EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE GROUP INVESTIGATION (GI) DAN JIGSAW II DITINJAU DARI KEMAMPUAN SPASIAL SISWA

Ahmad Ahmad, Budi Usodo, Riyadi Riyadi

Abstract


Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui: (1) diantara model pembelajaran GI, jigsaw II dan model pembelajaran langsung, manakah yang dapat menghasilkan prestasi belajar lebih baik pada materi bangun ruang, (2) manakah yang mempunyai prestasi belajar lebih baik, siswa dengan kemampuan spasial tinggi, sedang atau rendah, (3) pada masing-masing model pembelajaran GI, jigsaw II dan langsung, manakah yang mempunyai prestasi belajar lebih baik siswa dengan kemampuan spasial tinggi, sedang atau rendah, (4) pada masing-masing kemampuan spasial tinggi, sedang, dan rendah manakah yang menghasilkan prestasi belajar lebih baik model pembelajaran kooperatif tipe GI, jigsaw II atau pembelajaran langsung. Jenis penelitian ini adalah penelitian eksperimental semu dengan desain faktorial . Populasi penelitian ini adalah seluruh siswa SMP Negeri Se-Kabupaten Karanganyar. Pengambilan sampel dilakukan dengan teknik stratified cluster random sampling. Sampel dalam penelitian ini berjumlah 285 siswa. Instrumen yang digunakan untuk mengumpulkan data adalah tes kemampuan spasial dan tes prestasi belajar matematika. Uji coba instrumen tes meliputi validitas isi, tingkat kesukaran, daya pembeda, dan reliabilitas. Uji prasyarat meliputi uji normalitas populasi menggunakan metode Lilliefors dan uji homogenitas variansi populasi menggunakan metode Bartlett. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan sebagai berikut. (1) model pembelajaran GI menghasilkan prestasi belajar matematika yang lebih baik dibandingkan dengan pembelajaran langsung. Model pembelajaran GI menghasilkan prestasi belajar sama baiknya dengan model pembelajaran Jigsaw II. Model pembelajaran jigsaw II menghasilkan prestasi belajar lebih baik dibandingkan dengan model pembelajaran langsung (2) siswa dengan kemampuan spasial tinggi dan kemampuan spasial sedang mempunyai prestasi belajar matematika yang lebih baik dibandingkan siswa dengan kemampuan spasial rendah. Siswa dengan kemampuan spasial tinggi mempunyai prestasi belajar matematika yang sama baik dengan siswa kemampuan spasial sedang. (3) pada model pembelajaran kooperatif tipe GI, jigsaw II, dan pembelajaran langsung siswa dengan kemampuan spasial tinggi dan siswa dengan kemampuan spasial sedang mempunyai prestasi belajar matematika yang sama baik, sedangkan siswa dengan kemampuan spasial tinggi dan siswa dengan kemampuan spasial sedang mempunyai prestasi belajar matematika yang lebih baik dibandingkan siswa dengan kemampuan spasial rendah. (4) pada siswa dengan kemampuan spasial tinggi, sedang dan rendah model pembelajaran GI dan model pembelajran jigsaw II menghasilkan prestasi yang lebih baik dibandingkan model pembelajaran langsung sedangkan model pembelajran GI menghasilkan prestasi yang sama baik dibandingkan dengan model pembelajaran Jigsaw II.

 ABSTRACT

 

The objectives of this research were to investigate: (1) which learning model of the Cooperative learning model of the GI type, the Jigsaw II learning model, and the direct learning model results in a better learning achievement, (2) which students among the students with the high, moderate, and low spatial abilities have a better learning achievement, (3) in each of the Cooperative learning model of the GI type, the Jigsaw II learning model, and the direct learning which students among the students with the high, moderate, and low spatial abilities have a better learning achievement, and (4) in each of the high, moderate, and low spatial abilities  which learning model of the Cooperative learning model of the GI type, the Jigsaw II learning model, and the direct learning model results in a better learning achievement. This research used the quasi experimental research method with the factorial design of . Its population was all of the students of State Junior Secondary Schools of Karanganyar regency. The samples of the research were taken by using the stratified cluster random sampling technique. The samples consisted of 285 students.  The data of the research were gathered through test of spatial ability and test of learning achievement in Mathematics. The proposed hypotheses of the research were analyzed by using the two-way analysis of variance with unbalanced cells. The results of the research are as follows. 1) The cooperative learning model of the GI type results in a better learning achievement than the direct learning model, but results in the same good learning achievement in Mathematics as the Jigsaw II learning model, and the Jigsaw II learning model results in a better learning achievement than the direct learning model. 2). The students with the high spatial ability and those with the moderate spatial ability have a better learning achievement in Mathematics than those with the low spatial ability, but the students with the high spatial ability have the same good learning achievement in Mathematics as those with the moderate spatial ability. (3) in each of the Cooperative learning model of the GI type, the Jigsaw II learning model, and the direct learning, students with the high spatial ability have the same good learning achievement in Mathematics as those with the moderate spatial ability, and both the students with the high spatial ability and those with the moderate spatial ability have a better learning achievement in Mathematics than those with the low spatial ability. 4) in each of the high, moderate, and low spatial abilities,  the Cooperative learning model of the GI type and the Jigsaw II learning model result in a better learning achievement in Mathematics than the direct learning model, but the cooperative learning model of the GI type results in the same good learning achievement as the Jigsaw II learning model.


