THE EFFECTS OF THE STAD‒COOPERATIVE LEARNING METHOD ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT, ATTITUDE AND MOTIVATION
IN SOCIAL STUDIES AT CLASS VIII SMP NEGERI 2 BABALAN ACADEMIC YEAR 2012/2013
A THESIS
Submitted to Medan State University In Partial Fulfillment to the Requirement for
Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
Written by:
MEYLINA JOJOR ROTUA SITORUS Reg. No. 709141129
ECONOMIC FACULTY MEDAN STATE UNIVERSITY
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2.1 The Essential Component in Teaching and Learning ... 9
2.2 The Features of Teaching Model ... 21
2.3 Learner Outcomes for Cooperative Learning ... 27
2.4 Direct Instruction Aims at Accomplishing Two Learner Outcomes ... 37
2.5 The Conceptual Framework ... 43
4.1 Pre-test Diagram in Experiment Class ... 60
4.2 Pre-test Diagram in Control Class ... 62
4.3 Post-test Diagram in Experiment Class ... 64
4.4 Post-test Diagram in Control Class ... 65
4.5 The Change in Pretest and Posttest scores ... 77
4.6 Mean Score of Student Attitude ... 77
x
TABLE OF CONTENT
Page
APPROVAL ... i
LETTER OF APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION ... ii
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY ... iii
MOTTO ... iv
2.1.2. Social Studies Learning in Junior High School ... 10
2.1.3. Student Achievement ... 12
2.1.4. Attitude ... 13
2.1.5. Motivation ... 15
2.1.5.1.Definition for Motivation ... 15
2.1.5.2.Motivation, Learning Communities & Goal Structure . 18 2.1.6. Models of Teaching ... 20
2.1.6.1. Joyce’s Models of Teaching ... 22
2.1.6.2. Arends’ Models of Interactive Teaching ... 23
2.1.7. Cooperative Learning (CL) ... 24
2.1.7.1. Definition of CL ... 24
2.1.7.2. The Effects and Assumptions about CL ... 25
2.1.7.3. CL’s Goal Structure ... 26
xi
3.4. Research Variables and Operational Definitions ... 48
3.4.1. Research Variables ... 48
3.4.2. Operational Definitions ... 49
3.5. Technique of Data Collection ... 50
3.7.2. Instrument Reliability Test ... 54
3.7.3. Normality Test ... 54
4.1.1.1. Data Description for Students Achievement Variable 59 A. Pre-Test in Experiment Class ... 59
B. Pre-Test in Control Class ... 61
C. Post-Test in Experiment Class ... 62
D. Post-Test in Control Class ... 64
4.1.1.2. Data Description for Attitude Variable ... 66
A. Attitude Variable in Experiment Class ... 66
xii
4.1.1.3. Data Description for Motivation Variable ... 67
A. Motivation Variable in Experiment Class ... 67
B. Motivation Variable in Control Class ... 68
4.1.2. Validity and Reliability Test ... 69
4.1.2.1. Validity Test ... 69
A. Attitude Questionnaire ... 69
B. Motivation Questionnaire ... 70
4.1.2.2. Reliability Test ... 71
A. Attitude Questionnaire ... 71
B. Motivation Questionnaire ... 71
4.1.3. Requirements Test of Data Analysis ... 72
4.1.3.1. Normality Test ... 72
4.1.3.2. Homogeneity Test ... 73
4.1.4. Hypothesis Test ... 74
4.2. Discussion ... 76
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... 80
5.1. Conclusions ... 80
5.2. Suggestions ... 81
REFERENCES ... 83
CURRICULUM VITAE ... 86
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1.1 The Condition of Social Studies Student Achievement in Midterms ... 2
2.1 Definitions for Attitude ... 13
2.2 Joyce and Weil’s Models of Teaching ... 23
2.3 Arends’ Models of Teaching ... 23
2.4 Phases in STAD as Cooperative Learning Method ... 30
2.5 Determine The Group Members ... 32
2.6 Calculating The Individual Improvement Score ... 33
2.7 Criteria to Determine The Team Recognition ... 34
2.8 The Process to Determine Team Recognition ... 34
2.9 Syntax for Direct Instruction ... 39
3.1 Students in class VIII SMP Negeri 2 Babalan ... 46
3.2 Layout for Research Instrument ... 52
4.1 Data Description for Pre-Test in Experiment Class ... 59
4.2 Frequency and Percent of Pre-test score in Experiment Class ... 60
4.3 Data Description for Pre-Test in Control Class ... 61
