CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
E. Technique Data Analysis
The data was collected through questionnaire to know the detail explanation of students‟ perception on the use of Student Team Achievement Division (STAD). The collect data would be serving by using analysis statistic descriptive by using the formula:
Annotation:
P = Percentage of Questionnaire F = Frequency of Items
N = Total Items
(Sudjana in Rosmilawati, 2017:17) P =
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
In this chapter consists of two main sections. The first section presents the findings on each statement aspects to answer the research question about students‟ perception on the use of Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) technique and lastly the discussions on findings from the questionnaire.
A. Findings
The data of students‟ perception Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) technique by questionnaire distributed to 36 participants then analyzed the statements by using Likert scale. The statements consist of 20 items, there‟re ten favorable and ten unfavorable statements.
1. The students’ Perception on the Use of Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) Technique
In this part, the researcher described the result of data analysis based on the problem statement. In this study the researcher used a close questionnaire to know the students‟ perception on the use of Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) technique in learning activity at the eighth grade students of SMP Muhammadiyah 12 Makassar. Below are the classifications of students‟ questionnaire for each item:
Table 4.1 Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) is an effective technique
No Items Frequency Percentage (%)
1 Strongly Agree 14 38.89
2 Agree 22 61.11
3 Undecided 0 0
4 Disagree 0 0
5 Strongly Disagree 0 0
Total 36 100
Table 4.1 showed that 14 (38.89%) out of students chose strongly agree (SA), 22 (61.11%) chose agree (A), and none of the students chose undecided (U), disagree (D), and strongly disagree (SAD). It means most of students think that Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) was an effective technique.
Table 4.2 The instructions given by the teacher is clear and not confusing
No Items Frequency Percentage (%)
1 Strongly Agree 13 36.11
2 Agree 22 61.11
3 Undecided 1 2.78
4 Disagree 0 0
5 Strongly Disagree 0 0
Total 36 100
Table 4.2 showed that 13 (36.11%) out of students chose strongly agree (SA), 22 (61.11%) chose agree (A), 1 (2.78%) chose undecided (U), and none of the students chose disagree (D), and strongly disagree
(SAD). It means most of students think that the instruction given by the teacher as long as learning process using STAD technique was clear and not confusing.
Table 4.3 STAD technique can increase my motivation.
No Items Frequency Percentage (%)
Table 4.3 showed that 15 (41.67%) out of students chose strongly agree (SA), 20 (55.55%) chose agree (A), 1 (2.78%) chose undecided (U), and none of the students chose disagree (D), and strongly disagree (SAD). It means most of students think that STAD technique could increase their motivation in learning activity.
Table 4.4 Through Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) technique, I can understand the material easily.
No Items Frequency Percentage (%)
Table 4.4 showed that 10 (27.78%) out of students chose strongly agree (SA), 24 (66.67%) chose agree (A), 2 (5.55 %) chose undecided
(U), and none of the students chose disagree (D), and strongly disagree (SAD). It means most of students think that learnt using STAD technique, they could understand the material easily.
Table 4.5 I’m active during group activities.
No Items Frequency Percentage (%)
1 Strongly Agree 10 27.78
2 Agree 12 33.33
3 Undecided 13 33.11
4 Disagree 1 2.78
5 Strongly Disagree 0 0
Total 36 100
Table 4.5 showed that 10 (27.78%) out of students chose strongly agree (SA), 12 (33.33%) chose agree (A), 13 (33.11%) chose undecided (U), 1 (2.78%) disagree (D), and none of the students chose strongly disagree (SAD). It means most of students think that they were active as long as learning process.
Table 4.6 I work by myself in group due to my friends could not understand the topic
No Items Frequency Percentage (%)
1 Strongly Agree 0 0
2 Agree 12 33.33
3 Undecided 7 19.44
4 Disagree 11 30.56
5 Strongly Disagree 6 16.67
Total 36 100
Table 4.6 showed that none of students chose strongly agree (SA), 12 (33.33%) chose agree (A), 7 (19.44%) chose undecided (U), 11 (30.56%) chose disagree (D), and 6 (16.67%) students chose strongly disagree (SAD). It means most of students didn‟t agree that they work by themselves due to their friends couldn‟t understand the topic.