Keywords


Cooperative Learning; Group Investigation (GI); Jigsaw II; learning achievement; spatial ability; Pembelajaran Kooperatif; Group Investigation (GI); Jigsaw II; Prestasi Belajar; Kemampuan Spasial;

Full Text:

PDF

References


Armstrong, T. 2013. Kecerdasan Multipel di dalam Kelas. Jakarta: PT Indeks.

Budiyono. 2013. Statistika Untuk Penelitian Edisi Ke-3. Surakarta : UNS Press.

Doymus, K., Simsek, U., Karacop, A., and Ada, S. 2009. “Effects of two cooperative learning strategies on teaching and Learning topics of thermochemistry”. Word Applied sciences journal. 7 (1) 34-42.

Effendi, Z. and Iksan, Z. 2007. “Promoting Cooperative Learning in Science and Mathematics Education: A Malaysian Perspective”. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education. 3(1), 35-39.

Kupczynski, L., Anne, M.M., Goswami, J., and Meling, V. 2012. “Cooperative Learning in Distance Learning: a Mixed methods study”. International Journal of Instruction. 5(2), 82-90.

Mailer, P.H. 1998. Spasitian Geometry and Spasial Ability- How to Make Solid Geometry Solid? In Elmar Cohors-Fresenborg, K. Reiss, G. Toener, and H.-G.Weigand, Editor, Selected Papers from the Annual Conference of Didactics of Mathematics 1996, Osnabrueck, p. 69-81.

Masykur, M. A. 2007. Mathematical Intelligence.Yogyakarta: Ar-Ruzz Media.

Miftahul Huda. 2013. Model-model Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Okur, N. A. and Doymus, K. 2012. “The Effects of Group Investigation and Cooperative Learning Techniques Applied in Teaching Force and Motion Subjects on Students’ Academic Achievements”. Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 2 (1), 109-123.

Sahin, A. 2010. “Effects of jigsaw II technique on academic achievement and attitudes to written expression course”. Educational Research and Reviews. 5 (12), 778-787.

Sengul, S. and Katranci, Y. 2012. “Teaching the Subject ‚Sets‛ with the ‘Dissociation and Re-Association’ (Jigsaw)”. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences .4 (1), 1-18.

Slavin, R.E. 2005. Cooperative Learning Teori, Riset dan Praktik. Terjemahan: Nurulita Yusron. Bandung: Nusa Media.

Simsek, U., Yilar, B. and Kucuk, B. 2013. “The effects of cooperative learning methods On students’ academic achievements in social psychology lessons”. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications. 4 (1), 5-9.

Unal, H., Jakubowski, E., and Corey, D. 2009. “Differences in learning geometry among high and low spatial ability pre-service mathematics teachers”. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40(8), 997-1012.

Van Dat Tran and Lewis, R. 2012. “The Effects of Jigsaw Learning on Students’ Attitudes in a Vietnamese Higher Education Classroom”. International Journal of Higher Education, 1 (2), 9 – 20.

Vargas-Vargas, M., Mondejar-Jimenez, J., Meseguer, M.L.S., Alfaro-Navarro, J.L., and Fernandez-Aviles, G. 2011. “Cooperative Learning In Virtual Environments: The Jigsaw Method In Statistical Courses”. Journal of International Education Research – Special Edition. 7 (5), 1-5.

Yilmaz, S. 2012. Relationships among preservice primary Mathematics teachers’ gender, academic success and spatial ability”. International Journal of Instruction, 5 (2), 9-20.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20414/j-tatsqif.v15i1.1331

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.