Keefektifan Model STAD dan Direct Learning Berdasarkan Prestasi dan Minat Belajar Matematika Materi Kesebangunan Bangun Datar

Authors

Ismanto Ismanto, SMP Negeri 1 Tepus Gunungkidul, Indonesia
Hartono Hartono, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Keywords

STAD learning model, direct learning, students' mathematics learning achievement and interest

Document Type

Article

Abstract

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk: (1) mendeskripsikan keefektifan pembelajaran kooperatif model Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD) dengan pembelajaran langsung (direct learning) pada materi kesebangunan bangun datar ditinjau dari prestasi dan minat belajar, (2) membandingkan keefektifan antara pembelajaran kooperatif model STAD dan direct learning. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian eksperimen semu. Populasi penelitian terdiri dari empat kelas, sedangkan sampel terdiri dari dua kelas yang dipilih secara acak dengan siswa sebanyak 64 siswa. Instrumen penelitian adalah instrumen tes prestasi dan angket minat belajar. Analisis data (statistik inferensial) meliputi: (1) uji t one sample, (2) analisis multivariat dengan Hotelling's Trace, dan (3) uji lanjut dengan Equal Variances assumed dengan taraf signifikansi 5%. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa: (1) pembelajaran model STAD dan direct learning efektif ditinjau dari prestasi dan minat belajar matematika siswa dan (2) pembelajaran model STAD lebih efektif daripada direct learning ditinjau dari minat belajar matematika siswa, tetapi tidak lebih efektif bila ditinjau dari prestasi belajar matematika siswa.

Kata kunci: Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD), pembelajaran langsung (direct learning), prestasi, dan minat belajar matematika siswa.

The Effectiveness of the STAD and Direct Learning Models in Terms of Learning Achievement and Interest in Mathematics for Topic of Plane Figure Similarity

Abstract

The aims of this research were to describe the effectiveness of the Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD) cooperative learning model and direct learning in mathematics learning for topic of plane figure similarity in terms of learning achievement and interest in mathematics and compare both of them. This was a quasi-experimental study. The research population comprised four classes. The research sample consisted of two classes, which were randomly selected. The research instruments were an achievement test and a learning interest questionnaire. The data analysis included: (1) one sample t-test, (2) multivariate analysis using Hotelling's Trace, and (3) a post hoc test using Equal Variances Assumed with significance level of 5%. The results of the study showed that: (1) the STAD and direct learning models were effective in terms of the students' mathematics learning achievement and interest and (2) the STAD learning model is more effective than direct learning model in terms of the students' mathematics learning interest, but it wasn't as effective based on the students' mathematics learning achievement. Keywords: STAD learning model, direct learning, students' mathematics learning achievement and interest

Page Range

147-160

Issue

2

Volume

9

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.21831/pg.v9i2.9076

Source

https://journal.uny.ac.id/index.php/pythagoras/article/view/9076

Recommended Citation

Ismanto, I., & Hartono, H. (2014). Keefektifan Model STAD dan Direct Learning Berdasarkan Prestasi dan Minat Belajar Matematika Materi Kesebangunan Bangun Datar. PYTHAGORAS : Jurnal Matematika dan Pendidikan Matematika, 9(2), 147-160. https://doi.org/10.21831/pg.v9i2.9076

References

Anderson, L. W. (1981). Assessing affective characteristics in the schools. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Arends, R.I (2000). Learning to teach (5thed). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Arends, R.I . (2008). Learning to teach: belajar untuk mengajar. Diterjemahkan oleh Helly Prajitno Soetjipto dan Sri Mulyani Soetjipto. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Companies, Inc.

Chambers, P. (2008) Teaching Mathematics. Develoving as a reflective secondary teacher. London: SAGE Publication Ltd.

Effendi Z, Chung & Yusuf (2010). Comparing effect size and measuring achievement gains of cooperative and traditional methods in pakistan studies. Social Sciences: Comprehensive Works.

Elliot, S. N., Kratochwill, T. R, Cook, J. L., et.al. (2000). Educational psychology: effective teaching, effective learning. Boston, MA: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Heinich, R. Molenda, M. Russell, J, D,. et al. (1996). Instructional Media and technologies for learning (5th ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Holubec, E.J. (1987). Learning together and alone. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Depdiknas. (2006). Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional Nomor 22 Tahun 2006.

Depdiknas. (2007). Peraturan Menteri Nomor 41 Tahun 2007

Kemp, J. E. & Dayton, D. K. (1985). Planning and producing instructional media. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.

Killen, R. (2009).Effective teaching strategies: lessons from research and practice (5th ed.). South Melbourne: Cengage Learning.

Kozma, R. B. (1994). A reply: media and methods. Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 42, No. 3 (1994), pp. 11-14.

Lickona, T. (1991). Education for character. How our school can teach respect and responsibility. New York, NY: Bantam Books.

Mc Millan, J. & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: evidence-based inquiry. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Moore, K. D. (2009). Effective instructional strategies from theory to practice. London: SAGE Publications.

Muhibbin Syah. (2010). Psikologi pendidikan: dengan pendekatan baru. Bandung, PT. Remaja Rosdakarya.

Muijs, D. & Reynolds, D. (2005). Effective teaching: evidence and practice (2nd ed). London: Sage Publication.

Newby, T. J., Stepich, D. A., Lehman, J. D., et al. (2000). Instructional technology for teaching and learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Sutarto Hadi. (2005). Pendidikan matematika realistik dan implementasinya. Banjarmasin: Tulip Banjarmasin.

Schunk, D. H, Pintrich, P. L. & Meece, J. L. (2010). Motivation in education, theory, research, and application. London: Pearson Education Internasional.

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning. Theory, research, and practice. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Slavin, R. E. (2008). Cooperative learning, teori, riset, and praktik. (terjemahan oleh Narulita Yusron) London: Allyn & Bacon (Buku asli diterbitkan tahun 2005).

Trianto (2011). Model-model pembelajaran inovatif berorientasi konstruktivitis. Jakarta: Prestasi Pustaka.

Wina Sanjaya. (2011). Strategi pembelajaran berorientasi standar proses pendidikan. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group.

Winkel, W.S. (2009). Psikologi pengajaran. Jakarta: Gramedia widaswara.

Woolfolk, A. (2009). Educational psychology active learning edition.(Terjemahan oleh Helly Prajitno Soetjipto & Sri Mulyantini Soetjipto). Boston, MA: Person Education (Buku asli diterbitkan tahun 2008).