Research Article
The Effectiveness of the Cooperative Problem-Based Learning Model in Learning
Statics in Vocational Education
Juniman Silalahi
1*,Nizwardi Jalinus
2, Fahmi Rizal
3,Unung Verawardina
41,2,3,4Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Negeri Padang, Padang, Indonesia 1*Juniman Silalahi@ft.unp.ac.id
Article History: Received: 10 November 2020; Revised: 12 January 2021; Accepted: 27 January 2021;
Published online: 05 April 2021
Abstract: This research aimed to determine the effectiveness of the Cooperative Problem-Based Learning (CPBL) Model in
Learning Statics. The experimental class's research method was experimental, in which the experimental class was applied with the CPBL model, and the control class was applied with conventional models. A simple random sample carried out sampling for the experimental group and the control group. The instrument used was the learning outcomes test. The findings show that the experimental group's student learning outcomes are better than those of the control group. Thus, there is an increase in learning outcomes, and student effective results on the CPBL model in statics learning are in a very good catego-ry. It is concluded that the application of the CPBL model is more effective than conventional learning.
Keywords:Cooperative Problem-Based Learning Model, Statistics, Vocational
1. Introduction
Currently, Indonesia is faced with the challenges of the Industrial Revolution 4.0 and Globalization (Kris-madinata, et al., 2020); (Dian Noviandri, et al., 2020); (Verawardina, et al., 2020). Challenges that come with the emergence of industrial revolution 4.0 and globalization impact the changes in the world in terms of the devel-opment of technological advances and soft skills that is so fast Vitriani, et al., 2020); (Nofrianto, et al., 2020); (Arifin et al., 2020); (Hendriyani, et al., 2020) (Novaliendry, et al., 2020). Therefore, all stakeholders in various sectors must be able to respond quickly and precisely to improve quality during today's global competition. To achieve Indonesia's success in escorting young human resources to face these challenges, it cannot be separated from lecturers and teachers' quality and another vocational education teaching to provide solutions in facing these challenges. Lecturers should use various approaches, strategies, methods, and learning models in each lesson to make it easier for students to understand the material being taught.
Vocational education is an individual interested in developing a professional attitude, being able to compete, work and have a career through talent, interests, and skills education.(Erni, 2010)(Dony, et al., 2020)(Novaliendry, et al., 2020). Sarbiran (2006) states that vocational education is called educationoccupational education.Calhoun & Finch (1982) states that vocational education is intended to prepare someone to work and increase the workforce's training potential. This is in line with Clarke & Winch (2007), increasing society's productivity for work. The flow of philosophy in vocational education contains essentialism, existentialism, and pragmatism (Miller, 985). Hence to achieve the goal, Lecturers should use various approaches, strategies, meth-ods, and learning models in each lesson to make it easier for students to understand the material being taught.
Application of a varied learning model in the learning process will make it easier for lecturers to present a learning experience according to the principles of lifelong learning, which refers to the four pillars of universal education, namely learning to know, learning to do, learning to live together, and learning to be. "For this reason, lecturers need to improve the quality of their learning process, which starts with making a good learning design by paying attention to the objectives, characteristics of the material being taught, and available learning re-sources. There are still many learning processes that are less meaningful, inefficient, and less attractive so that the learning outcomes achieved by the students are not optimal. Learning outcomes can be optimized by improv-ing the quality of learnimprov-ing."
Based on the problems that occurred in Students of D3 Civil Engineering Study Program, FT UNP, there is a tendency that student activities in learning statics are still low. Students' passivity in the learning process causes their generic skills not to develop but also cause boredom in learning, which in turn impacts the students’ poor learning outcomes in statics courses. Such learning does not mean much to students (Budiningsih, 2005). An overview of student learning outcomes in the statics course in the last three years is presented in the following table.
Table 1.The Statics Study Results of D3 Civil Engineering Study Program Students - FT UNP Academic year of Learning outcomes Total Percentage (%) % By Category 2015/2016 A 3 9.68 Very good 19.36 A- 3 9.68 B + 4 12.9 Good 45.16 B 5 16.13 B- 5 16.13 C + 6 19.35 Fair 32.25 C 3 9.68 C- 1 3.22 D 0 0 Bad E 1 3.22 Fail Total 31 2016/2017 A 1 2.94 Very good 11.76 A- 3 8.82 B + 2 5.88 Good 44.11 B 5 14.70 B- 8 23.53 C + 3 8.82 Fair 32.35 C 0 0 C- 8 23.53 D 2 5.88 Bad E 2 5.88 Fail Total 34 2017/2018 A 1 3.12 Very good 6.24 A- 1 3.12 B + 1 3.12 Good 21.87 B 0 0 B- 6 18.75 C + 0 0 Fair 31.26 C 1 3.13 C- 9 28.13 D 10 31.25 Bad E 3 9.38 Fail Total 32
Source: Database of the Department of Civil Engineering, FT UNP
Table 1 shows that student learning outcomes in the statics subject are still less than optimal and have de-creased from year to year. Until now, the statics course is still considered a scourge, a course that is difficult to understand and mastered by D3 Civil Engineering Study Program students.