Table 4.7 I couldn’t participate well in group as long as learning process using Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) technique.
No Items Frequency Percentage (%)
1 Strongly Agree 0 0
2 Agree 3 8.33
3 Undecided 14 38.89
4 Disagree 13 36.11
5 Strongly Disagree 6 16.67
Total 36 100
Table 4.7 showed that none of students chose strongly agree (SA), 3 (8.33%) chose agree (A), 14 (38.89%) chose undecided (U), 13 (36.11%) chose disagree (D), and 6 (16.67%) students chose strongly disagree (SAD). It means most of students didn‟t agree that they couldn‟t participate well in group as long as learning process using STAD technique.
Table 4.8 I do not appreciate my friends when they express their opinions.
No Items Frequency Percentage (%)
1 Strongly Agree 1 2,78
2 Agree 2 5.55
3 Undecided 9 25.00
4 Disagree 14 38.89
5 Strongly Disagree 10 27.78
Total 36 100
Table 4.8 showed that 1 (2.78%) out of students chose strongly agree (SA), 2 (5.55%) chose agree (A), 9 (25.00%) chose undecided (U), 14 (38.89%) chose disagree (D), and 10 (27.78%) students chose strongly disagree (SAD). It means most of students didn‟t agree that they didn‟t appreciate their friends when they express their opinions.
Table 4.9 I study hard because STAD is a good technique.
No Items Frequency Percentage (%)
1 Strongly Agree 11 30.56
2 Agree 25 69.44
3 Undecided 0 0
4 Disagree 0 0
5 Strongly Disagree 0 0
Total 36 100
Table 4.9 showed that 11 (30.56%) out of students chose strongly agree (SA), 25 (69.44%) chose agree (A), and none of the students chose undecided (U), disagree (D), and chose strongly disagree (SAD). It
means most of students think that they studied hard due to STAD is a good technique.
Table 4.10 My group is unable to complete the exercise on time.
No Items Frequency Percentage (%)
1 Strongly Agree 0 0
2 Agree 12 33.33
3 Undecided 10 27.78
4 Disagree 9 25.00
5 Strongly Disagree 5 13.89
Total 36 100
Table 4.10 showed that none of student chose strongly agree (SA), 12 (33.33%) chose agree (A), 10 (27.78%) chose undecided (U), 9 (25.00%) chose disagree (D), and 5 (13.89%) students chose strongly disagree (SAD). It means most of students agree that their group unable to complete the exercise on time.
Table 4.11 I can solve the exercise given in group.
No Items Frequency Percentage (%)
1 Strongly Agree 7 19.45
2 Agree 21 58.33
3 Undecided 3 8.33
4 Disagree 5 13.89
5 Strongly Disagree 0 13.89
Total 36 100
Table 4.11 showed that 7 (19.45%) out of students chose strongly agree (SA), 21 (58.33%) chose agree (A), 3 (8.33%) chose undecided (U), 5 (13.89%) chose disagree (D), and none of students chose strongly
disagree (SAD). It means most of students think that they could solve the exercise given in group.
Table 4.12 STAD technique can increase the talent of leadership.
No Items Frequency Percentage (%)
1 Strongly Agree 6 16.67
2 Agree 20 55.56
3 Undecided 5 13.89
4 Disagree 2 5.55
5 Strongly Disagree 3 8.33
Total 36 100
Table 4.12 showed that 6 (16.67%) out of students chose strongly agree (SA), 20 (55.56%) chose agree (A), 5 (13.89%) chose undecided (U), 2 (5.55%) chose disagree (D), and 3 (8.33%) students chose strongly disagree (SAD). It means most of students think that learnt using STAD technique could increase the talent of leadership.
Table 4.13 I am confident enough to deliver my opinions in group.
