THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENTS MATHEMATICAL COMMUNCIATION ABILITY TAUGHT BY COOPERATIVE LEARNING TALKING STICK AND COOPERATIVE SCRIPT TYPES AT SMP NEGERI 3 KISARAN.
THE DIFFERENCES OF STUDENTS’ MATHEMATICAL COMMUNICATION
ABILITY TAUGHT BY COOPERATIVE LEARNING TALKING STICK
AND COOPERATIVE SCRIPT TYPES AT SMP NEGERI 3 KISARAN
By:
DWI MAULIDA SARI
4113312004
Bilingual Mathematics Education Study Program
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of The Requirement
for Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
MATHEMATICS DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2015
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of All, praise is merely to the Almighty Allah SWT for the gracious mercy
and tremendous blessing that enables researcher to finish this bachelor thesis entitled:
The Difference of Students’ Mathematical Communication Ability Taught by
Cooperative Learning Talking-Stick and Cooperative-Script Types at SMP Negeri 3
Kisaran. This bachelor thesis is presented to fulfill one of the requirements in
accomplished S-1 Degree in State University of Medan.
The present of this thesis is because many people who help so generously. So,
researcher would like to extend the great gratitude towardsProf. Dr. Syawal Gultom,
M.Pd as the head of State University of Medan, Prof. Drs. Motlan, Ph.D as the dean
of Mathematics and Natural Science Faculty, Dr. Edy Surya, M.Si as the chief of
Mathematics Department and Prof. Dr. rer.nat Binari Manurung, M.Si as the
coordinator of Bilingual and International Program
Dr. Kms. M. Amin Fauzi, M.Pd as thesis supervisor, who always generously help
researcher in complete this thesis. Also who always give researcher so many great
opportunities, guidance, and motivations.
Prof. Dr. Edi Syahputra, M.Pd.,Dr. E Elvis Napitupulu, M.S., Mulyono,S.Si, M.Si
as truly dedicated examiners. I am particularly indebted to them for their constant
advices, and constructive critics and also suggestion in perfecting this thesis
My academic supervisor Prof, Dr. B. Sinaga, M.Pd and all Lecturer and also staff
of Mathematics and Natural Science Faculty and Bilingual and International Program
for all the knowledge and also the help given to researcher
For my parents, my best father ever H. Syamsudin and my sprit my beloved
mother Hj. Rirawati Harahap, who never stop loving, giving bless, pray, and giving
motivation to me, so I still has a faith and sprit in finish my study. My beloved Sister
and Brother, Indah Pristina Sari and Heru Cakra A’sari for the suggestion and
unbelievable supports.
My best friend Rizky, Sapta, Mawaddah, Leni, Sifa, Debby, Widi, Yoe and all my
BILMATH’11 thanks for all love and unforgettable memory you all give to me.
v
My PPL friends at SMA N 2 Kisaran, Zelfani, Sapta, Sifa, Lia, Guruh, Septian,
and others for best memory in just 3 month. All people who help directly or
indirectly. Researcher can only hope God give all of you best out of the best.
Amiiiiin.
Medan
Researcher
Dwi Maulida Sari
4113312004
2015
iii
THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENTS’ MATHEMATICAL COMMUNICATION
ABILITY TAUGHT BY COOPERATIVE LEARNING TALKING STICK
AND COOPERATIVE SCRIPT TYPES AT SMP NEGERI 3 KISARAN
Dwi Maulida Sari
ID. 4113312004
Abstract
One of the learning models that predicted were able to overcome the low level
of mathematical communication ability is a cooperative learning, that is, teachers act
as mentors and facilitators in achieving learning objective. As for the goal to be
achieved from this research are as follows: (1) To know any difference in student’s
mathematical communication ability taught by cooperative learning talking stick type
and cooperative script type in learning quadrilateral at SMP. (2) To see varieties of
student’s answer type taught by cooperative learning talking stick type and
cooperative script type in topic quadrilateral at SMP.
This research uses posttest experimental class design. The sample of this
research is student of class VII-2 as experimental class I and class VII-4 as
experimental class II at SMP Negeri 3 Kisaran that is amounted both 30 students.
Instrument that used is observation and test sheet that uses T-test of data analysis
technique. Data that get from the posttest by using t-test of data analysis technique is
Sig. 0.000 and the α is 0.05. It shows that the Sig. value is less than α that is .000 <
0.05. According o the result can be conclude that there is the difference in students’
mathematical communication ablity taught by cooperative learning talking stick and
cooperative learning cooperative-script types.
vi
CONTENT LIST
APPROVED PAPER ............................................................................................ i
BIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEGEMENT ....................................................................................... iv
CONTENT LIST ................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURE ................................................................................................ ix
LIST OF TABLE .................................................................................................. x
LIST OF APPENDDIX ........................................................................................ xi
CHAPTER I .......................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background ............................................................................................. 1
1.2. Problem Identification ............................................................................ 7
1.3. Problem Formulation .............................................................................. 8
1.4. Problem Limitation ................................................................................. 8
1.5. The Objectives of Research .................................................................... 8
1.6. The Benefit of Research.......................................................................... 8
1.7. Operational Definition ............................................................................ 9
CHAPTER II ......................................................................................................... 11
2.1. Learning Communication ....................................................................... 11
2.2. Mathematical Communication Ability ................................................... 12
2.2.1. Aspect of Communication ............................................................. 13
2.2.2. Factors of Mathematical Communication ..................................... 15
2.3. Cooperative Learning Model .................................................................. 16
2.3.1. Definition of Cooperative Learning .............................................. 16
2.3.2. Characteristics of Cooperative learning ........................................ 17
2.3.3. Syntax of Cooperative Learning .................................................... 18
2.3.4. The Benefit of Cooperative Learning ............................................ 18
2.3.5. Cooperative Learning Type Talking Stick .................................... 19
vii
2.3.6. Cooperative Learning Type Cooperative Script ............................ 20
2.4.Relevant Research ..................................................................................... 20
2.5.Conceptual Framework ............................................................................. 21
2.6.Hypothesis ................................................................................................. 23
CHAPTER III ....................................................................................................... 24
3.1.Place and Time of Research ...................................................................... 24
3.2.Population and Sample.............................................................................. 24
4.1.1 Population ...................................................................................... 24
4.1.2 Sample ........................................................................................... 24
3.3.Variable and Instrument of Research ........................................................ 25
3.3.1. Variable of Research ..................................................................... 25
3.3.2. Instrument of Research .................................................................. 25
1. Mathematical Communication Ability Test ............................. 25
2. Mathematical Communication Scoring .................................... 27
3. Instrument Trial ........................................................................ 29
3.4.Research Design ........................................................................................ 31
3.5.Data Collection Technique ........................................................................ 32
3.6.Data Analysis Technique .......................................................................... 34
3.6.1. Descriptive Statistics ..................................................................... 34
3.6.2. Normality Test ............................................................................... 34
3.6.3. Homogeneity Test ......................................................................... 34
3.6.4. Statistics Hypothesis ...................................................................... 35
CHAPTER IV ....................................................................................................... 36
4.1 The Description of Research Result ....................................................... 36
4.1.1 The Score of Mathematics Communication Ability...................... 36
4.1.2 The Description of Students’ Mathematics Communication
Ability test ..................................................................................... 37
4.2 The Analysis Data of Research Result.................................................... 38