To answer the above problems, it is necessary to change the process of continuous statics learning towards a better one that can increase reasoning power, creativity, and critical thinking for students by choosing the right learning model. Thus, it is also necessary to conduct an in-depth study of the learning model that is thought to be able to improve student learning outcomes in the statics course and at the same time improve students’ generic skills. One of the models used is problem-based cooperative learning, which was developed in this research. The problem-based cooperative learning model combines the problem-based learning model and the collaborative learning model type Student Team Achievement Divisions (STAD). Research results proposed by Sumarji (2009) regarding applying the problem-based learning model in statics courses show that "the problem-based learning model can increase motivation and the ability to solve problems in statics". Research by DanangPriya-sudana (2016) on applying problem-based learning models in engineering mechanics courses also shows that "there is an increase in student learning outcomes during the learning process". Findings Marwan dan Juniman (2018) that the Problem Based Learning model of learning outcomes.
Meanwhile, research conducted by Slavin (in Sanjaya, 2009) found that: "(1) the use of cooperative learning type STAD can improve student learning outcomes and at the same time – improve their social relationships, foster tolerance, and make the students able to respect other people's opinions; (2) cooperative learning type
STAD can meet the needs of students in critical thinking, solving problems, and integrating knowledge with experience. Handayani (2011), in her research on the effectiveness of collaborative learning, shows that coopera-tive learning can increase learning activities and mastery of concepts.
The cooperative problem-based learning (CPBL) model combines the problem-based learning model and the cooperative learning model type STAD. Combining the two learning models is done based on the advantages contained in the two models. The combination of the two models is expected to improve the quality of the learn-ing process. The combination of problem-based learnlearn-ing that makes the problem the startlearn-ing point or anchor guides the lectures, and the collaborative model emphasizes the occurrence of strong collaboration between stu-dents, students-lecturer, and students-lecture materials, and this is what is called cooperative problem-based learning (CPBL) model.
This research was applied to determine the effectiveness of the Cooperative Problem-Based Learning model in Learning Statics.
2. Method
The research method used was experimental. Meanwhile, the research design used in this research was "Non-equivalent Control Group Design" as described in table 2 below.
Table 2.Research Design
Group Pre-test Treatment Post-test
Experiment O1 X O2
Control O3 - O4
Notes:
O1-3 = Pre-test given to the experimental class and control class O2-4 = Post-test given to the experimental class and the control class
The samples in this research design were divided into 2 groups: the experimental and control groups. One group was given treatment (variable X), namely learning with the experimental group's CPBL model. The group that was not given treatment with the CPBL model for the control group. In simple terms, this research was car-ried out by providing a pre-test to the experimental group (O1) and the control group (O3) before being given the treatment. After that, the experimental group was assigned the therapy, the final test (post-test) was carried out in the experimental group (O2) and the control group (O4).
The samples in the experimental group and the control group were taken by simple random sampling. Ac-cording to Sugiyono (2013), simple random sampling takes the sample members from the population at random without paying attention to the strata in the population. The instrument used was the learning outcomes test to assess the CPBL model's effectiveness in statics learning. The data analysis technique used in this research was the independent t-test.
3. Results and Discussion
This research was aimed to find out the effectiveness of the CPBL model developed, whether it has met the criteria as a useful model or not. The effectiveness referred to in this section is seen from the comparison of stu-dent learning outcomes before and after applying the CPBL model in statics learning. Stustu-dent learning outcomes data were obtained by giving 40 items multiple-choice tests through the pre-test and post-test conducted in the experimental and control groups. Student learning outcomes data obtained through the pre-test and post-test were grouped based on the experimental and control groups. With the number of samples (respondents), N was as many as 16 students.
A. Test results
From the results of the pre-test data analysis, the experimental group obtained results as described in the follow-ing table:
Table 3. Pretest Results
Score Experimental Group Control Group
Average Average
Pre-test 51.00 52.35
Based on table 3, it is known that the results from the learning outcomes test show an average pre-test value of 51.00 for the experimental group and 52.35 for the control group. Thus, it can be concluded that the pre-test learning outcomes of the control group are better than the experimental group.