No Items Frequency Percentage (%)
1 Strongly Agree 10 27.78
2 Agree 14 38.89
3 Undecided 12 33.33
4 Disagree 0 0
5 Strongly Disagree 0 0
Total 36 100
Table 4.13 showed that 10 (27.78%) out of students chose strongly agree (SA), 14 (38.89%) chose agree (A), 12 (33.33%) chose undecided (U), and none of the student chose disagree (D), and strongly
disagree (SAD). It means most of students think that they confident to deliver their opinions in group as long as learning process.
Table 4.14 I cannot understand the material provided properly.
No Items Frequency Percentage (%)
1 Strongly Agree 2 5.55
2 Agree 0 0
3 Undecided 10 27.78
4 Disagree 19 52.78
5 Strongly Disagree 5 13.89
Total 36 100
Table 4.14 showed that 2 (5.55%) out of students chose strongly agree (SA), none of student chose agree (A), 10 (27.78%) chose undecided (U), 19 (52.78%) chose disagree (D), and 5 (13.89%) students chose strongly disagree (SAD). It means most of students didn‟t agree that they couldn‟t understand the material provided properly.
Table 4.15 I cannot answer all the quizzes given by teacher
No Items Frequency Percentage (%)
1 Strongly Agree 4 11.11
2 Agree 6 16.67
3 Undecided 12 33.33
4 Disagree 11 30.56
5 Strongly Disagree 3 8.33
Total 36 100
Table 4.15 showed that 4 (11.11%) out of students chose strongly agree (SA), 6 (16.67%) chose agree (A), 12 (33.33%) chose undecided (U), 11 (30.56%) chose disagree (D), and 3 (8.33%) students chose
strongly disagree (SAD). It means most of students didn‟t agree that they cannot answer all the quizzes given by the teacher.
Table 4.16 I am not happy if the result of group work gets appreciation from the teacher.
No Items Frequency Percentage (%)
1 Strongly Agree 2 5.55
2 Agree 1 2.78
3 Undecided 1 2.78
4 Disagree 14 39.89
5 Strongly Disagree 18 50.00
Total 36 100
Table 4.16 showed that 2 (5.55%) out of students chose strongly agree (SA), 1 (2.78%) chose agree (A), 1 (2.78%) chose undecided (U), 14 (38.89%) chose disagree (D), and 18 (50.00%) students chose strongly disagree (SAD). It means most of students didn‟t agree that they not happy if the result of group work gets appreciation from the teacher.
Table 4.17 I’m not proud when my group gets a reward.
No Items Frequency Percentage (%)
1 Strongly Agree 1 2.78
2 Agree 1 2.78
3 Undecided 1 2.78
4 Disagree 9 25.00
5 Strongly Disagree 24 66.66
Total 36 100
Table 4.17 showed that 1 (2.78%) out of students chose strongly agree (SA), agree (A), and undecided (U), and 9 (25.00%) chose disagree (D), and 24 (66.66%) students chose strongly disagree (SAD).
It means most of students didn‟t agree that they not proud when their group gets a reword.
Table 4.18 STAD technique couldn’t help me to implement the material in my daily life.
No Items Frequency Percentage (%)
1 Strongly Agree 3 8.33
2 Agree 2 5.56
3 Undecided 9 25.00
4 Disagree 19 52.78
5 Strongly Disagree 3 8.33
Total 36 100
Table 4.18 showed that 3 (8.33%) out of students chose strongly agree (SA), 2 (5.55%) chose agree (A), 9 (25.00%) chose undecided (U), 19 (52.78%) chose disagree (D), and 3 (8.33%) students chose strongly disagree (SAD). It means most of students didn‟t agree that STAD technique couldn‟t help them to implement the material in their daily life.
Table 4.19 I feel that I have increased in the learning process using Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) technique.
No Items Frequency Percentage (%) undecided (U), 1 (2.78%) chose disagree (D), and none of student chose strongly disagree (SAD). It means most of students think that they felt increased in the learning process using STAD technique.
Table 4.20 I’m not happy when Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) technique is applied in other Subject.