viii
4.2.1 Normality Test ............................................................................... 38
4.2.2 Homogeneity Test ......................................................................... 39
4.2.3 Hypothesis Test ............................................................................. 40
4.3 The Difference in Characteristics of Students’ Answer in
Research Result ....................................................................................... 41
4.4 Research Discussion ............................................................................... 49
CHAPTER V......................................................................................................... 52
5.1 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 52
5.2 Suggestion ............................................................................................... 52
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................. 53
Appendix ............................................................................................................... 55
x
LIST OF TABLE
Table 3.1. Blueprint of Mathematical Communication Ability Test ............................. 26
Table 3.2. Criteria of Mathematical Communication Scoring ....................................... 27
Table 3.3. Scoring Guideline of Mathematical Communication Ability Test ............... 28
Table 3.4. Criteria of Validity ........................................................................................ 29
Table 3.5. Criteria of Reliability .................................................................................... 30
Table 4.1 Data of Mathematical Communication Ability Test in Both
Experimental Class ...................................................................................... 36
Table 4.2 Mean of of Mathematical Communication Ability Indicators ....................... 37
Table 4.3 The Result of Homogeneity Test of Mathematical Communication
Ability Score in Both Experimental Class .................................................. 38
Table 4.4 The Result of Hypothesis Test ....................................................................... 39
Table 4.5 The Result of Advance Hypothesis Result .................................................... 40
Table 4.6 Distribution of Students answer in Problem Number 1, 1st Indicator ............ 41
Table 4.7 Distribution of Students answer in Problem Number 2, 1st Indicator ............ 42
Table 4.8 Distribution of Students answer in Problem Number 3, 1st Indicator ............ 43
Table 4.9 Distribution of Students answer in Problem Number 1, 2nd Indicator ........... 44
Table 4.10 Distribution of Students answer in Problem Number 2, 2nd Indicator ......... 44
Table 4.11 Distribution of Students answer in Problem Number 3, 2nd Indicator ......... 45
Table 4.12 Distribution of Students answer in Problem Number 1, 3rd Indicator ......... 46
Table 4.13 Distribution of Students answer in Problem Number 2, 3rd Indicator ......... 47
Table 4.14 Distribution of Students answer in Problem Number 3, 3rd Indicator ......... 48
ix
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 1.1 one of student answer to problem No. 1 .............................................. 3
Figure 1.2 one of student answer to problem No. 2 .............................................. 4
Figure 1.3 one of student answer to problem No. 3 .............................................. 5
Figure 3.1. Schema of Data Collection ................................................................. 33
Figure 4.1 Diagram of Mathematical Communication Ability Test in Both
Experimental Class ............................................................................. 37
Figure 4.2 The Difference in Student’s Answer in Talking Stick Class and
Cooperative Script Type 1st Indicator Problem No.1 ........................ 42
Figure 4.3 The Difference in Student’s Answer in Talking Stick Class and
Cooperative Script Type 1st Indicator Problem No.3 ........................ 43
Figure 4.4 The Difference in Student’s Answer in Talking Stick Class and
Cooperative Script Type 2nd Indicator Problem No.1, No.2 ............. 44
Figure 4.5 The Difference in Student’s Answer in Talking Stick Class and
Cooperative Script Type 2nd Indicator Problem No.3 ....................... 45
Figure 4.6 The Difference in Student’s Answer in Talking Stick Class and
Cooperative Script Type 3rd Indicator Problem No.1 ....................... 46
Figure 4.7 The Difference in Student’s Answer in Talking Stick Class and
Cooperative Script Type 3rd Indicator Problem No.2 ....................... 47
Figure 4.8 The Difference in Student’s Answer in Talking Stick Class and
Cooperative Script Type 3rd Indicator Problem No.3 ....................... 48
xi
LIST OF APPENDDIX
Appendix 1 .............................................................................................. 55
Appendix 2 .............................................................................................. 63
Appendix 3 .............................................................................................. 71
Appendix 4 .............................................................................................. 81
Appendix 5 .............................................................................................. 86
Appendix 6 .............................................................................................. 98
Appendix 7 .............................................................................................. 106
Appendix 8 .............................................................................................. 119
Appendix 9 .............................................................................................. 128
Appendix 10 ............................................................................................ 134
Appendix 11 ............................................................................................ 139
Appendix 12 ............................................................................................ 151
Appendix 13 ............................................................................................ 163
Appendix 14 ............................................................................................ 164
Appendix 15 ............................................................................................ 165
Appendix 16 ............................................................................................ 169
Appendix 17 ............................................................................................ 171
Appendix 18 ............................................................................................ 176
Appendix 19 ............................................................................................ 181
Appendix 20 ............................................................................................ 186
Appendix 21 ............................................................................................ 188
Appendix 22 ............................................................................................ 191
Appendix 23 ............................................................................................ 192
Appendix 24 ............................................................................................ 195
Appendix 25 ............................................................................................ 197
Appendix 26 ............................................................................................ 198
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1.
Background
All countries in the world have always prioritize education. Efforts to
improve the quality of education that has been done by the government
including curriculum renewal, improvement of educational facilities, the use of
teaching methods and to improve the quality and quantity of teaching materials.
Mathematics is one of the subjects that are used as a reference for educational
advancement of a country. If a country has people who follow or win an
Olympic mathematics, it is considered the country's education began to advance
this is in line with the view that education is a benchmark of the progress of a
country
Mathematics courses is given from grade 1 in elementary school, an early
attempt to instill concepts, facts or principles of mathematics, which in turn is
expect to improve the quality and quantity of learning outcomes in other
education purposes. As written in the book Materi Pelatihan Integrasi Buku-1
(2004: 7), that mathematics is abstract and deductive science. Mathematics is the
study of patterns, shapes, and structures and mathematics is a human activity,
also written on this book (2004: 4) that mathematics as a vehicle for education,
not only can be used to achieve one goal such as to educate students, but can
also form the personality of students and develop certain skills.
There are purposes of learning mathematics for student that under mentioned
in Materi Pelatihan Integrasi Buku-1 (2004: 24) are:
“(1) memahami konsep matematika. Menjelaskan keterkaitan antar konsep
dan mengaplikan konsep atau algoritma, secara luwes, akurat, efisien dan
tepat dalam pemecahan masalah, (2) menggunakan penalaran pada pola
dan sifat, melakukan manipulasi matematika dalam membuat generalisasi,
menyusun bukti, atau menjelaskan gagasan dan pernyataan matematika,
1
2
(3) memecahkan masalah yang meliputi kemampuan memahami masalah,
merancang model matematika, menyelesaikan model dan menafsirkan
solusi yang diperoleh, (4) mengkomunikasikan gagasan dengan simbol,
tabel, diagram atau media lain untuk memperjelas keadaan dan masalah,
(5) memiliki sikap menghargai matematika dalam kehidupan, yaitu
memiliki rasa ingin tahu, perhatian, dan minat dalam mempelajari
matematika serta sikap ulet dan percaya diri dalam pemecahan masalah”.