2). Description of Post-Test Data of the Experimental and Control Groups
From the results of the post-test data analysis, the experimental group and the control group obtained results as described in the following table:
Table 4. Post-test Results
Score Experimental Group Control Group
Average Average
Post-test 81.75 74.24
Based on table 4, it is known that the results from the learning outcomes test show an average post-test value of 81.75 for the experimental group and 74.24 for the control group. Thus, it can be concluded that the post-test learning outcomes of the experimental group are better than the control group.
B. Requirements Analysis Tests a) Normality test
The normality test in this research was carried out to measure whether the learning outcomes data, namely the pre-test scores of the experimental group and the control group, and the post-test scores of the experimental group and the control group, have a normal distribution or not.
The normality test results for the experimental group and the control group are presented in the following ta-ble.
Table 5. Normality Test Results
Groups Pre-test Normality Test Post-test Normality test Notes on Normality test Experimental Asymp. sig. (2-tailed)
0.318
Asymp. sig. (2-tailed) 0.177
Normal Control Asymp. sig. (2-tailed)
0.794.
Asymp. sig. (2-tailed) 0.05
Normal
Based on table 5, the normality test results for pre-test and post-testshow the Asymp value.sig. (2-tailed) of 0.318 and 0.177for the experimental group during the Asymp value. sig. (2-tailed) of 0.794 and 0.05 for the control group, because all of the values were > 0.05, it can be concluded that the pre-test and post-test data for both groups were normally distributed.
b) Homogeneity Test
The homogeneity test is a test conducted to determine whether two or more sample data groups come from populations with the same variance (homogeneous). The homogeneity test results of the pre-test and post-test values of the experimental group and the control group are presented in the following table.
Groups Homogeneity Test Leven Statistic Pre-test Homogeneity Test Leven Statistic Post-test Notes on Homogeneity Test Experimental and Control Sig 0.568 Sig 0.702 Homogeneous
From the homogeneity test results, the pre-test and post-test values of the experimental group and the control group indicate a significance value of 0.568 and 0.702, respectively. These values are > 0.05. Thus it can be concluded that the pre-test post-test data of both groups have the same variance (homogeneous).
c) T-test
The t-test used in this research was the independent t-test. This was aimed to find out whether the two groups have the same significant average value or not. The t-test results from the experimental group's post-test values and the control group can be seen in the following table 7.
Table 7.T-test Results
Group T-test Post-test Information T-tets test Experiment Sig 0.023
This shows that the learning outcomes of the experimental group are higher than the control group
Control 0.024
From the t-test results of post-test amounting to 0.023 and 0.024, it is known that the learning outcomes of the experimental group after being treated using a collaborative problem-based learning (CPBL) model in statics learning are higher than the untreated control group (which in this case was using conventional learning models). Thus, the collaborative problem-based learning (CPBL) model is more effective than the traditional models in statics learning in vocational education.
C. Student Learning Outcomes Improvement
Comparing the statics learning results in the experimental and control groups can be seen in the comparison chart of the gain score of the statics learning outcomes of the experimental group and the control group, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Comparison Chartof the Gain Score for Statics Learning Results of the Experiment Group and Control
Group
Figure 1 shows that the average score of the experimental group before being treated is 51 and the control group is 52. At the end of the lectures (after the treatment), the experimental group's average score is 82, while
the control group is 74. For the experimental group in which the CPBL learning model was applied, there is an increase in student learning outcomes (gain score) by 31 points, while for the control group, the gain score is 22 points. Based on these results, learning statics in the experimental group using the CPBL model can improve student learning outcomes compared to the control group using the conventional learning models.
D. The Affective Aspects of Learning Outcomes
The affective aspects of the learning outcomes were seen through observations by 2 observers during the learning process. The affective aspects assessment included attitude assessment, interest assessment, self-concept, tolerance, mutual cooperation, self-confidence, and group discussion. The following is the data result of the experimental group students' affective assessment on the CPBL model.
Table 8. The Assessment of the Experimental Group Students' Affective Aspects on the CPBL model in
Stat-ics Learning
No. Assessment Aspects
Rating result
Average TCR (%) Category
1 Attitude Assessment 4.48 87.50 Very good
2 Interest Assessment 4.45 88.91 Very good
3 Self-concept 4.29 85.75 Very good
4 Tolerance 4.56 91.25 Very good
5 Mutual cooperation 4.31 86.25 Very good
6 Confidence 4.55 91.00 Very good
7 Group discussion 4.39 87.75 Very good
Average: 4.43 88.34 Very good
Based on the results on the experimental group students' affective aspects after using the CPBL model in stat-ics learning, the average score is 4.43 with an achievement level of 88.34% with the very good category.This proves that the learning process using the CPBL model in statics learning effectively increases the affective as-pects of students.