No Items Frequency Percentage (%)
Table 4.20 showed that 4 (11.11%) out of students chose strongly agree (SA), 1 (2.78%) chose agree (A), 10 (27.78%) chose undecided (U), 11 (30.55%) chose disagree (D), and 10 (27.78%) students chose
strongly disagree (SAD). It means that most of students didn‟t agree about the perception “I‟m not happy when the STAD technique is applied in other subject”. In other words, students agree if STAD technique was applied in other subject.
2. The result of students’ perception on the use of Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) technique.
Based on the findings above, the result of students‟ perception on the use of Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) technique can be categorized in following:
Table 5.1 Category of the students’ perception on the use of Student high category and 26 (72.22%) had high category on the use of Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) technique. Hence, we can conclude that students‟ perception on the use of STAD technique at the eighth grade student of SMP Muhammadiyah 12 Makassar had positive response or positive perception.
B. Discussion
Based on the findings, the students‟ perception on the use of Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) technique of SMP Muhammadiyah 12 Makassar had positive perception. Robbins (2002) adds that positive perception is an individual's assessment of an object or information with a positive view or in accordance with what is expected from the object perceived or from the existing rules.
STAD technique was found to be potential to provide better in teaching learning process. This was proven by analysis of the students‟
response from the questionnaire. First, STAD technique could help student academically. One of main concepts of STAD was team. Here, the students shared their knowledge each other and also gave some feedback to others members‟. This could help the students to understand the material well. Its related with Muh fahroyin (2009) found that the use of STAD integration improved students‟ cognitive achievement, critical thinking and process skills.
Second, STAD technique could improve students‟ motivation. One of concepts of STAD was quizzes. Here the students would answer quiz that given by the teacher, for student or team who get the highest score would get award and it would attract students‟ motivation to learn and more spirit in learning process. Here also all member group would active and participate well, each member motivated him/herself to do the best in order not to disappoint him/her team members. It‟s related with the theory
Slavina (2015) STAD technique can also increase students‟ self-esteem and motivate the students to learn more. Slavina (2015) also finds that students in STAD class think that their success does not depend on their luck but depends on how they work. The students are also intrinsically motivated to do their best. In addition, the students come to the class everyday (Slavina, 2015) because they realize that their team score depends on them.
Third, STAD technique could increase the talent of leadership. In this method teacher divided into some team, the team is the most important feature in STAD. In STAD technique, each group consists of heterogeneous members which could help them to socialize with each member of the team well. The leader of team should control the members, keep the team as long as learning process, gave a chance to every member to express their opinion, appreciated member as long as they sharing their idea, and also give spirit to every member in delivering their opinion so that the members become more confident. All of it could improve the talent of leadership. In addition, they also learnt to appreciate or respect others‟ opinion through this technique.
Most of students gave positive response in learning activities due to STAD technique is emphasized on the activities and interactions of students to motivate each other in mastering the subject matter in order to achieve maximum achievement. Its‟ related with theory from Newman and Thompson pointed out that STAD is one of the most successful
cooperative learning techniques to increase students academic achievement.
Sidhu (2003) stated that students‟ perceptions are students‟ point of view toward something that happened in learning process class and produced it with suggestion or argument for teacher or classmate to improve their learning process. The teaching techniques applied by a teacher can influence students‟ motivations to study in the class. Teaching technique which focuses on students centered will improve their achievement, motivation, interest, memorization and creativity. A study by Septiana (2009) found that using Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) technique affected students‟ achievement and students‟
memorization. Muldayanti (2010) found that using STAD affected students‟ achievement. Fadholi (2010) also found that using STAD technique improved students‟ achievement. And the result of this research from the student perception on the use of Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) found that STAD technique affected students‟
motivation and also students‟ achievement.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion
Based on the findings and discussion, the researcher concluded that the students‟ perception on the use of Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) technique at the eighth grade students of SMP Muhammadiyah 12 Makassar had positive perception. It was proven by 10 (27.78%) out of students had very high category which score classification is 81-100 and 26 (72.44%) out of students had high category which score classification is 61-80, and the mean score of the students‟ questionnaire is 77.41.