So, as said by book that published by Ministry of Education one purpose of
learning mathematics is communicate ideas with symbols, tables, diagrams or
other media to clarify the situation and problems. It’s clearly showing that the
ability if mathematics communication is also needed. Written in book published
by Ministry of Education (2004: 8) in the early stages mathematics formed from
human experience in the world of empirical ratios are then processed in the
world, processed in the analysis and synthesis of the reasoning in cognitive
structure, thus arrive at mathematics concept. In order to others understand the
concept form and easily also appropriately manipulated, then use the notation
and terminology carefully universally agreed upon and is known as language
mathematics. Also confirmed by Ansari (2012: 1) that mathematics is a tool that
can clarify and simplify a condition or situation that is abstract into concrete
ideas through language and mathematics idea as well as a generalization to
easier to find the problem solving.
Lack of ability of mathematical communication can lead to a lack of
understanding the mathematical concept or mathematical problem. Without
having the mathematical communication ability students will experience a lack
of information, data and also the fact that it can be used in solving mathematical
problems. This day, in mathematics learning-teaching process, few teachers use
the paradigm of transfer knowledge. Said by Ruseffendi in Ansari (2012: 2) the
biggest part where learned by students in a school is not obtained through
mathematical exploration, but through notification. In turn, students'
3
mathematical communication ability of students in solving mathematics
problems is very unsatisfactory.
The statement above is agreed by Baroody (1993: 2-99) “For children,
mathematics is essentially a second or foreign language. When instruction
focuses on memorizing terms rather than communicating ideas, many find
mathematics impenetrable. Children’s difficulties in learning the new language
of mathematics are compounded when it is introduced too quickly”.
Thus, all the opinions clarified that ability of mathematics communication is
one of fundamental capability. Said by Ansari (2012: 10) there are three
indicators of ability mathematics communication that concern to be repaired are:
(1) the ability of explaining mathematical problem into figure, (2) the ability of
explaining problem situations by own words, and (3) the ability of stating
mathematical problem into mathematical model and doing calculation.
In fact, based on preliminary observation conducted by researchers in SMP
Negeri 3 Kisaran, the students aren’t able to answer. It clearly seen in student’s
answer sheet that student’s mathematical communication ability is low. For
example, problem number one: Write down every sentence below to be
mathematical model by using x and y variable. (a) The result of multiple from
two natural numbers 2 is 9, (b) Amount of Ikhsan and Bayu book is 11, while
difference of their books are 1, (c) Circumference of a rectangular is 14m, when
size of the length 3 feet longer than the width.
Student state that the
2 number in different
place, but the real
answer is x.y + 2=9
Student state that the 2 variable
here are in power operational,
actually it’s a plus and minus
operation
Figure 1.1 one of student answer to problem No. 1
4
For problem number one the indicator of mathematical communication ability
is students able to state problem in writing into mathematical model (Ansari,
2012: 10). From the figure 1.1 above students can’t form the mathematical
model for the two natural number, also the sum and the difference of Ikhsan and
Bayu book also they can form mathematical model from the circumstance of the
rectangular. So from this first problem we found that student’s ability in stating
problem in writing in mathematical model is very low.
For the problem number two the indicator for the mathematical
communication ability is explaining problem in writing into figure and stating
problem in writing into mathematical model (Ansari, 2012: 10). The problem to
1
test the indicator is: Indicate the 5 apples in picture form.
2
Student even can’t state the 5 apple
and half apple.
Figure 1.2 one of student answer to problem No. 2
From the picture above, it can be seen that the student is still difficult to
determine half of the apple and the majority students are only focused to solve
the problem half of the apple. Even partially other students are able to describe
the half of apple properly. This indicates that the ability of mathematical
communication in explaining problem and writing into figure is also week.
The problem number three is: a company will deliver package to their 60
employees, which consists of 2 bottles of syrup and 12 cases of instant noodles.
Then explain how dozen syrup and instant noodles are required by the company.
5
Student can’t use their own word
to explain the number on
problem. They just know how to
calculate.
Student knowing and
understand the problem,
but they can’t state it into
mathematical
model.
They also don’t state
from the problem, which
one as known and which
one as the question
Figure 1.3 one of student answer to problem No. 3
The indicator of mathematical communication ability in problem number
three stated by Ansari (2012:10) is explaining problem situations by own words
and doing calculation. From figure 1.3 can be known that student can doing the
calculation but they can explain clearly meaning of the number in their sheet.
Also students make the syrup and instant noodle as one, even syrup and instant
noodle are different type. Students also find it difficult to change the problem
number three into a mathematical model, it means student’s ability in explaining
problem by own words and doing calculation us also weak.
From this preliminary observation, it can be concluded that the student’s
mathematical communication ability is still weak and unsatisfactory. This is also
happen because student’s lack of understanding of algebra and the system of
linear equation. Besides that, their lack of mathematical communication ability
because they not familiarized to change something abstract becomes real
problem in form of mathematical model.
Lack of student’s mathematical communication ability of SMP N 3 Kisaran is
so relates with learning process which has done by the mathematics teacher.
Teacher design the unsuitable learning model to increase students activity in the
learning process.
6
Then, the next happen is the lack of reflect of the leaning mathematics itself.
It’s can also means the model that teacher use isn’t suitable or need by students
in terms to increase the student’s activity in class.
As said by Paulo (in Agus, 2009: 13): teacher do the things, learners imagine
how to act in accordance with his teacher action. It means that everything that
teachers says it’s true also teachers known everything when student’s know
nothing. Because teachers use this old paradigm of learning mathematics, the
mathematical communication ability of students is decreasing. Teachers only
transfer the knowledge that they know and students passively accept everything.
This kind of learning behavior already used really long time in Indonesia
learning process.
To fix it, is necessary to develop an approach to learning that is more
effective, creative, and fun. On this basis, the authors try to apply cooperative
learning model talking stick and see the difference with the use of cooperative
learning cooperative script to improve the mathematical communication ability.
Learning model type talking stick has an aims to expand students' knowledge
and accuracy in understanding a concept. As Agus (2009:109) said talking stick
teaching methods encourage students to dare to express opinions. Agreed by
Istarani (2012: 89) that talking sticks learning model, encourage students to dare
to express their opinions, teachers give an explanation about the material, then
students have time to read and write things they know after that the talking stick
will be given to students and student that hold the stick must answer the question
that teachers give.
Thus, cooperative learning type talking stick is an appropriate approach to
develop
student’s
mathematical
communication
through
mathematical
understanding which stimulated by the talking stick which going around the
whole class to provide the opportunity for students to give their opinions.
7
According to Istarani (2012: 15) that model of learning in which students
work in pairs and take turns verbally summarize, the parts of the material being
studied. Cooperative learning model type cooperative script begins with the
delivery of teaching materials that start with giving a discourse or a summary,
then given an opportunity to the students to read it for a moment and provide,
input or new ideas into teaching materials being studied.
So, cooperative learning type cooperative script also one of an alternative
learning model that appropriate to develop the student’s mathematical
communication ability by give students opportunities to answer an also provide,
input or new ideas in material that supplied.
Based on the background above, researcher intends to conduct a research
entitled: “The Differences of Students’ Mathematical Communication
Ability Taught by Cooperative Learning Talking Stick and Cooperative
Script Types at SMP Negeri 3 Kisaran”
1.2.
Problem Identification
Based on the analyzing in background, problem identification in this research
are:
1.