The application of the cooperative problem-based learning (CPBL) model in this research goes through sev-eral phases, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Schematic Model of Cooperative Problem-Based Learning (CPBL)
Using the cooperative problem-based learning (CPBL) model begins with providing static problems for stu-dents to solve. The given issues have been selected in such a way as to further guide stustu-dents in finding concepts,
or increasing understanding, reasoning, communication, connections, representations, and also statics problem-solving abilities. After each student has had a few moments to identify the problem and plan a solution strategy individually, students are then asked to study in small groups (4–5 people).
When students form groups and study in groups, the lecturer does not need to interfere too much with their role in the group. The lecturer only facilitates group discussions by asking inquiry questions or encouraging students to convey their ideas, ask each other, answer questions, and argue in their groups. Likewise, when stu-dents are asked to present solutions to static problems they get, they are not in the group’s representative's role but as individuals who convey their learning outcomes, which may be obtained from the group. With this model, it is expected that each student will strive harder to learn in groups so that they can solve the given statics prob-lem quickly and correctly.
This learning model developed by the researchers can improve student competence in critical and creative thinking, group collaboration, good communication, a sense of responsibility, the attitude of helping friends who are in trouble, discussing, exploring, and sharing interpretations to solve problems in learning statics, thus form-ing new knowledge and experiences. With the competencies possessed, the learnform-ing process will run more effec-tively so that student learning outcomes in statics courses are expected to increase significantly. These results are in line with (Davidson & Major, 2014) through collaborative learning. The STAD type allows students to build knowledge together through cooperation, knowledge, interaction, and others. Besides, the cooperative learning model can improve learning outcomes (Herda and Juniman, 2018).
This learning model has many advantages, one of which can create a more festive classroom atmosphere and make students more active in participating in learning activities. The theory that underlies collaborative learning is the theory of social constructivism (Nordentofl & Wistoft, 2013). Besides, it can improve student learning outcomes in learning statics. This learning model can also enhance students’ generic skills, including critical thinking skills, problem-solving skills, teamwork skills, communication skills, a sense of responsibility, and mutual respect and appreciation towards others. These results are consistent with Yeung et al. (2007) stated that "generic skills are beneficial for continuing education and career success. Based on the research results, the application of the learning model can show effective results.
4. Conclusion
Based on the research result, the cooperative problem-based learning model is effective in learning statics in vocational education. This is evident from the results of the t-test of the experimental group and the control group, which show a significant difference in post-test scores between the experimental and control groups. The experimental group's learning outcomes after being treated with cooperative problem-based learning (CPBL) model in learning statics were higher than the control group with the conventional models. It can be concluded that the cooperative problem-based learning (CPBL) model is more effective than the traditional models in learning statics in vocational education. Besides, this developed CPBL model can help lecturers in the statics learning process to make their students be more active and creative and understand learning material more quick-ly. The CPBL model can improve the learning process's quality because this model makes problem(s) a starting point or anchor that guides lectures. The collaborative model emphasizes the occurrence of strong collaboration between students, students-lecturers, and student-learning materials.
References
1. Arifin, A. S. R., Jama, J., Ridwan, G. A., Verawardina, U., & Ramadhani, D. (2020). Needs Analysis of Simulation-Based Construction Services-Tendering Skill Model.Systematic Reviews in Pharma-cy, 11(12), 1195-1202.
2. Budiningsih, Asri. (2005). Belajar dan Pembelajaran. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
3. Calhoun C.C & Finch A.V. (1982). Vocational Education: Concept and Operations. Belmount Califor-nia: Wads Worth Publishing Company.
4. Clarke, Linda and Winch, Christopher. (2007), Vocational Education: International Approaches, Devel-opment, and System, Oxon: Routledge.
5. Dian Noviandri, Wakhinuddin Simatupang, Hansi Effendi, Ambiyar, Tongam E Panggabean, Leni Mar-lina, M. Fakhriza, Unung verawardina, Yunesman. Validation of Embedded System Courses in Product-Based Learning -3D. International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology. ISSN 0974-3154,Volume 13,Number 12(2020),pp.5262-5267
6. Davidson, N. & Major, C.H., (2014). Boundary Crossings: Cooperative Learning, Collaborative Learn-ing, and Problem-Based Learning. Journal on Excellence in College, 3(25): 7-55
7. Danang Priyasudana. (2016). Penerapan Model PembelJaran Problem Based Learning Untuk Mening-katkan Hasil Belajar Siswa. JPTM. Volume 04 Nomor 03 Tahun 2016, 34-42.
