3. Jigsaw Model 8

2.4. Student Team Achievement Division Model 11

2.5. Biology Learning Outcomes 12

2.6. Relationship between Cooperatives Learning with Jigsaw

And STAD Model in Biology Learning Results 14

2.8 Conceptual Framework 16

2.9 Hypothesis 16

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLODY 18

3.1 Location and Time 18

(6)

3.3 Research Variable 18

3.4 Instrument 19

3.5 Research Design 19

3.6 Research Procedure 20

3.7 Technique of Data Analyzes 24

CHAPTER IVRESULT OF RESEARCH AND DISCUSSION 27

4.1. Result 27

4.2 Discussion 32

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 34

5.1. Conclusion 34

5.2. Recommendations 34

REFERENCES 35

(7)

LIST OF TABLES

Pages 2.1. Stages of Cooperative Learning Activities Jigsaw Technique 10

2.2. Stages of Cooperative LearningSTAD Technique 12

3.1.Student Class VIII of SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang

Academic Year 2012/2013 18

3.2.Multiple Choices for Instrument 19

3.3.The design of Research 20

3.4.Teaching Learning Activities 21

3.5. Correlation Coefficient Classification 24

3.6. Criterion Reliability Coefficient 25

4.1. Summary of Normality Test 28

4.2. Summary of Homogeneity Test 29

(8)

LIST OF FIGURES

Pages 3.1 Chart of the implementation procedure phase of the research

Until to varying conclusion 23

4.1 Result of Pretest and posttest between Students’ who were taught with ‘Jigsaw’ and those who were taughtwith ‘STAD’ t = 0,17;

P = 0,842 for pretest and t = 4,280; P = 0,001 for posttest 30

4.2Different ability in answering C1 – C3 question of students’ who were taught with ‘Jigsaw’ and those who were taught with

‘STAD’ assignment 30

4.3 Different ability in answering C4 – C6 question between Students’ who were taught with ‘Jigsaw’

(9)

LIST OF APPENDICES

Pages

Appendix 1 Lesson Plan using STAD Technique 37

Appendix 2 Lesson Plan using Jigsaw Technique 42

Appendix 3 Instrument 47

Appendix 4 Rubric of Instrument 51

Appendix 5 Lattice of the Instrument 52

Appendix 6 Syllabus 53

Appendix 7 Tabel Nilai Kritis Untuk Uji Lilliefors 55

Appendix 8 Tabel Wilayah Luas di Bawah Kurva Normal 0 ke z 56

Appendix 9 Daftar Nilai Presentil untuk Distribusi t 60

Appendix 10 Calculation of Instrument Test Validity 62

Appendix 11 Calculation of Reliability of Instrument Test 63

Appendix 12 Validity Test 64

Appendix 13 Reability Test 65

(10)

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

Duties of the teacher in the classroom not only to convey information for the achievement of learning objectives, but also to create learning experience to the students. The teachers should strive to keep the activities in that classroom can provide full opportunities for student experience. The teacher should be able to find suitable methods and models that can support their role, to make teaching and learning activities can be conducted effectively. But the reality in classroom, the teaching and learning processes is still dominated by conventional methods. (Ghazi, 2003).

In the teaching and learning by using process approach, the teachers should create learning plans for one semester. In the planning step, teacher determine all the concepts that will be developed, and for any concept determine specified method or approach will be used for any concept and the skill of the science will be developed.

Biology learns how to figure out and understand the universe systematically. Biology is not just a collection of mastery of knowledge in the form of facts, concepts, and principles of course but also constitutes a process of finding. Biology education is expected to be a vehicle for students to learn about themselves and nature, in which there is a wide subject matter that has the specificity of each character as well as the concepts that must be understood (Wina, 2005).