Student’s mathematical communication ability is still low.
2.
Student’s activity in the learning process is passive.
3.
The learning model that teacher use isn’t suitable for students in terms to
increase the student’s activity in class.
1.3.
Problem Formulation
The problem formulation in this research is:
1.
Is there any difference student’s in mathematical communication ability
taught by cooperative learning talking stick type with cooperative script
type?
8
2.
Is student’s answer sheet taught by cooperative learning talking stick
type and cooperative script type has varieties answer?
1.4.
Problem Limitation
This research bound the problem to get precise target expectation. The
problem limitation is:
1.
The model used is cooperative learning talking stick type and cooperative
script type.
2.
The student’s
mathematical
communication ability bounded in
quadrilateral matter in grade VII semester 2.
3.
1.5.
The research was concluded at SMP Negeri 3 Kisaran
The Objectives of Research
The objective in this research is:
1.
To know any difference in student’s mathematical communication ability
taught by cooperative learning talking stick type and cooperative script
type.
2.
To see varieties of student’s answer type taught by cooperative learning
talking stick type and cooperative script type.
1.6.
1.
The Benefit of Research
For the teachers, especially mathematics teacher, this research can be
consideration in selecting one of alternative model or approach in
mathematics learning.
2.
For the candidate of teacher, this research can be proper consideration for
handle the problem which often appears in mathematics learning in
school.
3.
For the students, this research can make students have enthusiasm to
improve their mathematical communication ability.
9
4.
For the researcher, this research used for increase researcher’s knowledge
about problem in learning process and try to solving it.
5.
For the school, this research can be consideration and suggestion to
improve the quality of teacher also the learning activity at class
1.7.
Operational Definition
Operational definition emphasize to things which will be standard or indicator
of variable. Operational definition in this research is:
1.
The indicator of student’s mathematical communication ability which
will be measured are:
a.
The ability of explaining mathematical problem into figure.
b.
The ability of explaining problem situations by own words.
c.
The ability of stating mathematical problem in writing into mathematical
model and doing calculation.
2.
The syntax of Talking stick, are:
a.
Phase 1: teachers prepare a stick
b.
Phase 2: teachers deliver the subject matter to be studied then
give the opportunity to students to read and learn the material.
c.
Phase 3: after finishing read the material in their subject book
and learning it, student’s close their book
d.
Phase 4: teachers take a stick and give to students, after that
the teacher provides questions and learners who hold the stick
must answer, so until all learners take part to answer all
questions from the teacher
e.
Phase 5: teachers and students to make conclusion
f.
Phase 6: evaluation
g.
Phase 7: closing
10
3.
The syntax of cooperative script, are:
a.
Phase 1: Teachers divide students into couple.
b.
Phase 2: Teachers give a script about material to read and be
summarized.
Phase 3: Teachers and students make a decision student’s
c.
going first as speaker and other student’s going to be listener.
d.
Phase 4: Speaker read summarized as complete as possible, by
inserting the key ideas in the summary. Other learners:
Listening and shows the main ideas incomplete
Helps to remember or memorize the key ideas with the previous
material, or with any other material
e.
Phase 5: exchanging roles, originally a listener later became
speaker, and vice versa
f.
Phase 6: did back phase 4
g.
Phase 7: teachers and learners together conclude the subject
material.
h.
Phase 8: closing.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
From the research result and discussion can be conclude that:
1. There is difference in students’ mathematical communication ability
taught by cooperative learning talking stick and cooperative script types at
SMP Negeri 3 Kisaran
2.
The students’ mathematical communication ability taught by cooperative
learning talking stick type is better than students’ mathematical
communication ability taught by cooperative learning cooperative script
type.
3. There are the difference in students ways to answer the problem in
experimental class I taught by cooperative learning talking stick with
experimental class II taught by cooperative learning cooperative script
type.
5.2 Suggestion
Based on research that has been done, mathematics teachers are suggested to:
1. Use cooperative learning talking stick or cooperative script types as an
alternative learning model in improving students’ mathematical
communication ability.
2. Based on communication aspect which will be achieved, cooperative
learning talking stick type is more effective than cooperative script type.
3. Before use the learning model, need to find additional ways to increasing
students’ mathematical communication ability in 2nd indicator which is
the ability of explaining problem situations by own words.
52
53
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ansari, B.I., (2012), Komunikasi Matematik Dan Politik Suatu Perbandingan:
Konsep dan Aplikasi, Penerbit PeNA, Banda Aceh
Arends, R.I., (2011), Learning to Teach,McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc, USA
Arikunto, S., (2009), Manajemen Penelitian, PT RinekaCipta, Jakarta
(2013), Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik, Jakarta: PT Rineka
Cipta,
Asmin, (2012), Pengukuran dan Penilaian Hasil Belajar Dengan Analisis Klasik
dan Modern, LARISPA INDONESIA, Medan
Baroody, A.J, (1993), Problem Solving, Reasoning, and Communicating K-8
Helping Children Think Mathematically, Merril An In Print of Macmillan
Publishing Company, New York
Calmorin, L., (2006), Statistics in Education and the Sciences, Book Store. Inc,
Manila
Connaway, L.S., & Powell, R.R, (2010), Basic Research Methods for Librarians
5th Edition, Greenwood Publishing Group, California
Felder, Richard M., & Brent, Rebecca, (-), Cooperative Learning, N.C State
University, New York
FMIPA Universitas Negeri Medan, (2012), Pedoman Penulisan Proposal dan
Skripsi, FMIPA Universitas Negeri Medan: Medan,
Gliner, J.A., & Morgan, G.A., (2009), Research Method ins in Apllied Settings,
Taylor & Francis e-Library, United Kingdom
Istarani, (2012), 58 Model Pembelajaran Inovatif, Media Persada, Medan
Jones, Karrie A., & Jones, Jennifer L., (2008), The Journal of Effective Teaching,
Vol.8 No.2, Niagara University, New York
Kraemer, H.C., Lowe, K.K, & Kupfer, D.J., (2005), To Your Health: How to
Understand What Research Tells Us About Risk, Oxford University Press,
New York
Mustajab, Maksud, (2012), Jurnal Radiasi Vol.1, Universitas Muhammadiah:
Purworejo
Nazir, Moh,
(1988), Metode Penelitian, Ghalia Indonesia, Jakarta
NCTM, (2000), Principle and Standard for Mathematics, NCTM, USA
54
Robinson, Ann, (1991), Cooperative Learning and The Academically Talented
Students, University of Arkansas Little Rock, Arkansas
Ibrilusiyanti, Nurul, 2013, Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Vol.2 No.3, Program studi
Pendidikan Matematika, Universitas Jember: Jember
Santoso, Singgih, 2009, Panduan Lengkap Menguasai Statistik dengan SPSS 17,
PT. Elex Media Komputindo, Jakarta
Setyosari, Punaji, (2012), Metode Penelitian Pendidikan dan Pengembangan,
Kencana Perdana Media Group, Jakarta
Sugiyono, (2013), Stastistika Untuk Penelitian, Alfabeta.cv, Bandung
Suprijono, Agus, (2009), Cooperative Learning Teori & Aplikasi Paikem, Pustaka
Belajar, Yogyakarta
Syaodih, Sukmadinata Nana, (2012), Metode Penelitian Pendidikan, PT. Remaja
Rosda Karya, Bandung
Wang, Tzu-Pu, (2009), The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning
Vol.5, Num.1, Hsing Wu Collage, China
ABILITY TAUGHT BY COOPERATIVE LEARNING TALKING STICK
AND COOPERATIVE SCRIPT TYPES AT SMP NEGERI 3 KISARAN
By:
DWI MAULIDA SARI
4113312004
Bilingual Mathematics Education Study Program
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of The Requirement
for Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
MATHEMATICS DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2015
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of All, praise is merely to the Almighty Allah SWT for the gracious mercy
and tremendous blessing that enables researcher to finish this bachelor thesis entitled:
The Difference of Students’ Mathematical Communication Ability Taught by
Cooperative Learning Talking-Stick and Cooperative-Script Types at SMP Negeri 3
Kisaran. This bachelor thesis is presented to fulfill one of the requirements in
accomplished S-1 Degree in State University of Medan.