8. Dony Novaliendry, Muhammad Adri, Putra Jaya, Titi Sriwahyuni, Asrul Huda, Yasdinul Huda, Dedy Irfan, Dochi Ramadhani, Sartika Anori. 2020. Development of Smart Learning Media Model Based on Android, International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology. ISSN 0974-3154, Volume 13, Number 12, pp. 5354-5364
9. Erni Munastiwi. (2010). Pengembangan Model Penjaminan Mutu Pendidikan. Holistic Skills Education, Studi Kasus pada Sekolah Menengah Kejuruan di DIY. Disertasi. Yogyakarta: Program Pasca Sarjana UNY.
10. Gunarto. (2013). Model dan Metode Pembelajaran di Sekolah. Semarang: Unissula Press.
11. Herda Putri & Juniman Silalahi. (2018). Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Collaborative Learning Tipe Jigsaw Terhadap Hasil Belajar Mekanika Teknik Siswa Kelas X PDIB SMK N 1 Koto XI Tarusan. Jurnal Cived, Vol.5
12. Hendriyani, Y., Ramadhani, D., Nasution, T., Susanti, W., &Verawardina, U. 2020.Examining Career Development of Informatics Engineering Vocational Education Students in the Industrial Revolution 4.0. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 11(4), 275–298.
13. Krismadinata, UnungVerawardina, NizwardiJalinus, Fahmi Rizal, Sukardi, PutuSudira, DochiRama-dhani, ArinaLuthfiniLubis, John Friadi, Ari Syaiful Rahman Arifin, DonyNovaliendry. Blended Learn-ing as Instructional Model in Vocational Education: Literature Review. Universal Journal of Education-al Research, vol. 8, 11b, pp. 5801 - 5815, 2020. DOI: 10.13189/ujer.2020.082214.
14. Marwan Syafei dan Juniman Silalahi. (2018). Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Problem Based Learning Terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa pada Mata PelajaranMekanika Teknik Kelas X Desain Pemodelan dan In-formasi Bangunan SMK Negeri 1 Pariaman. Jurnal Cived Teknik Sipil FT UNP. Vol. 5 No.4.
15. Miller, M.D. (1985). Principles and Philosophy for Vocational Education. Colombus Ohio: The Na-tional Center for Research in VocaNa-tional Education.
16. Nordentofl, H. M., & Wistoft, K. (2013). Collaborative learning and competence development in school health nursing. Health Education, 112 No. 5, 448–468. https://doi.org/10.1108/09654281211253452 17. Nofrianto, H., Jama, J., & Indra, A. (2020). Validity of Cooperative-Discovery Learning Model to
Im-prove Competencies of Engineering Students. Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy, 11(12), 1134-1138. 18. Novaliendry, D., Darmi, R., Hendriyani, Y., Nor, M., & Azman, A. (2020). Smart Learning Media
Based on Android Technology. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change., 12(11), 715–735.
19. Novaliendry, D., Wattimena, F. Y., Renyaan, A. S., Lubis, A. S., Ramadhani, D., Lizar, Y., Guci, A., Rais, S., Sriwahyuni, T., Al Kutsi, M. I., Yang, C. H., Verawardina, U., Nasution, T., Khairul. (2020). Development of an Expert System Application to Detect Vitamin Deficiencies in the Human Body. Re-vista Argentina de Clínica Psicológica, XXIX, 956-965. https://doi.org/10.24205/03276716.2020.1092. 20. Sarbiran. (2006). Reposisi Pendidikan Vokasi pada Era Globalisasi. Pidato pengkukuhan guru besar di
Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta.
21. Sanjaya, Wina (2009). Strategi Pembelajaran Berorientasi Standar Proses Pendidikan. Jakarta: Kencana, Prenada Media Group.
22. Yeung, A. S., Ng, Chistina, Liu, W, P. (2007). Generic Capabilities for Lifelong Education: Conceptu-alization and Construct Validity. Australian Association for Research in Education, Fremantle, Novem-ber 2007.
23. Verawadina, U., Jalinus, N., Krismadinata, Widya, R.N., & Simeru, A. 2020. Needs Assessment of E-Learning Vocational Education. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 11(4), 262–274.
24. Vitriani, Ali, G., Nanda, D. W., Syahril, Desnelita, Y., Satria, R., &Verawadina, U. 2020. The validity of training models based on knowledge management systems. International Journal of Innovation, Crea-tivity, and Change,12(12), 726-741.