According to constructivism, knowledge is constructed in the minds of student; such knowledge can be gained from the experience of physical and also from others through social transmission. This is in accordance with the opinion of theLorbach and Tobin (2000), knowledge cannot be transferred away from the brain of a teacher to students, the students should be define what has been taught by adapting to them. One of the applications of constructivism in learning at school is a cooperative learning (Anonim, 2005).

(11)

Learning activities in cooperative learning also adds elements of social interaction. Cooperative learning is a small group of students who work together to learn and responsible to the group (Hernani, 2004). According to Killen, cooperative learning is an instructional model and philosophy of learning that seeks to improve the students to work in small groups, in order to maximize their learning ability, and learn from their friend and able to lead themselves (Yusuf, 2006)

In cooperative learning, students learn together in small groups and mutual aid to each other. It can train students accept the opinions of others and working with a different background, helping make it easy to receive subject matter, increasing the ability of thinking in solving problems. Due to the communication between the member of the group in delivering knowledge and experience, students able not only to add their knowledge and improve learning outcomes but also social relationship of every member of the group (Ghazi, 2003).

According to some studies suggest that the application of Cooperative Learning approach to the jigsaw model showed better learning outcomes. In her research Zuhriyah (2005) stated that the learning outcomes of students who were taught using a Cooperative Learning approach with jigsaw model is higher than that of conventional on the subject of respiration.

Furthermore, Karuru (2006) reported that STAD cooperative learning can increase the interest and the proportion of correct answers and student learning outcomes better than using the method or lecture setting or teacher centered learning. Activity in the study of biology is an attempt to how students can understand to the concepts. Understanding obtained by students in the learning process can be seen from the results of student learning as measured by giving the test to student. This research done to find effective methods in the learning process in the classroom and can provide an alternative approaches or methods that allow it to be applied in the process of learning biology with the specificity of the subject biology.

The principle learning objectives is that students had mastered the lesson materials in accordance with the indicators that have been determined by

(12)

curriculum school management. Because in every class gather students with different abilities (intelligence, talent, and speed of learning), a realistic and logical organization of the material is needed so, subject matter can be achieved and mastered by all students in accordance with established within given time.

Based on data from biology teacher who teach in grade VIII of SMP N. 1 Sidikalang at even semester showed that the average value of daily tests exam for Growth and Development is 65-75. This show the results of biology learning of grade VIII students SMPN.1Sidikalangstill low because of the Exhaustiveness Minimum Criteria(KKM) for Biology subjects is 80. Teachers have no implemented learning strategies and using variety of teaching materials yet that able to improve student achievement results. To minimize time for implementation, this research done only to compare the cognitive achievement of the students.

Based on explanation above the author do research by lifting the title research “Comparison of Student Cognitive Achievement Taught by Jigsaw and STAD Models in Growth and Development Topic in Eighth Grade of SMP N 1 Sidikalang Academic Year 2012/2013”

1.2. Problem Identification

Based on this background, some of the problems that can identified as follows:

1. The low learning outcome of student’s in Growth and Development topic. 2. The low student’s response towards conventional model which is used by

the teacher in learning activity.

3. The difficulties of students to learn Growth and Development topic.

1.3. Research Scope

From identified problem, researchers limit comparison of students achievement in biology taught with Jigsaw and Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) models. Biology learning result measured in this research is

(13)

cognitive aspect of student achievement in VII grade of SMPN 1 Sidikalang first semester on topic Growth and Development.

1.4. Research Question

Based on the identification and limitation of problems that outlined previously the matter of researched is formulated as follows “How the comparison of student biology cognitive achievement taught by Jigsaw and STAD?”

1.5. Objectives of Research

Based on the formulation of the problem above, the objectives of this study was to compare the student biology cognitive achievement taught by Jigsaw and STAD solving the problem of understanding the growth and development topic concept of VIII grade students in SMPNegeri1 Sidikalang.

1.6. Significance of Research

From the results of research that the researcher expected to be useful for: 1. For researchers, convey information about the effects of cooperative

learning taught by STAD and Jigsaw toward study results and its comparison.