The present of this thesis is because many people who help so generously. So,
researcher would like to extend the great gratitude towardsProf. Dr. Syawal Gultom,
M.Pd as the head of State University of Medan, Prof. Drs. Motlan, Ph.D as the dean
of Mathematics and Natural Science Faculty, Dr. Edy Surya, M.Si as the chief of
Mathematics Department and Prof. Dr. rer.nat Binari Manurung, M.Si as the
coordinator of Bilingual and International Program
Dr. Kms. M. Amin Fauzi, M.Pd as thesis supervisor, who always generously help
researcher in complete this thesis. Also who always give researcher so many great
opportunities, guidance, and motivations.
Prof. Dr. Edi Syahputra, M.Pd.,Dr. E Elvis Napitupulu, M.S., Mulyono,S.Si, M.Si
as truly dedicated examiners. I am particularly indebted to them for their constant
advices, and constructive critics and also suggestion in perfecting this thesis
My academic supervisor Prof, Dr. B. Sinaga, M.Pd and all Lecturer and also staff
of Mathematics and Natural Science Faculty and Bilingual and International Program
for all the knowledge and also the help given to researcher
For my parents, my best father ever H. Syamsudin and my sprit my beloved
mother Hj. Rirawati Harahap, who never stop loving, giving bless, pray, and giving
motivation to me, so I still has a faith and sprit in finish my study. My beloved Sister
and Brother, Indah Pristina Sari and Heru Cakra A’sari for the suggestion and
unbelievable supports.
My best friend Rizky, Sapta, Mawaddah, Leni, Sifa, Debby, Widi, Yoe and all my
BILMATH’11 thanks for all love and unforgettable memory you all give to me.
v
My PPL friends at SMA N 2 Kisaran, Zelfani, Sapta, Sifa, Lia, Guruh, Septian,
and others for best memory in just 3 month. All people who help directly or
indirectly. Researcher can only hope God give all of you best out of the best.
Amiiiiin.
Medan
Researcher
Dwi Maulida Sari
4113312004
2015
iii
THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENTS’ MATHEMATICAL COMMUNICATION
ABILITY TAUGHT BY COOPERATIVE LEARNING TALKING STICK
AND COOPERATIVE SCRIPT TYPES AT SMP NEGERI 3 KISARAN
Dwi Maulida Sari
ID. 4113312004
Abstract
One of the learning models that predicted were able to overcome the low level
of mathematical communication ability is a cooperative learning, that is, teachers act
as mentors and facilitators in achieving learning objective. As for the goal to be
achieved from this research are as follows: (1) To know any difference in student’s
mathematical communication ability taught by cooperative learning talking stick type
and cooperative script type in learning quadrilateral at SMP. (2) To see varieties of
student’s answer type taught by cooperative learning talking stick type and
cooperative script type in topic quadrilateral at SMP.
This research uses posttest experimental class design. The sample of this
research is student of class VII-2 as experimental class I and class VII-4 as
experimental class II at SMP Negeri 3 Kisaran that is amounted both 30 students.
Instrument that used is observation and test sheet that uses T-test of data analysis
technique. Data that get from the posttest by using t-test of data analysis technique is
Sig. 0.000 and the α is 0.05. It shows that the Sig. value is less than α that is .000 <
0.05. According o the result can be conclude that there is the difference in students’
mathematical communication ablity taught by cooperative learning talking stick and
cooperative learning cooperative-script types.
vi
CONTENT LIST
APPROVED PAPER ............................................................................................ i
BIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEGEMENT ....................................................................................... iv
CONTENT LIST ................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURE ................................................................................................ ix
LIST OF TABLE .................................................................................................. x
LIST OF APPENDDIX ........................................................................................ xi
CHAPTER I .......................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background ............................................................................................. 1
1.2. Problem Identification ............................................................................ 7
1.3. Problem Formulation .............................................................................. 8
1.4. Problem Limitation ................................................................................. 8
1.5. The Objectives of Research .................................................................... 8
1.6. The Benefit of Research.......................................................................... 8
1.7. Operational Definition ............................................................................ 9
CHAPTER II ......................................................................................................... 11
2.1. Learning Communication ....................................................................... 11
2.2. Mathematical Communication Ability ................................................... 12
2.2.1. Aspect of Communication ............................................................. 13
2.2.2. Factors of Mathematical Communication ..................................... 15
2.3. Cooperative Learning Model .................................................................. 16
2.3.1. Definition of Cooperative Learning .............................................. 16
2.3.2. Characteristics of Cooperative learning ........................................ 17
2.3.3. Syntax of Cooperative Learning .................................................... 18
2.3.4. The Benefit of Cooperative Learning ............................................ 18
2.3.5. Cooperative Learning Type Talking Stick .................................... 19
vii
2.3.6. Cooperative Learning Type Cooperative Script ............................ 20
2.4.Relevant Research ..................................................................................... 20
2.5.Conceptual Framework ............................................................................. 21
2.6.Hypothesis ................................................................................................. 23
CHAPTER III ....................................................................................................... 24
3.1.Place and Time of Research ...................................................................... 24
3.2.Population and Sample.............................................................................. 24
4.1.1 Population ...................................................................................... 24
4.1.2 Sample ........................................................................................... 24
3.3.Variable and Instrument of Research ........................................................ 25
3.3.1. Variable of Research ..................................................................... 25
3.3.2. Instrument of Research .................................................................. 25
1. Mathematical Communication Ability Test ............................. 25
2. Mathematical Communication Scoring .................................... 27
3. Instrument Trial ........................................................................ 29
3.4.Research Design ........................................................................................ 31
3.5.Data Collection Technique ........................................................................ 32
3.6.Data Analysis Technique .......................................................................... 34
3.6.1. Descriptive Statistics ..................................................................... 34
3.6.2. Normality Test ............................................................................... 34
3.6.3. Homogeneity Test ......................................................................... 34
3.6.4. Statistics Hypothesis ...................................................................... 35
CHAPTER IV ....................................................................................................... 36
4.1 The Description of Research Result ....................................................... 36
4.1.1 The Score of Mathematics Communication Ability...................... 36
4.1.2 The Description of Students’ Mathematics Communication
Ability test ..................................................................................... 37
4.2 The Analysis Data of Research Result.................................................... 38
viii
4.2.1 Normality Test ............................................................................... 38
4.2.2 Homogeneity Test ......................................................................... 39
4.2.3 Hypothesis Test ............................................................................. 40
4.3 The Difference in Characteristics of Students’ Answer in
Research Result ....................................................................................... 41
4.4 Research Discussion ............................................................................... 49
