PYTHAGORAS : Jurnal Matematika dan Pendidikan Matematika
Keywords
Learning TPS, Jigsaw types, achievement, student character
Document Type
Article
Abstract
Tujuan dari penelitian ini untuk: (1) mendeskripsikan keefektifan pembelajaran kooperatif tipe TPS dan tipe Jigsaw ditinjau dari prestasi belajar matematika dan karakter siswa; (2) mendeskripsikan, perbandingan keefektifan pembelajaran kooperatif tipe TPS dengan pembelajaran kooperatif tipe Jigsaw ditinjau dari prestasi belajar matematika dan karakter siswa pada materi bangun ruang sisi lengkung. Penelitian merupakan penelitian eksperimen semu dengan menggunakan dua kelompok eksperimen. Populasi penelitian adalah siswa kelas IX SMP Negeri 1 Banjarnegara yang terdiri atas delapan kelas, sedangkan sampel penelitian terdiri atas dua kelas yang dipilih secara acak. Instrumen penelitian adalah tes prestasi dalam bentuk soal uraian yang terdiri atas pretest dan posttest. Analisis dilakukan dengan uji F dengan Hotelling's Trace ( = 0,05) untuk mengetahui beda rata-rata kedua kelas secara multivariat. Uji t dengan kriteria Bonferroni ( = 0,05) dilakukan untuk mengetahui variabel terikat mana yang membuat kedua kelas tersebut berbeda. Simpulan dari penelitian ini adalah (1) pembelajaran kooperatif tipe TPS dan tipe Jigsaw efektif ditinjau dari prestasi belajar matematika dan karakter siswa dan (2) pembelajaran kooperatif tipe Jigsaw lebih efektif dibanding pembelajaran kooperatif tipe TPS ditinjau dari prestasi belajar matematika dan karakter siswa pada materi bangun ruang sisi lengkung.
Kata kunci: Pembelajaran tipe TPS, Jigsaw, prestasi, karakter siswa.
The Effectiveness of Learning TPS and JIGSAW Types Seen from Mathematics Achievement and Student Character
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to: (1) describe the effectiveness of TPS and Jigsaw cooperative learning in terms of learning achievement and the student character; (2) describe inequality TPS effectiveness of cooperative learning with Jigsaw cooperative learning in terms of learning achievement and student's character on the topic content with curved side. The study is quasi-experimental study using two experimental groups. The population of the research includes all students of class IX SMP Negeri 1 Banjarnegara which consists of eight classes, while the sample of the study consisted of two randomly selected classes. The research instrument is the achievement test in the form of essays that consist of the pretest and posttest, and a questionnaire to measure the students character. F test with Hotelling's Trace (α = 0.05) was done to determine the average difference in two classes multivariately. T test with Bonferroni criteria (α = 0.05) was conducted to determine which of the dependent variable that makes these two classes differ. The results showed that: (1) TPS and Jigsaw cooperative learning are effective in terms of learning achievement and the student character; (2) Jigsaw cooperative learning is more effective than TPS cooperative learning in terms of learning achievement and student's character on the topic content with curved side. Keywords: Learning TPS, Jigsaw types, achievement, student character.
Page Range
70-78
Issue
1
Volume
9
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
10.21831/pg.v9i1.9069
Source
https://journal.uny.ac.id/index.php/pythagoras/article/view/9069
Recommended Citation
Suratno, S. (2014). Keefektifan Pembelajaran Tipe TPS dan JIGSAW Ditinjau dari Prestasi Belajar Matematika dan Karakter Siswa. PYTHAGORAS : Jurnal Matematika dan Pendidikan Matematika, 9(1), 70-78. https://doi.org/10.21831/pg.v9i1.9069
References
Adams, F. H. (2013). Using jigsaw technique as an effective way of promoting co-ope-rative learning among primary six pupils in Fijai. Holy Child College of Education, Takoradi Ghana. International Journal of Education And Practice, 1(6):64-74. Diambil pada 25 Oktober 2013, dari: http://www.pakinsight.com/pdf-files/ijep%201(6),%2064-74.pdf.
