Font Size:

EFEKTIFITAS MODEL PEMBELAJARAN DISCOVERY LEARNING DAN SNOWBALL THROWING DILENGKAPI CD INTERAKTIF DITINJAUDARP PRESTASI BELAJAR MATEMATIKA

Last modified: 2018-09-03

#### Abstract

The study aimed to determine whether or not there were differences in the average learning

outcomes of mathematics in the cube and beam subject matter between students who were

subjected to Discovery Learning model, Snowball Throwing equipped with Compact Disc (CD)

Interactive and conventional learning models and to find out which learning model was better .

Data collection methods used are observation and test methods. The sampling technique used is

cluster random sampling. The selected sample is class VIII A, VIIIB, and VIIIC. The initial data in

the form of midterm replication values were analyzed using normality test, homogeneity test and

one-way Anava test so that the experimental group 1, experimental group 2 and control group

could be used as samples. Final data in the form of evaluation tests were analyzed using normality

test, homogeneity test and one-way Anova test. The results of the final analysis using the one-way

Anova test for hypothesis 1 was 84.11, 83.48, and 76.21, while Fcount = 13.71 and Ftable = 3.44

then Fcount> Ftable, so Ho was rejected which meant that there was difference in average learning

outcomes from the three groups. The results of the right-party t test for hypothesis 2 obtained

thitung = 4.55 and t table = 1.97 then t count> t table, so Ho was rejected which meant that the

experimental group 1 was better than the control group. The results of the right-party t test for

hypothesis 3 are obtained t count = 4.78 and t table = 2.03 then t count> t table, so Ho is rejected

which means that the experimental group 2 is better than the control group. The results of the

two-party t test for hypothesis 4 are obtained t count = 0.35 and t table = 2.01 then -table

<thitung <t table, so that Ho is accepted which means that there is no difference in the average

learning outcomes of experimental group 1 and experimental group 2. Hypothesis 5 and 6

mathematics learning achievements with discovery learning and snowball throwing models to achieve KKM. In conclusion, the use of Discovery Learning and Snowball Throwing learning models with Interactive CDs is more effective than conventional learning models.

Keywords: Discovery Learning, Snowball Throwing, Interactive CD, Effectiveness.

outcomes of mathematics in the cube and beam subject matter between students who were

subjected to Discovery Learning model, Snowball Throwing equipped with Compact Disc (CD)

Interactive and conventional learning models and to find out which learning model was better .

Data collection methods used are observation and test methods. The sampling technique used is

cluster random sampling. The selected sample is class VIII A, VIIIB, and VIIIC. The initial data in

the form of midterm replication values were analyzed using normality test, homogeneity test and

one-way Anava test so that the experimental group 1, experimental group 2 and control group

could be used as samples. Final data in the form of evaluation tests were analyzed using normality

test, homogeneity test and one-way Anova test. The results of the final analysis using the one-way

Anova test for hypothesis 1 was 84.11, 83.48, and 76.21, while Fcount = 13.71 and Ftable = 3.44

then Fcount> Ftable, so Ho was rejected which meant that there was difference in average learning

outcomes from the three groups. The results of the right-party t test for hypothesis 2 obtained

thitung = 4.55 and t table = 1.97 then t count> t table, so Ho was rejected which meant that the

experimental group 1 was better than the control group. The results of the right-party t test for

hypothesis 3 are obtained t count = 4.78 and t table = 2.03 then t count> t table, so Ho is rejected

which means that the experimental group 2 is better than the control group. The results of the

two-party t test for hypothesis 4 are obtained t count = 0.35 and t table = 2.01 then -table

<thitung <t table, so that Ho is accepted which means that there is no difference in the average

learning outcomes of experimental group 1 and experimental group 2. Hypothesis 5 and 6

mathematics learning achievements with discovery learning and snowball throwing models to achieve KKM. In conclusion, the use of Discovery Learning and Snowball Throwing learning models with Interactive CDs is more effective than conventional learning models.

Keywords: Discovery Learning, Snowball Throwing, Interactive CD, Effectiveness.

Full Text:
PDF