CHAPTER V......................................................................................................... 52
5.1 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 52
5.2 Suggestion ............................................................................................... 52
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................. 53
Appendix ............................................................................................................... 55
x
LIST OF TABLE
Table 3.1. Blueprint of Mathematical Communication Ability Test ............................. 26
Table 3.2. Criteria of Mathematical Communication Scoring ....................................... 27
Table 3.3. Scoring Guideline of Mathematical Communication Ability Test ............... 28
Table 3.4. Criteria of Validity ........................................................................................ 29
Table 3.5. Criteria of Reliability .................................................................................... 30
Table 4.1 Data of Mathematical Communication Ability Test in Both
Experimental Class ...................................................................................... 36
Table 4.2 Mean of of Mathematical Communication Ability Indicators ....................... 37
Table 4.3 The Result of Homogeneity Test of Mathematical Communication
Ability Score in Both Experimental Class .................................................. 38
Table 4.4 The Result of Hypothesis Test ....................................................................... 39
Table 4.5 The Result of Advance Hypothesis Result .................................................... 40
Table 4.6 Distribution of Students answer in Problem Number 1, 1st Indicator ............ 41
Table 4.7 Distribution of Students answer in Problem Number 2, 1st Indicator ............ 42
Table 4.8 Distribution of Students answer in Problem Number 3, 1st Indicator ............ 43
Table 4.9 Distribution of Students answer in Problem Number 1, 2nd Indicator ........... 44
Table 4.10 Distribution of Students answer in Problem Number 2, 2nd Indicator ......... 44
Table 4.11 Distribution of Students answer in Problem Number 3, 2nd Indicator ......... 45
Table 4.12 Distribution of Students answer in Problem Number 1, 3rd Indicator ......... 46
Table 4.13 Distribution of Students answer in Problem Number 2, 3rd Indicator ......... 47
Table 4.14 Distribution of Students answer in Problem Number 3, 3rd Indicator ......... 48
ix
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 1.1 one of student answer to problem No. 1 .............................................. 3
Figure 1.2 one of student answer to problem No. 2 .............................................. 4
Figure 1.3 one of student answer to problem No. 3 .............................................. 5
Figure 3.1. Schema of Data Collection ................................................................. 33
Figure 4.1 Diagram of Mathematical Communication Ability Test in Both
Experimental Class ............................................................................. 37
Figure 4.2 The Difference in Student’s Answer in Talking Stick Class and
Cooperative Script Type 1st Indicator Problem No.1 ........................ 42
Figure 4.3 The Difference in Student’s Answer in Talking Stick Class and
Cooperative Script Type 1st Indicator Problem No.3 ........................ 43
Figure 4.4 The Difference in Student’s Answer in Talking Stick Class and
Cooperative Script Type 2nd Indicator Problem No.1, No.2 ............. 44
Figure 4.5 The Difference in Student’s Answer in Talking Stick Class and
Cooperative Script Type 2nd Indicator Problem No.3 ....................... 45
Figure 4.6 The Difference in Student’s Answer in Talking Stick Class and
Cooperative Script Type 3rd Indicator Problem No.1 ....................... 46
Figure 4.7 The Difference in Student’s Answer in Talking Stick Class and
Cooperative Script Type 3rd Indicator Problem No.2 ....................... 47
Figure 4.8 The Difference in Student’s Answer in Talking Stick Class and
Cooperative Script Type 3rd Indicator Problem No.3 ....................... 48
xi
LIST OF APPENDDIX
Appendix 1 .............................................................................................. 55
Appendix 2 .............................................................................................. 63
Appendix 3 .............................................................................................. 71
Appendix 4 .............................................................................................. 81
Appendix 5 .............................................................................................. 86
Appendix 6 .............................................................................................. 98
Appendix 7 .............................................................................................. 106
Appendix 8 .............................................................................................. 119
Appendix 9 .............................................................................................. 128
Appendix 10 ............................................................................................ 134
Appendix 11 ............................................................................................ 139
Appendix 12 ............................................................................................ 151
Appendix 13 ............................................................................................ 163
Appendix 14 ............................................................................................ 164
Appendix 15 ............................................................................................ 165
Appendix 16 ............................................................................................ 169
Appendix 17 ............................................................................................ 171
Appendix 18 ............................................................................................ 176
Appendix 19 ............................................................................................ 181
Appendix 20 ............................................................................................ 186
Appendix 21 ............................................................................................ 188
Appendix 22 ............................................................................................ 191
Appendix 23 ............................................................................................ 192
Appendix 24 ............................................................................................ 195
Appendix 25 ............................................................................................ 197
Appendix 26 ............................................................................................ 198
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1.
Background
All countries in the world have always prioritize education. Efforts to
improve the quality of education that has been done by the government
including curriculum renewal, improvement of educational facilities, the use of
teaching methods and to improve the quality and quantity of teaching materials.
Mathematics is one of the subjects that are used as a reference for educational
advancement of a country. If a country has people who follow or win an
Olympic mathematics, it is considered the country's education began to advance
this is in line with the view that education is a benchmark of the progress of a
country
Mathematics courses is given from grade 1 in elementary school, an early
attempt to instill concepts, facts or principles of mathematics, which in turn is
expect to improve the quality and quantity of learning outcomes in other
education purposes. As written in the book Materi Pelatihan Integrasi Buku-1
(2004: 7), that mathematics is abstract and deductive science. Mathematics is the
study of patterns, shapes, and structures and mathematics is a human activity,
also written on this book (2004: 4) that mathematics as a vehicle for education,
not only can be used to achieve one goal such as to educate students, but can
also form the personality of students and develop certain skills.
There are purposes of learning mathematics for student that under mentioned
in Materi Pelatihan Integrasi Buku-1 (2004: 24) are:
“(1) memahami konsep matematika. Menjelaskan keterkaitan antar konsep
dan mengaplikan konsep atau algoritma, secara luwes, akurat, efisien dan
tepat dalam pemecahan masalah, (2) menggunakan penalaran pada pola
dan sifat, melakukan manipulasi matematika dalam membuat generalisasi,
menyusun bukti, atau menjelaskan gagasan dan pernyataan matematika,
1
2
(3) memecahkan masalah yang meliputi kemampuan memahami masalah,
merancang model matematika, menyelesaikan model dan menafsirkan
solusi yang diperoleh, (4) mengkomunikasikan gagasan dengan simbol,
tabel, diagram atau media lain untuk memperjelas keadaan dan masalah,
(5) memiliki sikap menghargai matematika dalam kehidupan, yaitu
memiliki rasa ingin tahu, perhatian, dan minat dalam mempelajari
matematika serta sikap ulet dan percaya diri dalam pemecahan masalah”.
