PENINGKATAN HASIL BELAJAR SISWA KELAS IV SD NEGERI KARANGWUNI 03 DENGAN MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE STAD
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52060/pti.v2i01.451Abstract
This research aims to implement a cooperative learning model of STAD type to improve the results of mathematics learning grade IV SD Karangwuni 3, which is under KKM. This method is also used to provide the innovation of learning methods in these subjects so that students can play an active role in the KBM process. This research is a class action study using three cycles. Based on the results of research and data analysis can be concluded through cooperative learning methods type STAD can improve students' learning outcomes in cognitive, affective and psychomotor aspects in each cycle. In cycle 1 shows not yet maximum achievement, percentage of success (completeness) of students from cognitive scores 60%, Affective scores 70%, and psychomotor 70%. In cycle II, presentation increased students' overall cognitive, affective, and psychomotor scores by 70% with an average score of 81.3 in all three aspects. Then for the third cycle shows quite significant results with an average value of 87.0, and the completeness level is 90-100%.
References
Al-Hmouz, A., Shen, J., Al-Hmouz, R., & Yan, J. (2012). Modeling and simulation of an Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) for mobile learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 5(3), 226–237.
Aryuntini, N., Astuti, I., & Yuliana, Y. G. S. (2018). Development of Learning Media Based on VideoScribe to Improve Writing Skill for Descriptive Text of English Language Study. JETL (Journal Of Education, Teaching and Learning), 3(2), 187.
Bronack, S. C. (2011). The role of immersive media in online education. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59(2), 113-117.
Cheng, K. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Affordances of Augmented Reality in Science Learning: Suggestions for Future Research. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(4), 449–462.
De Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 40(6130), 305–308.
Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(1), 7–22.
Ibáñez, M. B., Di-Serio, Á., Villarán-Molina, D., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2016). Support for Augmented Reality Simulation Systems: The Effects of Scaffolding on Learning Outcomes and Behavior Patterns. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 9(1), 46–56.
Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A., & Haywood, K. (2011). The horizon report 2011. The New Media Consortium, Austin.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.
Prima, E. C., Putri, A. R., & Rustaman, N. (2018). Learning solar system using PhET simulation to improve students’ understanding and motivation. Journal of Science Learning, 1(2), 60.
Schneider, B., Jermann, P., Zufferey, G., & Dillenbourg, P. (2010). Benefits of a Tangible Interface for Collaborative Learning and Interaction. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 4(3), 222–232.
Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337–1370.
Ton de Jong, & Wouter R. van Joolingen. (1998). Scientific Discovery Learning with Computer Simulations.
| Keywords | : |
Keywords:
STAD, PTK, Student Activities
|
| Galleys | : | |
| Published | : |
2021-02-08
|
| Issue | : |
_SCCC.png)
