Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Talking Stick Dalam Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar Mata Pelajaran PAI

Abstract

The results of observations and interviews at SDN 2 Depok show the low minimum completeness criteria (KKM) 75 scores of students in the Islamic Religious Education (PAI) subject found that student learning outcomes in the Islamic Religious Education (PAI) subject are still low, due to not focusing on learning the lack of learning methods used by the teacher. One of the contributing factors is that the learning methods used are less varied so that learning becomes monotonous. The purpose of this study was to determine the application of the talking stick method in the learning outcomes of Islamic Education. The method used is classroom action research (PTK). The object in this study was 29 students in grade V. Data collection was carried out using learning outcomes, filling out observation sheets. The data analysis used quantitative calculations which were then described in the form of presentations. Based on the learning results of the students after using the talking stick method, student learning outcomes increased each cycle. Judging from the learning outcomes of cycle 1 reached a percentage of 62% and cycle II reached 89%, meaning that there was an increase of 24%. In cycle, student learning outcomes in Islamic Education subjects have reached 62%, while in cycle II it has reached 89%. So, it can be concluded that between cycle I and cycle II an increase of 24%.

Talking Stick Learning Model by Animation Videos in Social Sciences Subjects

“…The results of this research are strengthened by several previous studies, such as research conducted by Sukadewi & Sumaryani (2016) explaining that there is an influence of the talking stick learning model assisted by mind mapping on biology learning outcomes. Research conducted by Sayekti et al, (2021) states that student learning outcomes have increased after using the talking stick method, as can be seen from student learning outcomes increasing from initially 62% in cycle I to 89% in cycle II, between cycle I and cycle II experienced an increase of 24%.…”