So, as said by book that published by Ministry of Education one purpose of
learning mathematics is communicate ideas with symbols, tables, diagrams or
other media to clarify the situation and problems. It’s clearly showing that the
ability if mathematics communication is also needed. Written in book published
by Ministry of Education (2004: 8) in the early stages mathematics formed from
human experience in the world of empirical ratios are then processed in the
world, processed in the analysis and synthesis of the reasoning in cognitive
structure, thus arrive at mathematics concept. In order to others understand the
concept form and easily also appropriately manipulated, then use the notation
and terminology carefully universally agreed upon and is known as language
mathematics. Also confirmed by Ansari (2012: 1) that mathematics is a tool that
can clarify and simplify a condition or situation that is abstract into concrete
ideas through language and mathematics idea as well as a generalization to
easier to find the problem solving.
Lack of ability of mathematical communication can lead to a lack of
understanding the mathematical concept or mathematical problem. Without
having the mathematical communication ability students will experience a lack
of information, data and also the fact that it can be used in solving mathematical
problems. This day, in mathematics learning-teaching process, few teachers use
the paradigm of transfer knowledge. Said by Ruseffendi in Ansari (2012: 2) the
biggest part where learned by students in a school is not obtained through
mathematical exploration, but through notification. In turn, students'
3
mathematical communication ability of students in solving mathematics
problems is very unsatisfactory.
The statement above is agreed by Baroody (1993: 2-99) “For children,
mathematics is essentially a second or foreign language. When instruction
focuses on memorizing terms rather than communicating ideas, many find
mathematics impenetrable. Children’s difficulties in learning the new language
of mathematics are compounded when it is introduced too quickly”.
Thus, all the opinions clarified that ability of mathematics communication is
one of fundamental capability. Said by Ansari (2012: 10) there are three
indicators of ability mathematics communication that concern to be repaired are:
(1) the ability of explaining mathematical problem into figure, (2) the ability of
explaining problem situations by own words, and (3) the ability of stating
mathematical problem into mathematical model and doing calculation.
In fact, based on preliminary observation conducted by researchers in SMP
Negeri 3 Kisaran, the students aren’t able to answer. It clearly seen in student’s
answer sheet that student’s mathematical communication ability is low. For
example, problem number one: Write down every sentence below to be
mathematical model by using x and y variable. (a) The result of multiple from
two natural numbers 2 is 9, (b) Amount of Ikhsan and Bayu book is 11, while
difference of their books are 1, (c) Circumference of a rectangular is 14m, when
size of the length 3 feet longer than the width.
Student state that the
2 number in different
place, but the real
answer is x.y + 2=9
Student state that the 2 variable
here are in power operational,
actually it’s a plus and minus
operation
Figure 1.1 one of student answer to problem No. 1
4
For problem number one the indicator of mathematical communication ability
is students able to state problem in writing into mathematical model (Ansari,
2012: 10). From the figure 1.1 above students can’t form the mathematical
model for the two natural number, also the sum and the difference of Ikhsan and
Bayu book also they can form mathematical model from the circumstance of the
rectangular. So from this first problem we found that student’s ability in stating
problem in writing in mathematical model is very low.
For the problem number two the indicator for the mathematical
communication ability is explaining problem in writing into figure and stating
problem in writing into mathematical model (Ansari, 2012: 10). The problem to
1
test the indicator is: Indicate the 5 apples in picture form.
2
Student even can’t state the 5 apple
and half apple.
Figure 1.2 one of student answer to problem No. 2
From the picture above, it can be seen that the student is still difficult to
determine half of the apple and the majority students are only focused to solve
the problem half of the apple. Even partially other students are able to describe
the half of apple properly. This indicates that the ability of mathematical
communication in explaining problem and writing into figure is also week.
The problem number three is: a company will deliver package to their 60
employees, which consists of 2 bottles of syrup and 12 cases of instant noodles.
Then explain how dozen syrup and instant noodles are required by the company.
5
Student can’t use their own word
to explain the number on
problem. They just know how to
calculate.
Student knowing and
understand the problem,
but they can’t state it into
mathematical
model.
They also don’t state
from the problem, which
one as known and which
one as the question
Figure 1.3 one of student answer to problem No. 3
The indicator of mathematical communication ability in problem number
three stated by Ansari (2012:10) is explaining problem situations by own words
and doing calculation. From figure 1.3 can be known that student can doing the
calculation but they can explain clearly meaning of the number in their sheet.
Also students make the syrup and instant noodle as one, even syrup and instant
noodle are different type. Students also find it difficult to change the problem
number three into a mathematical model, it means student’s ability in explaining
problem by own words and doing calculation us also weak.
From this preliminary observation, it can be concluded that the student’s
mathematical communication ability is still weak and unsatisfactory. This is also
happen because student’s lack of understanding of algebra and the system of
linear equation. Besides that, their lack of mathematical communication ability
because they not familiarized to change something abstract becomes real
problem in form of mathematical model.
Lack of student’s mathematical communication ability of SMP N 3 Kisaran is
so relates with learning process which has done by the mathematics teacher.
Teacher design the unsuitable learning model to increase students activity in the
learning process.
6
Then, the next happen is the lack of reflect of the leaning mathematics itself.
It’s can also means the model that teacher use isn’t suitable or need by students
in terms to increase the student’s activity in class.
As said by Paulo (in Agus, 2009: 13): teacher do the things, learners imagine
how to act in accordance with his teacher action. It means that everything that
teachers says it’s true also teachers known everything when student’s know
nothing. Because teachers use this old paradigm of learning mathematics, the
mathematical communication ability of students is decreasing. Teachers only
transfer the knowledge that they know and students passively accept everything.
This kind of learning behavior already used really long time in Indonesia
learning process.
To fix it, is necessary to develop an approach to learning that is more
effective, creative, and fun. On this basis, the authors try to apply cooperative
learning model talking stick and see the difference with the use of cooperative
learning cooperative script to improve the mathematical communication ability.
Learning model type talking stick has an aims to expand students' knowledge
and accuracy in understanding a concept. As Agus (2009:109) said talking stick
teaching methods encourage students to dare to express opinions. Agreed by
Istarani (2012: 89) that talking sticks learning model, encourage students to dare
to express their opinions, teachers give an explanation about the material, then
students have time to read and write things they know after that the talking stick
will be given to students and student that hold the stick must answer the question
that teachers give.
Thus, cooperative learning type talking stick is an appropriate approach to
develop
student’s
mathematical
communication
through
mathematical
understanding which stimulated by the talking stick which going around the
whole class to provide the opportunity for students to give their opinions.
7
According to Istarani (2012: 15) that model of learning in which students
work in pairs and take turns verbally summarize, the parts of the material being
studied. Cooperative learning model type cooperative script begins with the
delivery of teaching materials that start with giving a discourse or a summary,
then given an opportunity to the students to read it for a moment and provide,
input or new ideas into teaching materials being studied.
So, cooperative learning type cooperative script also one of an alternative
learning model that appropriate to develop the student’s mathematical
communication ability by give students opportunities to answer an also provide,
input or new ideas in material that supplied.
Based on the background above, researcher intends to conduct a research
entitled: “The Differences of Students’ Mathematical Communication
Ability Taught by Cooperative Learning Talking Stick and Cooperative
Script Types at SMP Negeri 3 Kisaran”
1.2.
Problem Identification
Based on the analyzing in background, problem identification in this research
are:
1.
Student’s mathematical communication ability is still low.
2.
Student’s activity in the learning process is passive.
3.
The learning model that teacher use isn’t suitable for students in terms to
increase the student’s activity in class.
