ABSTRAK
Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk menentukan:1) manakah yang memberikan prestasi belajar matematika lebih baik antara siswa yang dikenaimodel pembelajaran kooperatif tipe TAI, model pembelajaran kooperatif tipe PC, atau model pembelajaran langsung pada materi fungsi;2) manakah yang mempunyai prestasi belajar matematika yang lebih baik antara siswa dengan AQkategoriclimbers, campers, atau quitters pada materi fungsi; 3)pada masing-masingkategoriAQ, manakah yang memberikan prestasi belajar matematikalebih baik antarasiswayang dikenai model pembelajaran TAI, model pembelajaran PC atau model pembelajaran langsung;4)pada masing-masing model pembelajaran, manakah yang mempunyai prestasi belajar matematika lebih baik antara siswa tipe climbers, campers, atau quitters.
Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian eksperimental semu dengan desain faktorial 3x3. Populasi dari penelitian ini adalah seluruh siswa kelas VIII SMP Negeri Se-Kabupaten Sukoharjo tahun pelajaran 2015/2016. Pengambilan sampel dilakukan dengan teknik stratified cluster random sampling. Instrumen yang digunakan untuk mengumpulkan data adalah tes prestasi belajar matematika dan angket Adversity Quotient. Sebelum digunakan untuk pengumpulan data, instrumen tes dan angket telah diuji cobakan terlebih dahulu. Penilaian validitas isi dilakukan oleh validator. Uji Reliabilitas instrumen angket menggunakan rumus Cronbach alpha dan uji konsistensi internal menggunakan rumus korelasi momen produk dari Karl Pearson. Uji reliabilitas instrumen tes menggunakan rumus KR-20 dan daya pembeda menggunakan rumus korelasi momen produk dari Karl Pearson. Uji keseimbangan menggunakan uji ANAVA satu jalan. Uji prasyarat meliputi uji normalitas menggunakan metode uji Lilliefors dan uji homogenitas menggunakan metode Barttlet. Teknik analisis data yang digunakan adalah uji ANAVA dua jalan dengan sel tak sama.
Berdasarkan uji hipotesis diperoleh kesimpulan sebagai berikut. 1) Prestasi belajar matematika siswa yang dikenai model pembelajaran TAIlebih baik daripada prestasi belajar matematika siswa yang dikenai model pembelajaran PCdanlangsung pada materi fungsi, prestasi belajar matematika siswa yang dikenai model pembelajaran PClebihbaikdaripadaprestasi belajar matematika siswa yang dikenai model pembelajaran langsung pada materi fungsi. 2) Prestasi belajar matematika siswa kategoriclimberslebih baik daripada prestasi belajar matematika siswa kategoricampers maupun quitterspada materi fungsi dan prestasi belajar siswa kategoricamperslebih baik daripada prestasi belajar matematika siswa kategori quitterspada materi fungsi. 3) Pada siswa kategoriclimbers, siswa yang dikenai model pembelajaran TAI,PC, danlangsungmempunyai prestasi belajar matematika yang sama; pada siswa kategoricampers, prestasi belajar matematika siswa yang dikenai model pembelajaranTAIsama dengan prestasi belajar matematika siswa yang dikenai model pembelajaran PC dan lebih baik daripada prestasi belajar matematika siswa yang dikenai model pembelajaran langsung, prestasi belajar matematika siswa yang dikenai model pembelajaran PC lebih baik daripada prestasi belajar matematika siswa yang dikenai modelpembelajaranlangsung; pada siswa kategoriquitters, prestasi belajar matematika siswa yang dikenai model pembelajaran TAIlebih baik daripada siswa yang dikenai model pembelajaranPC maupun langsung dan prestasi belajar matematika siswa yang dikenai model pembelajaran PC sama dengan siswa yang dikenai model pembelajaranlangsung,4) Pada model pembelajaran TAI, prestasi belajar matematika siswa kategoriclimbers lebih baik daripada siswa kategoricampers maupunquittersdan prestasi belajar matematika siswa kategoricamperslebihbaikdaripadasiswa kategoriquitters; pada model pembelajaran PC, prestasi belajar matematika siswa kategoriclimbers sama dengan siswa kategoricampers danlebih baik daripada siswa kategoriquitters, prestasi belajar matematika siswa kategoricampers lebih baik daripada siswa kategoriquitters;pada model pembelajaran langsung,prestasi belajar matematika siswa kategoriclimberslebih baik daripada siswa kategoricampers maupunquittersdanprestasi belajar matematika siswakategoricampers sama dengan siswa kategoriquitters.