2. For teachers especially biology teacher, can make both of the cooperative learning model as an alternative in teaching and learning.

3. For students, it can provide the motivation to learn, practice skills, be responsible for any duty, developing the ability to think and positive thinking, and give provision to be able to collaborate with others both in learning and in society.

(14)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Conclusion

Based on the research data analysis and discussion, concluded, there is a difference of students learning achievement between the Jigsaw model and STAD model.The comparison of student cognitive achievement taught with Jigsaw and STAD is 1:0,9 shows that Jigsaw models can increase the student cognitive achievement higher than STAD model on Biology subject grade 8thof SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang on Growth and Development topic, academic year 2012/2013.

5.2. Recommendations

Based on research findings outlined in conclusion of the study, proposed some recommendations as following as:

1. For students, the cooperative learning model can be used to improve learning

achievement of students caused its systematic and attractive performance that able to interest and stimulate students to learn independently then students are more motivated to learn and be able to assess their own ability.

2. For Biology teachers in SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang, could consider the Jigsaw

model in growth and development topic as an alternative to improve student’s learning achievement.

3. For researcher as prospective teacher in the next future, the results of this study can

be used as information source and feedback to increase information and knowledge about the benefit of using jigsaw as model in teaching and learning process.

(15)

REFFERENCES

Anonim. 2005. Cooperative Learning. Cooperative,http//Volcano.Und.Nodak, Edu/vwdocs/msh/is/cl.html.(8 Agustus 2005)

Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2002.Dasar-dasarEvaluasiPendidikan. Yogyakarta: BumiAksara.

Armstrong, Scott, Palmer and Jesse.2000. Student Team Achievment Division (STAD) in a Twelfth Grade Classroom: Effect on Student Achievment and Attitude. Journal of Social Studies Researc, vol 4:1.

Cooper, Robert. 2000. Improving Intergroup Relation: Lessons Learned From Cooperative Learning Programs, Journal of Social Issues, 12:22. Daroni.2002.PembelajaranKooperatifSiswa di SLTP Melalui Model

Jigsaw.LembaranIlmuKependidikanUniversitasNegeri Semarang.Tahun XXXI-No. 2: 225241.

Educational Broadcasting Corporation. 2004. Cooperative Learning. tersedia: http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/consept2class/coopcolab/index.html. Ghazi, Ghaith. 2003. Effects of Learning Together Model of Cooperative

Learning on English as a Foreign Language Reading Achievement, Academic Self-Esteem, and Feelings of School Alienation. Bilingual Research Journal, 27:3.

Hernani. 2004. Pembelajaran Kooperatif Sebagai Salah Satu Alternatif Untuk Meningkatkan Keterampilan Berpikir Siswa. Seminar Nasional Pendidikan Matematika dan IPA. 2004.

Johnson, David W., Jhonson, Roger T and Stanne, Mary Beth. 2006. Cooperative Learning Method: A Meta-Analysis, Tersedia:

http://www.coopeation.org/pages/clmethods.htmlr Kai Hakkairanen. 2006. Jigsaw, Tersedia:

http://www.articel.net/jigsaw/hakkiranen.html

Karuru, Predy. 2003. PenerapanPendekatanKeterampilan Proses DalamSetingPembelajaranKooperatif STAD

UntukMeningkatkanKualitasPembelajaran IPA Siswa

(16)

Lie, Anita. 2002. Cooperative Learning: Mempraktikan Cooperative Learning di Ruang-Ruang Kelas. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Widiasarana Indonesia. Maloof, Joan. 2005. Using The Jigsaw Method of Cooperative Learning to Teach

From Primary Sources. Journal of Issues, 2005.7:2.

Masturoh. 2005.PengaruhPembelajaranCooperatif Learning Dengan model JigsawTerhadapHasilBelajarmatematika, (Skripsi FITK UIN

SyarifHidayatullahJakarta : 2005)

Paulina, Pannen. 2001.KonstruktivismeDalamPembelajaran. Jakarta: UT, Popham, W. James. 2001. TeknikMengajarSecaraSistematis. Eva L. Baker,

Jakarta: RinekaCipta.