1.3.
Problem Formulation
The problem formulation in this research is:
1.
Is there any difference student’s in mathematical communication ability
taught by cooperative learning talking stick type with cooperative script
type?
8
2.
Is student’s answer sheet taught by cooperative learning talking stick
type and cooperative script type has varieties answer?
1.4.
Problem Limitation
This research bound the problem to get precise target expectation. The
problem limitation is:
1.
The model used is cooperative learning talking stick type and cooperative
script type.
2.
The student’s
mathematical
communication ability bounded in
quadrilateral matter in grade VII semester 2.
3.
1.5.
The research was concluded at SMP Negeri 3 Kisaran
The Objectives of Research
The objective in this research is:
1.
To know any difference in student’s mathematical communication ability
taught by cooperative learning talking stick type and cooperative script
type.
2.
To see varieties of student’s answer type taught by cooperative learning
talking stick type and cooperative script type.
1.6.
1.
The Benefit of Research
For the teachers, especially mathematics teacher, this research can be
consideration in selecting one of alternative model or approach in
mathematics learning.
2.
For the candidate of teacher, this research can be proper consideration for
handle the problem which often appears in mathematics learning in
school.
3.
For the students, this research can make students have enthusiasm to
improve their mathematical communication ability.
9
4.
For the researcher, this research used for increase researcher’s knowledge
about problem in learning process and try to solving it.
5.
For the school, this research can be consideration and suggestion to
improve the quality of teacher also the learning activity at class
1.7.
Operational Definition
Operational definition emphasize to things which will be standard or indicator
of variable. Operational definition in this research is:
1.
The indicator of student’s mathematical communication ability which
will be measured are:
a.
The ability of explaining mathematical problem into figure.
b.
The ability of explaining problem situations by own words.
c.
The ability of stating mathematical problem in writing into mathematical
model and doing calculation.
2.
The syntax of Talking stick, are:
a.
Phase 1: teachers prepare a stick
b.
Phase 2: teachers deliver the subject matter to be studied then
give the opportunity to students to read and learn the material.
c.
Phase 3: after finishing read the material in their subject book
and learning it, student’s close their book
d.
Phase 4: teachers take a stick and give to students, after that
the teacher provides questions and learners who hold the stick
must answer, so until all learners take part to answer all
questions from the teacher
e.
Phase 5: teachers and students to make conclusion
f.
Phase 6: evaluation
g.
Phase 7: closing
10
3.
The syntax of cooperative script, are:
a.
Phase 1: Teachers divide students into couple.
b.
Phase 2: Teachers give a script about material to read and be
summarized.
Phase 3: Teachers and students make a decision student’s
c.
going first as speaker and other student’s going to be listener.
d.
Phase 4: Speaker read summarized as complete as possible, by
inserting the key ideas in the summary. Other learners:
Listening and shows the main ideas incomplete
Helps to remember or memorize the key ideas with the previous
material, or with any other material
e.
Phase 5: exchanging roles, originally a listener later became
speaker, and vice versa
f.
Phase 6: did back phase 4
g.
Phase 7: teachers and learners together conclude the subject
material.
h.
Phase 8: closing.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
From the research result and discussion can be conclude that:
1. There is difference in students’ mathematical communication ability
taught by cooperative learning talking stick and cooperative script types at
SMP Negeri 3 Kisaran
2.
The students’ mathematical communication ability taught by cooperative
learning talking stick type is better than students’ mathematical
communication ability taught by cooperative learning cooperative script
type.
3. There are the difference in students ways to answer the problem in
experimental class I taught by cooperative learning talking stick with
experimental class II taught by cooperative learning cooperative script
type.
5.2 Suggestion
Based on research that has been done, mathematics teachers are suggested to:
1. Use cooperative learning talking stick or cooperative script types as an
alternative learning model in improving students’ mathematical
communication ability.
2. Based on communication aspect which will be achieved, cooperative
learning talking stick type is more effective than cooperative script type.
3. Before use the learning model, need to find additional ways to increasing
students’ mathematical communication ability in 2nd indicator which is
the ability of explaining problem situations by own words.
52
53
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ansari, B.I., (2012), Komunikasi Matematik Dan Politik Suatu Perbandingan:
Konsep dan Aplikasi, Penerbit PeNA, Banda Aceh
Arends, R.I., (2011), Learning to Teach,McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc, USA
Arikunto, S., (2009), Manajemen Penelitian, PT RinekaCipta, Jakarta
(2013), Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik, Jakarta: PT Rineka
Cipta,
Asmin, (2012), Pengukuran dan Penilaian Hasil Belajar Dengan Analisis Klasik
dan Modern, LARISPA INDONESIA, Medan
Baroody, A.J, (1993), Problem Solving, Reasoning, and Communicating K-8
Helping Children Think Mathematically, Merril An In Print of Macmillan
Publishing Company, New York
Calmorin, L., (2006), Statistics in Education and the Sciences, Book Store. Inc,
Manila
Connaway, L.S., & Powell, R.R, (2010), Basic Research Methods for Librarians
5th Edition, Greenwood Publishing Group, California
Felder, Richard M., & Brent, Rebecca, (-), Cooperative Learning, N.C State
University, New York
FMIPA Universitas Negeri Medan, (2012), Pedoman Penulisan Proposal dan
Skripsi, FMIPA Universitas Negeri Medan: Medan,
Gliner, J.A., & Morgan, G.A., (2009), Research Method ins in Apllied Settings,
Taylor & Francis e-Library, United Kingdom
Istarani, (2012), 58 Model Pembelajaran Inovatif, Media Persada, Medan
Jones, Karrie A., & Jones, Jennifer L., (2008), The Journal of Effective Teaching,
Vol.8 No.2, Niagara University, New York
Kraemer, H.C., Lowe, K.K, & Kupfer, D.J., (2005), To Your Health: How to
Understand What Research Tells Us About Risk, Oxford University Press,
New York
Mustajab, Maksud, (2012), Jurnal Radiasi Vol.1, Universitas Muhammadiah:
Purworejo
Nazir, Moh,
(1988), Metode Penelitian, Ghalia Indonesia, Jakarta
NCTM, (2000), Principle and Standard for Mathematics, NCTM, USA
54
Robinson, Ann, (1991), Cooperative Learning and The Academically Talented
Students, University of Arkansas Little Rock, Arkansas
Ibrilusiyanti, Nurul, 2013, Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Vol.2 No.3, Program studi
Pendidikan Matematika, Universitas Jember: Jember
Santoso, Singgih, 2009, Panduan Lengkap Menguasai Statistik dengan SPSS 17,
PT. Elex Media Komputindo, Jakarta
Setyosari, Punaji, (2012), Metode Penelitian Pendidikan dan Pengembangan,
Kencana Perdana Media Group, Jakarta
Sugiyono, (2013), Stastistika Untuk Penelitian, Alfabeta.cv, Bandung
Suprijono, Agus, (2009), Cooperative Learning Teori & Aplikasi Paikem, Pustaka
Belajar, Yogyakarta
Syaodih, Sukmadinata Nana, (2012), Metode Penelitian Pendidikan, PT. Remaja
Rosda Karya, Bandung
Wang, Tzu-Pu, (2009), The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning
Vol.5, Num.1, Hsing Wu Collage, China