Kata Kunci: Team Assisted Individualization (TAI),Pairs Check (PC),Model Pembelajaran Langsung, Adversity Quotient.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to determine: 1) which one of TAI, PC, or directlearning models that resulted in better students’ mathematics learning achievement on function; 2) which one of the students with climbers, campers, orquitters AQ category who had better mathematics learning achievement on function; 3) for each AQ caegory, which one of  TAI, PC, ordirect learning models that could make the students get better mathematicsachievement; 4) for each learning model, which one of climber, campers, orquittersstudents category that resulted in better mathematics achievement.
This was a quasy experimental research with 3x3 factorial design. The population of this research consisted of all the students in eighth grade of Junior High Schools in Sukoharjo Regency during the academic year of 2015/ 2016. The sampling was conducted by stratified cluster random sampling technique. The instruments used to collect the data were the students’ mathematics test result and adversityquotient questionnaire. Before being used to collect the data, the test and questionnaire instruments were tried-out. Validity test was conducted by the validator. Questionnaire instrument reliability test was conducted by using Cronbach alpha formula while internal consistency test was conducted by using product moment correlation formula from Karl Pearson. Reliability of test instrument was conducted by using KR-20 formula and distinguishing ability by using product moment correlation by Karl Pearson. Balance test was conducted using one-way ANAVA test. Prerequisite test consisted of normality test by using Lilliefors testing method and homogenity test by using Barttlet method. Data analyzing technique used were two-ways ANAVA test with unbalanced cell.
Based on the hypothesis test, it was concluded as follows. 1) The mathematics learning achievement of the students who were treated by TAI learning model was better than the mathematics learning achievement of the students who were treated by PC and direct learning method on function, the mathematics learning achievement of the students who were treated by PC learning model was better than the mathematics learning achievement of the students who were treated by direct learning method on function; 2) The mathematics learning achievement of the students with climbers category was better than the mathematics learning achievement of the students with campers or quitterscategory and the learning achievement of camperscategory students was better than the learning achievement of quitterscategory students on function; 3) The climbers category students who were treated by TAI, PC, and direct learning models had the same mathematics learning achievement; the mathematicsachievement of camperscategory students who were treated by TAI learning model was same as the mathematics learning achievement of the students who were treated by PC learning model and was better than the one of the students who were treated by direct learning model, while the mathematics learning achievement of the students who were treated by PC learning model was better than the achievement of the students who were treated by direct learning model; the quitterscategory students who were treated by TAI learning model had better mathematics learning achievement than the students with PC or direct learning treatment and the students’ mathematics learning achievement with PC learning model treatment was same as the students with direct learning model treatment; and4) In TAI learning model, the mathematicslearning achievement of climbers category students was better than the mathematicslearning achievement of both campers and quitterscategory students and the learning achievement for mathematics of camperscategory students was better than quitterscategory students; in PC learning model, the students achievement for mathematics of those with climbers category was sameas the achievement of camperscategory students and was better than quitterscategory students, the mathematicslearning achievement of campers category students was better than quitterscategory students; in direct learning model, the learning achievement for mathematics of climbers category students was better than campers or quitterscategory students and the learning achievement for mathematics of camperscategory students was same as the quitters category students.
Keywords: Team Assisted Individualization (TAI), Pairs Check (PC),Direct Learning Model, Adversity Quotient.