STAD technique was found to be potential to provide better in teaching learning process. This was proven by analysis of the students‟
response from questionnaire. Those are, STAD technique could help student academically. One of main concepts of STAD was team. Here, the students shared their knowledge each other and also gave some feedback to others members‟. This could help the students to understand the material well. STAD technique could improve students‟ motivation. One of concepts of STAD was quizzes. Here the students raft the race to answer the quiz given by the teacher, for student or team who get the highest score would get award and it would attract students‟ motivation to learn and more spirit in learning process. STAD technique also could
increase the talent of leadership. In addition, they also learnt to appreciate or respect others‟ opinion through this technique.
B. Suggestion
Based on the result of the study, the researcher proposed some suggestion as follows:
1. A teacher needs to apply an appropriate method in the classroom in order to make an enjoyable classroom and to gain the objective of learning.
2. Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) technique can be an alternative learning model due to this method can improve students‟ achievement and students‟ motivations.
3. The researcher used questionnaire to know the students‟ perception on the use of Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) technique, for the next researcher it‟s better to use questionnaire and interview to collect the students‟ data.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahen, JA. 2009. Students’ Perception towards English for Self Expression.
Sarawak: University Malaysia Sarawak.
Ak, Sara W. 2011. Planning And Designing An Online Learning Module.
Akram, Muhammad, Qamar Naseem, and Imtiaz Ahmad. 2016. Correlating Students’ Perceptions of Teacher Effectiveness and Student Achievement. The Sindh University Journal of Education. 45(2):1–20.
Anonim. 2012. Model Pembelajaran Student Team Achievement Division (STAD).
(http://modelpembelajarankooperatif.blogspot.com/2012/08/student-team-achievement-division-stad_3721.html?m=1) accessed on 5 December 2018.
Armstrong, Michael. 2006. Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice Edition. London: Kogam Page.
Campbell, Jennifer et al. 2001. Students ’ Perceptions of Teaching and Learning:
The Influence of Students’ Approaches to Learning and Teachers’
Approaches to Teaching.
Chang, Ya-ching. 2010. Students ’ Perceptions of Teaching Styles and Use of Learning Strategies.
Creswell, John W. 2012. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. America: Pearson,
Boston.
Deswarni, Dini. 2018. The Effect of Using STAD Strategy toward Students’
Reading Comprehension. Al-Ishlah Journal of Education. 10(1), 72-374, (ISSN 2087-9490 (p); 2597-940X (o)).
Emzir. 2015. Metodologi Penelitian Pendidikan. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.
Felder, Richard M. and Eunice R. Henriques. 1995. Learning and Teaching Styles In Foreign and Second Language Education. Foreign Language Annals 28(1):21–31.
Fedler, Richard M. and Linda K. Silverment. 2002. Learning And Teaching Styles. 78(June):674–81.
Ghait, Ghazi. 2001. Learners’ Perception of Their STAD Cooperative Experience.
Pergamon 29(October):289-301.
Ghazali, Imam. 2015. Aplikasi Analisis Multivariate Dengan Program SPSS.
Skripsi. Semarang: UNDIP.
Hasib, Mujib. 2018. Students’ and Teachers’ Perception on the Effectiveness of Discussion Technique. Skripsi. Makassar: Muhammadiyah University of Makassar.
Hayen, Nancy Csapo &.Roger. 2006. The Role of Learning Styles in the Teaching / Learning Process. Information Systems VII(1):129–33.
Hidayati, Khusnul. 2014. The Influence of Questioning Strategy on Students’
Achievement in Reading. Skripsi. Jakarta: Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University.
Hong, K.-S., Ridzuan, A. A., & Kuek, M.-K. (2003). Students' attitudes Toward the use of the Internet for Learning: A Study at a University in Malaysia.