Ambrose, et al. (2010). How learning works: seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Arends, R. I. & Kilcher, A. (2010) Teaching for student learning: becoming an accomplished teacher. New York: Routledge.
Azlina, N. A. (2010). CETLs: Supporting collaborative activities among students and teachers through the use of Think-Pair-Share techniques. IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science Issues, 5(7): 1694-0814. Diambil tanggal 25 September 2013, dari: http://ijcsi.org/papers/7-5-18-29.pdf.
Azwar, S. (2013). Tes Prestasi: fungsi dan pengembangan pengukuran prestasi belajar. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Balitbang. (2010). Pengembangan pendidikan budaya dan karakter bangsa pedoman sekolah, Jakarta: Kementerian Pendidikan Nasional.
BSNP. (2011). Panduan pemanfaatan hasil ujian nasional tahun pelajaran 2010/2011 untuk perbaikan mutu pendidikan. Jakarta: Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan.
Chambers, P. (2008). Teaching mathematics "developing as a reflektive secondary teacher". London: Sage publication inc.
Cobern, W.W. (1993). Contextual constructivism: The impact of culture on the learning and teaching of science. Dalam K.G Tobin (Ed.), The Practice of Constructivism In Science Education (pp.51-69). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Diambil tanggal 12 September 2013, dari: http://www.wmich.edu/slcsp/SLCSP115/slcsp115.pdf.
Cohen, E. G., Brody, C. M. & Mara, S. S. (2004). Teaching cooperative learning: the challenge for teacher education. New York: State University of New York Press.
Elliott, S. N. et al. (2000). Educational psychology: Effective teaching, effective learning. (3rd ed). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Gantert, A. X. (2008).Geometry. New York: Amsco School Publications, Inc.
Godino, J. B. (1996). Mathematical concepts, their meanings, and understanding. Spain: University of Granada. In L. Puig y A. Gutierrez (Eds.), Proceedings of XX Conference of The International Group For The Psychology of Mathematics Education. v.2: 417-425. Diambil tanggal 11 September 2013, dari: http://www.ugr.es/~jgodino/articulos_ingles/meaning_understanding.pdf
Gronlund N. E. & Linn, R. L. (1990). Measurement and evaluation in teaching, 6th edition. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Hedeen, T. (2003). The reverse jigsaw: A process of cooperative learning and discussion. Kennesaw State University. Journal Teaching Sociology. 31(3): 325. Diambil tanggal: 5 Oktober 2013, dari: www.proquest.com.
James, D. (2002). The Creative professional: Learning to teach 14-19-year-olds. New York: Taylor & Francis e-Library.
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learn-ing together and alone. Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Kemp, E. J., et al. (1994). Designing effective instruction. New York: Merrill.
Lie, A. (2002). Cooperative learning: mem-praktekan cooperative learning di ruang-ruang kelas. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Widiasarana Indonesia.
Morrison, K. (2002). Mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Muijs, D. & Reynolds, D. (2011). Effective teaching, evidence and practice. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Nitko, A. J., & Brookhart, S. M. (2011). Educational assessment of student. Sixth Edition. Boston: Pearson.
Race, P. (2010). Making learning happen. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Romberg, T. A. & Fennema, E. (2009). Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding. Mahwah: Taylor & Francis e-Library.
Slavin, R. E. (2005). Cooperative learning: theory, research, and practice. (2nd ed) (Terjemahan Nurlita Yusron) London: Allymand Bacon. (Buku asli diterbitkan tahun 1995).
Stevens, J. P. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. New York: Routledge.
Thames, M. H. (2006). Using math to teach math: Mathematicians and educators investigate the mathematics for teaching. Berkeley, CA: Mathematical Sciences Research Institute.