Hubungan Hasil Belajar Dengan Positive Interdependence Pada Implementasi Model Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies

Eka Junaidi, Khairun Nasirin

Abstract

Pengembangan sikap menjadi faktor penting yang perlu dikembangkan melalui penerapan kurikulum 2013. Hal ini menjadi pertimbangan guru dalam menerapkan metode pembelajaran yang mampu mengembangkan sikap sehingga bermuara pada hasil belajar yang baik. Model Peer Assisted Learning Strategies merupakan salah satu model pembelajaran kooperatif yang dapat diterapkan ke siswa untuk melatih sikap positif mereka. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui hubungan antara positive interdependence dengan hasil belajar siswa dalam implementasi PALS. Hasil penelitian ini diharapkan dapat menjadi pertimbangan dalam pemilihan model pembelajaran kimia. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah kualitatif melalui observasi. Implementasi model PALS terdiri atas 6 fase pembelajaran yaitu orientasi, penyajian informasi, pengorganisasian siswa, penyelesaian tugas, evaluasi dan pemberian reward. Sampel penelitian adalah siswa kelas 10 MIA 1 dan 10 MIA 2 di MAN 1 Mataram dengan total responden sebanyak 80 siswa. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa positive interdependence tidak memberikan hasil belajar yang lebih baik pada siswa. Ketua kelompok justru memberikan nilai yang lebih rendah dibandingkan anggota kelompoknya. Hal ini dapat disebabkan oleh faktor dari dalam dan luar siswa. Motivasi siswa untuk belajar kimia dapat menjadi faktor dari dalam, sedangkan faktor dari luar dapat berupa kebiasaan dalam mengajukan argumen dalam kelompok perlu dibiasakan untuk menghasilkan interaksi yang bermakna.

Keywords

Peer Assisted Learning Strategies, positive interpendence, hasil belajar

References

Everaert, P., Opdecam, E., & Maussen, S. (2017). The relationship between motivation, learning approaches, academic performance and time spent. Accounting Education 26(1), 78-107.

Adnan, M.A.M., Nordin, M.S., Ibrahim, M.B. (2013). Relationship between strategies and motivation by using structural equation modeling approach. The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Science, 1(3), 33-40.

Rubini, B., & Liliasari. (2013). Basic Natural Sciences Contribution for Scientific Attitude Development and Values of Life. International Journal of Science and Research 2 (5), 465–468.

Capstick, S. (2004). Benefits and Shortcomings of Peer Assisted Learning (PAL) in Higher Education: an appraisal by students. Peer Assisted Learning conference.

Abedini, M., Mortazavi, F., Javadinia, S.A., & Moonaghi, H.K. (2013). A New Teaching Approach in Basic Sciences: Peer Assisted Learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 39-43.

Regelski, R.E. (2016). The Effectiveness of Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies on Reading Comprehension for Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Disertasi, University of Pittsburgh.

Broman, K., Ekborg, M., & Johnels, J. (2011). Chemistry in crisis? Perspectives on teaching and learning chemistry in Swedish upper secondary schools. Nordina, 7(1), 43-53.

Felder RM & Brent R. 2007. Cooperative Learning. P.A. Mabrouk, ed., Active Learning: Models from the analytical sciences, ACS symposium series 970, Chapter 4, pp. 34-53. Washington DC: American Chemical Society.

Gillies R & Boyle M. 2007. Cooperative learning: a smart pedagogy for successful learning. Queensland: school of education The Universiy of Queensland.

Smith KA, Sheppard SD, Johnson DW, Johnson RT. (2005). Pedagogies of Engagement Classroom-Based Practices. Journal of Engineering Education 94 : 87.

Dooly, M. (2008). Contructing knowledge together (21-45). Extract from telecollaborative language learning: a guidebook to moderating intercultural collaboration online. Bern: Peter Lang.

Lou, Y., Abrami, P., d’Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res, 71, 449–521.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educ Psychol Rev, 19, 15–29.

Webb, N.M., Nemer, K.M., & Zuniga, S. (2002). Short circuits or superconductors? Effects of group composition on high-achieving students’ science assessment performance. Am Educ Res J, 39, 943–989.

Volet, S.E., Summers, M., & Thurman, J. (2009). High-level co-regulation in collaborative learning: how does it emerge and how is it sustained? Learn Instr, 19, 128–143.

Chinn, C.A., O’Donnell, A.M., & Jinks, T.S. (2000). The structure of discourse in collaborative learning. J Exp Educ, 69, 77–97.

Veenman, S., Denessen, E., Van den Akker, A., & Van der Rijt, J. (2005). Effects of a cooperative learning program on the elaborations of students during help seeking and help giving. Am Educ Res J, 42, 114–151.

Woolley, A.W., Aggarwal, I., & Malone, T.W. (2015). Collective intelligence and group performance. Curr Dir Psychol Sci, 24, 420–424.

Sears, D.A., & Pai, H-H. (2012). Effects of cooperative versus individual study on learning and motivation after reward-removal. J Exp Educ, 80, 246–262.

Gillies, R. (2014). Cooperative learning: developments in research. Int J Educ Psychol, 3, 125–140.

Khosa, D.R., & Volet, S.E. (2013). Promoting effective collaborative case-based learning at university: a metacognitive intervention. Stud High Educ, 38, 870-889.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.