PusatKurikulum. 2003. BadanPenelitiandanPengembangan,

KegiatanBelajarMengajar yang efektif. Jakarta: Depdiknas.

Slameto. 1995. BelajardanFaktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya. Jakarta :RinekaCipta

Sooh, Leen-Kiat. 2006. Implementing the Jigsaw Model in CS1 Closed Labs. Italy: University of Nebraska.

Sudjana, Nana and Rivai, Ahmad. 2002. TeknologiPengajaran. Bandung :SinarBaru

Suhaenah, Suparno. 2001. Membangun Kompetensi Belajar. Dirjen Pendidikan Tinggi Depdiknas. Jakarta

Sumaji. 2003. Pendidikan Sains yang Humanistis. Yogyakarta: Kanisius. Theodora, De baz.2001. The Effectiveness of The Jigsaw Cooperative Learning

on Strudent'sAchievment and Attitudes Toward Science, Journal of Education.

Wina, Sanjaya.2005.

PembelajarandalamImplementasiKurikulumBerbasisKompetensi. Jakarta: Kencana.

Yusuf. 2006. Kualitas Proses dan Hasil Belajar Biologi Melalui Pengajaran Dengan Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Jigsaw pada Madrasah Aliyah Ponpos Nurul Haramain Lombok Barat NTB. Semarang. Zuhriyah. 2005. Pengaruh Pembelajaran Cooperatif Learning Dengan Teknik

(1)

The principle learning objectives is that students had mastered the lesson materials in accordance with the indicators that have been determined by

(2)

Based on explanation above the author do research by lifting the title research “Comparison of Student Cognitive Achievement Taught by Jigsaw and STAD Models in Growth and Development Topic in Eighth Grade of SMP N 1 Sidikalang Academic Year 2012/2013”

1.2. Problem Identification

Based on this background, some of the problems that can identified as follows:

1. The low learning outcome of student’s in Growth and Development topic. 2. The low student’s response towards conventional model which is used by

the teacher in learning activity.

3. The difficulties of students to learn Growth and Development topic.

1.3. Research Scope

(3)

cognitive aspect of student achievement in VII grade of SMPN 1 Sidikalang first semester on topic Growth and Development.

1.4. Research Question

1.5. Objectives of Research

1.6. Significance of Research

From the results of research that the researcher expected to be useful for: 1. For researchers, convey information about the effects of cooperative

learning taught by STAD and Jigsaw toward study results and its comparison.

2. For teachers especially biology teacher, can make both of the cooperative learning model as an alternative in teaching and learning.

(4)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Conclusion

5.2. Recommendations

Based on research findings outlined in conclusion of the study, proposed some recommendations as following as:

1. For students, the cooperative learning model can be used to improve learning

2. For Biology teachers in SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang, could consider the Jigsaw

model in growth and development topic as an alternative to improve student’s learning achievement.

3. For researcher as prospective teacher in the next future, the results of this study can be used as information source and feedback to increase information and knowledge about the benefit of using jigsaw as model in teaching and learning process.

(5)

REFFERENCES

Anonim. 2005. Cooperative Learning. Cooperative,http//Volcano.Und.Nodak, Edu/vwdocs/msh/is/cl.html.(8 Agustus 2005)

Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2002.Dasar-dasarEvaluasiPendidikan. Yogyakarta: BumiAksara.

Armstrong, Scott, Palmer and Jesse.2000. Student Team Achievment Division (STAD) in a Twelfth Grade Classroom: Effect on Student Achievment and Attitude. Journal of Social Studies Researc, vol 4:1.

Cooper, Robert. 2000. Improving Intergroup Relation: Lessons Learned From Cooperative Learning Programs, Journal of Social Issues, 12:22.

