COMPARISON OF JIGSAW TYPE COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODELS AND DISCOVERY LEARNING MODELS IN ACTIVATING STUDENTS DURING THE LEARNING PROCESS
Keywords:
Jigsaw Type Cooperative Learning Model, Discovery Learning Model,, Learning Activeness, Learning ResultsAbstract
Students' active learning during the learning process is an important factor that teachers need to consider. Student learning activeness is a condition, behavior or activity that occurs in students during the learning process which is characterized by student involvement such as asking questions, offering opinions, doing assignments, being able to answer teacher questions and being able to work together with other students and being responsible for assignments. which are given. It is assumed that the higher the student's activity, the higher the success of the learning process should be. The Jigsaw Cooperative Learning Model and the Discovery Learning Model were tested to determine the level of student learning activity during the learning process. Indicators in determining student learning activeness in the application of the two learning models, namely by paying attention to the learning syntax. Student learning outcomes are a further indicator for determining the level of success of the student activation process. This research is a Quasi-experimental research with a nonequivalent control group design on students in class XI MIPA of SMA Negeri 1 Sukamulia - East Lombok. The learning material chosen is Salt hydrolysis. All 2 class XI MIPA students are the research population, which is also the research sample or saturated sampling. Collecting data on student activity used observation sheets while learning outcomes were determined using pre-test and post-test on sample classes using multiple choice test instruments. Hypothesis testing using the t-test produces tcount of 3.48 and ttable with a value of 2.01. This data shows that the Jigsaw Cooperative Learning Model has a better effect than the Discovery Learning Model. The results of the analysis of student learning outcomes show that tcount (3.48) is greater than ttable (2.01).