Educational Technology &Society, 6(2), 45-49, (ISSN 1436-4522)
Huda, Miftahul. 2016. Model-model Pembelajaran. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Jinoddin, Ina. 2019. Students’ Perception of Teachers’ rewards in Teaching English at the First Grade of SMP Negeri 1 Sungguminasa. Skripsi.
Makassar: Muhammadiyah University of Makassar.
Maharani, Hanifah. 2018. The Effectiveness of Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) on Students’ Reading Ability. Skripsi. Surakarta: unismuh Surakarta.
Marble, Stephen and Sandy Finley. 2000. Understanding Teachers’ Perspectives on Teaching and Learning.
Moni, Olivia. 2014. The Implement of STAD Used by Teacher toward Teaching Grammar. Skripsi. Malang: Muhammadiyah University of Malang.
Novitariani, liya. 2018. The Use of STAD Technique to Improve the Students’
skill in Writing Descriptive Text. Skripsi. Semarang: Semarang State University.
Nurhatika. 2018. Students’ Perception toward Teachers’ Talk in English Classroom. Skripsi. Makassar: Muhammadiyah University of Makassar.
Pedoman Penulisan Skripsi Fkip Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar 2014.
Patel, M.F and Jain Preveen M. 2008. Language Teaching-Methods, Tools and Techniques. Jaipur.
Rahmat. 2005. Revolusi Kecerdasan Abad 21. Bandung :172.
Risatina, Hesti. 2015. The Application of Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) Learning Model to Improve Learning Motivation in the Basic Competence Preparing Financial Statement of Service Enterprise.
Robbins, Stephen, .P .2010 .Peningkatan Hasil Beljar Siswa dalam Pembeljaran Bahasa Inggris. Unpublish. Palembang: Universitas PGRI Palembang.
Rosmilawati. 2017. An Analysis of Teachers’ Conception on Learning Teaching and Their Effect on Students’ Learning. Skripsi. Makassar:
Muhammadiyah University of Makassar.
Putri, Adhisty Pramanik. 2013. The Effectiveness of STAD (Student Teams Achievement Divisions) to Improve Students’ Reading Comprehension.
Skripsi. Bandung: UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung.
Sani, Ridwan Abdulla. 2014. Inovasi Pembelajaran. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
Sidhu, Gurnam Kaur, 2003. Literature In the language classrooms: Seeing through the eyes of learners. In: Ganakumaran & Edwin Malachi (Eds.).
Teaching of literature in ESL/EFL context. Pp.88-110. Petaling Jaya:
Sasbadi-MeltaELT Series.
Slavin, R. E. 2005. Cooverative Learning: Teori, Riset, dan Praktik. Bandung:
Nusa Media.
Sugiyono. 2015. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Warayet, Abdullah. 2011. Participation As A Complex Phenomenon In The Efl Classroom Abdalla Warayet. (March).
Yanse, Servinus. 2016. Students’ Perception on The Useof Group Discussion and their Engagement in the Speaking Sessiun of CLS 1. Skripsi. Yogyakarta:
State Dharma University.
Yeung, H.C.H. 2015. Literature Review of the Cooperative Learning Strategy Student Team Achievement Division (STAD). International Journal of
Education. 7(1):31-34.
Yuliani, Nina. 2019. The Role of Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) in Improving Students’ Learning Outcomes. Classroom Action Research Journal, 3(1), 8-15.
Zhou, Mai. 2011. Learning Styles and Teaching Styles in College English Teaching. International Education Studies 4(1):73–77.
Appendix I
QUESTIONNAIRE
“Students’ Perception on the Use of
Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) Technique”
Nama :
Jenis Kelamin : L/P* (lingkari salah satu)
Kelas :
Petunjuk Pengisian:
a. Tulislah identitas anda pada tempat yang sudah disediakan b. Bacalah dengan teliti seluruh pernyataan dibawah ini
c. Berilah tanda silang (X) atau check list (√) pada kolom jawaban yang tersedia dengan alternative jawaban yaitu: d. Jawablah dengan sejujur-jujurnya
No. ITEMS SA A U D SAD
1
Student Teams Achievement Divisions
Student Teams Achievement Divisions