Daroni.2002.PembelajaranKooperatifSiswa di SLTP Melalui Model

Jigsaw.LembaranIlmuKependidikanUniversitasNegeri Semarang.Tahun XXXI-No. 2: 225241.

Educational Broadcasting Corporation. 2004. Cooperative Learning. tersedia: http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/consept2class/coopcolab/index.html.

Ghazi, Ghaith. 2003. Effects of Learning Together Model of Cooperative Learning on English as a Foreign Language Reading Achievement, Academic Self-Esteem, and Feelings of School Alienation. Bilingual Research Journal, 27:3.

Hernani. 2004. Pembelajaran Kooperatif Sebagai Salah Satu Alternatif Untuk Meningkatkan Keterampilan Berpikir Siswa. Seminar Nasional Pendidikan Matematika dan IPA. 2004.

Johnson, David W., Jhonson, Roger T and Stanne, Mary Beth. 2006. Cooperative Learning Method: A Meta-Analysis, Tersedia:

http://www.coopeation.org/pages/clmethods.htmlr

Kai Hakkairanen. 2006. Jigsaw, Tersedia: http://www.articel.net/jigsaw/hakkiranen.html

Karuru, Predy. 2003. PenerapanPendekatanKeterampilan Proses DalamSetingPembelajaranKooperatif STAD

UntukMeningkatkanKualitasPembelajaran IPA Siswa

(6)

Lie, Anita. 2002. Cooperative Learning: Mempraktikan Cooperative Learning di Ruang-Ruang Kelas. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Widiasarana Indonesia.

Maloof, Joan. 2005. Using The Jigsaw Method of Cooperative Learning to Teach From Primary Sources. Journal of Issues, 2005.7:2.

Masturoh. 2005.PengaruhPembelajaranCooperatif Learning Dengan model JigsawTerhadapHasilBelajarmatematika, (Skripsi FITK UIN

SyarifHidayatullahJakarta : 2005)

Paulina, Pannen. 2001.KonstruktivismeDalamPembelajaran. Jakarta: UT,

Popham, W. James. 2001. TeknikMengajarSecaraSistematis. Eva L. Baker, Jakarta: RinekaCipta.

PusatKurikulum. 2003. BadanPenelitiandanPengembangan,

KegiatanBelajarMengajar yang efektif. Jakarta: Depdiknas.

Slameto. 1995. BelajardanFaktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya. Jakarta :RinekaCipta

Sooh, Leen-Kiat. 2006. Implementing the Jigsaw Model in CS1 Closed Labs. Italy: University of Nebraska.

Sudjana, Nana and Rivai, Ahmad. 2002. TeknologiPengajaran. Bandung :SinarBaru

Suhaenah, Suparno. 2001. Membangun Kompetensi Belajar. Dirjen Pendidikan Tinggi Depdiknas. Jakarta

Sumaji. 2003. Pendidikan Sains yang Humanistis. Yogyakarta: Kanisius.

Theodora, De baz.2001. The Effectiveness of The Jigsaw Cooperative Learning on Strudent'sAchievment and Attitudes Toward Science, Journal of Education.

Wina, Sanjaya.2005.

PembelajarandalamImplementasiKurikulumBerbasisKompetensi. Jakarta: Kencana.

Yusuf. 2006. Kualitas Proses dan Hasil Belajar Biologi Melalui Pengajaran Dengan Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Jigsaw pada Madrasah Aliyah Ponpos Nurul Haramain Lombok Barat NTB. Semarang.

Zuhriyah. 2005. Pengaruh Pembelajaran Cooperatif Learning Dengan Teknik Jigsaw Terhadap Hasil Belajar. Jakarta

COMPARISON OF STUDENT COGNITIVE ACHIEVEMENT TAUGHT BY JIGSAW AND STAD MODELS ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENTTOPIC IN8TH GRADE OF SMP N 1 SIDIKALANGACADEMIC YEAR 2012/2013.