USING THE JIGSAW AND TAI MODELS TO ANALYZE A MATH LEARNING EXPERIMENT, REVIEW THE STUDENTS' ADVERSITY QUOTIENT

Agus Hendriyanto, Sani Sahara, Lukman Hakim Muhaimin

Abstract


Abstract: The goal of this study was to identify: (1) Significant differences in mathematics learning results between the jigsaw learning model and TAI. (2) Significant variations in kids' AQ levels and mathematical learning results (3) There is a relationship between students' AQ scores and the outcomes of mathematics learning. A quasi-experimental research design is used in this quantitative study type. 98 students from SMP Muhammadiyah 5 Surakarta in the seventh grade made up the research population. The first class was sampled using the jigsaw model, the second class was sampled using the TAI model, and the third class was sampled using the conventional model. Cluster random sampling was employed as the sampling method. ways for gathering data via tests, surveys, and documentation. Two-way analysis of variance with uneven cells is the analytical method employed. Using the study's findings and a 5% level of significance, the following was discovered: (1) Jigsaw, TAI, and conventional learning models all produce the have different in terms of learning outcomes for mathematics, however Jigsaw performs better than TAI and conventional; (2) There are variations in kids' AQ levels in terms of mathematics learning results. While students with AQ campers are superior to students with AQ quitters, students with AQ climbers are superior to students with AQ campers and quitters; (3) There is a relationship between AQ levels (climbers, campers, quitters) and learning models (Jigsaw, TAI, and traditional) on the outcomes of mathematics learning. Students who are AQ climbers in the jigsaw learning paradigm learn mathematics more effectively than students who are AQ quitters.

Abstrak: Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengidentifikasi: (1) Perbedaan hasil belajar matematika yang dihasilkan dari penerapan model pembelajaran jigsaw dan TAI; (2) perbedaan hasil belajar matematika siswa antar kategori AQ; (3) interaksi antara penerapan model pembelajaran (jigsaw dan TAI) dengan AQ siswa terhadap hasil belajar matematika. Desain quasi-experimental digunakan dalam penelitian kuantitatif ini. Populasi penelitian merupakan siswa kelas 7 SMP Muhammadiyah 5 Surakarta yang berjumlah 98 siswa. Cluster random sampling digunakan sebagai metode pengambilan sampel. Kelas pertama dijadikan sampel untuk penerapan model jigsaw, kelas kedua dijadikan sampel untuk penerapan model TAI, dan kelas ketiga dijadikan sampel untuk penerapan model konvensional. Data dikumpulkan melalui teknik tes, survei, dan dokumentasi. Analisis varians dua arah dengan sel tak sama adalah jenis formula statistik yang digunakan. Dengan menggunakan tingkat signifikansi 5%, ditemukan hal-hal berikut: (1) model pembelajaran jigsaw, TAI, dan konvensional semuanya menghasilkan hasil yang berbeda dalam hal hasil belajar matematika, jigsaw berkinerja lebih baik daripada TAI dan konvensional; (2) Terdapat perbedaan hasil belajar matematika ditinjau dari variasi tingkat AQ. Sementara siswa dengan AQ camper lebih unggul daripada siswa dengan AQ quitter, siswa dengan AQ climber lebih unggul dari siswa dengan AQ campers dan quitter; (3) Ada interaksi antara model pembelajaran (Jigsaw, TAI, dan traditional) dan tingkat AQ (climbers, campers, quitters) terhadap hasil belajar matematika. Siswa dengan AQ climber dan menggunakan model jigsaw memiliki hasil belajar matematika lebih baik daripada siswa dengan AQ quitters.


Keywords


adversity quotient ; jigsaw ; math activity ; team assisted individualized

Full Text:

PDF

References


Agustin, I. N. N., & Supriyanto, A. (2009). Permasalahan Pendidikan Di Indonesia. Magistra, 21(69), 15. http://journal.unwidha.ac.id/index.php/magistra/article/view/186

Balitbang. (2019). Hasil Nilai Ujian Nasional. Badan Standar, Kurikulum, Dan Asesmen Pendidikan Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, Dan Teknologi. https://bskap.kemdikbud.go.id/

Begam, A. A. A., & Tholappan, A. (2018). Psychomotor domain of Bloom’s taxonomy in teacher education. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 6(3), 11–14. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1299766

Budiada, I. W. (2011). Pengaruh Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Inkuiri Terbimbing Berbasis Asesmen Portofolio Terhadap Hasil Belajar Kimia Siswa Kelas X Ditinjau Dari Adversity Quotient. Jurnal Penelitian Pasca Sarjana Undiksha, 1(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.23887/jpepi.v1i2.53

Care, E., Kim, H., Vista, A., & Anderson, K. (2018). Education system alignment for 21st century skills: Focus on assessment. In Center for Universal Education at the Brookings Institution. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdev.13673

Lubis, R. H., Sani, R. A., & Juliani, R. (2017). Pengaruhmodel Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Groupinvestigation Terhadap Hasil Belajar Fisika Siswa Ditinjau Dari Adversity Quotient Siswa. Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika, 6(1), 44. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22611/jpf.v6i1.6344

Mahmud. (2011). Metode Penelitian Pendidikan. Bandung: Pustaka Setia. Pustaka Setia.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2019). PISA 2018 Results Combined Executive Summaries Volume I, II & III. PISA-OECD Publishing.

Pambudi, P. A., Mardiyana, & Saputro., D. R. S. (2016). Eksperimentasi Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Jigsaw Dan Team Assisted Individualized (Tai) Pada Materi Sistem Persamaan Linear Dua Variabel (Spldv) Ditinjau Dari Adversity Quotient (Aq) Siswa Kelas VIII SMP Negeri Se-kabupaten Karanganyar. Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika, 4(10), 936–946. https://jurnal.fkip.uns.ac.id/index.php/s2math/article/view/10023

Pratama, R. R., & Sani, R. A. (2016). Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah Dan Adversity Quotient Siswa Terhadap Hasil Belajar Pada Materi Pokok Listrik Dinamis Di Kelas X Semester II Sma Negeri 4 Binja. Ikatan Alumni Fisika Universitas Negeri Medan, 2(4), 18–21. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.24114/jiaf.v2i4.7778

Raymundo, R. B. (2015). Enhancing Economic Development and Improving the Quality of Basic Education: Implications of the K to 12 Program. Academia.Edu. https://www.academia.edu/download/60817471/OP_22_-_Enhancing_Economic_Devt_and_Improving_the_Quality_Basic_Education20191006-18867-194wj30.pdf

Rukmana, I., Hasbi, M., & Paloloang, B. (2016). Hubungan adversity quotient dengan hasil belajar matematika siswa kelas XI SMA Negeri Model Terpadu Madani Palu. Jurnal Elektronik Pendidikan Matematika Tadulako, 3(3), 325–333. http://jurnal.untad.ac.id/jurnal/index.php/JEPMT/article/view/7220

sugiyono. (2017). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D. Alfabeta, CV. https://massugiyantojambi.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/teori-motivasi/

Sutama. (2019). Metode Penelitian Pendidikan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, PTK, Mix Method, R&D. CV Jasmine.

Volk, M., Cotič, M., Zajc, M., & Istenic Starcic, A. (2017). Tablet-based cross-curricular maths vs. traditional maths classroom practice for higher-order learning outcomes. Computers and Education, 114, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.004




DOI: https://doi.org/10.17509/sigmadidaktika.v7i1.51733

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.



 e-ISSN: 2987-3894

 p-ISSN: 2252-7435

 

  Flag Counter

 

Creative Commons License

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