4.4 Frequency and Percent of Pre-test Score in Control Class ... 61
4.5 Data Description for Post-Test in Experiment Class ... 63
4.6 Frequency and Percent of Post-test score in Experiment Class ... 63
4.7 Data Description for Post-Test in Control Class ... 64
4.8 Frequency and Percent of Post-Test Score in Control Class ... 65
4.9 Data Description for Attitude Variable in Experiment Class ... 66
4.10 Data Description for Attitude Variable in Control Class ... 67
4.11. Data Description for Motivation Variable in Experiment Class ... 68
4.12 Data Description for Motivation Variable in Control Class ... 68
4.13 The Summary of Validity Test for Attitude Questionnaire ... 69
4.14 The Summary of Validity Test for Motivation Questionnaire ... 70
4.15 The Summary of Reliability Test for Attitude Questionnaire ... 71
xiv
4.17 The Summary of Normality Test ... 72
4.18 The Summary of Homogeneity Test of Variance for Pretest Score .... 73
4.19 Analysis Variance for Pretest Score in Experiment and Control Class 74
4.20 Independent T-test Results of Data Gained from
Student Achievement ... 75
4.21 Independent T-test Results of Data Gained from Attitude Scale ... 75
xvi
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Page
1. Lesson Plan ... 87
2. Test ... 108
3. Attitude Questionnaire ... 118
4. Motivation Questionnaire ... 120
5. Test Tabulation Data ... 122
6. Attitude Scale Tabulation Data ... 126
7. Motivation Scale Tabulation Data ... 128
8. Validity Test and Reliability Test ... 130
9. Normality Test ... 136
10.Homogeneity Test ... 144
11.Hypothesis Test ... 145
xi
ABSTRAK
Meylina Jojor Rotua Sitorus. NIM. 709141129. Pengaruh STAD-Metode Pembelajaran Kooperatif terhadap Prestasi Belajar, Sikap dan Motivasi Siswa dalam pelajaran IPS di Kelas VIII SMP Negeri 2 Babalan Tahun Ajaran 2012/2013. Skripsi Jurusan Pendidikan Ekonomi. Program Studi Pendidikan Tata Niaga, Fakultas Ekonomi. Universitas Negeri Medan 2013.
Permasalahan dalam penelitian ini adalah rendahnya prestasi belajar, sikap, dan motivasi siswa terhadap pelajaran IPS dan pembelajaran kooperatif. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui perberdaan antara pengaruh STAD sebagai pembelajaran kooperatif dengan pendekatan direct instruction (pengajaran langsung) terhadap prestasi belajar, sikap dan motivasi dalam pelajaran IPS.
Penelitian ini dilaksanakan di SMP Negeri 2 Babalan, Jalan Pendidikan, Kec. Babalan, Kab. Langkat tahun ajaran 2012/2013. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian eksperimen dan teknik pengambilan sampel menggunakan teknik
purposive sampling yang terdiri dari 2 (dua) kelas, yaitu kelas eksperimen (48 siswa) dan kelas kontrol (44 siswa). Teknik pengumpulan data menggunakan tes (15 pertanyaan), kuesioner sikap (20 butir), dan kuesioner motivasi (18 butir). Teknik hipotesis data menggunakan T-test tidak berpasangan (Independent t-test).
Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa rata-rata skor posttest kelas eksperimen lebih tinggi (81,28) dari pada di kelas kontrol (63,98), dan menunjukan rata-rata skor skala sikap di kelas eksperimen lebih tinggi (84,19) dari pada di kelas kontrol (77,59) serta juga menunjukkan rata-rata skor skala motivasi yang lebih tinggi di kelas eksperimen (73,62) daripada di kelas kontrol (65,59). Dalam pengujian hipotesis, prestasi belajar di STAD sebagai kelas eksperimen bermanfaat secara signifikan dari pada prestasi belajar di kelas kontrol (tratio (6,276) > ttable (1,66), and p<0,05), menunjukkan pengaruh sikap yang lebih
signifikan terhadap pelajaran IPS di kelas eksperimen daripada di kelas kontrol (tratio (4,274) > ttable (1,66) and p < 0,05), dan STAD sebagai kelas eksperimen
lebih efektif mendorong motivasi siswa terhadap pelajaran IPS dan pembelajaran kooperatif dari pada direct instruction (tratio (5,342) > ttable (1,66) and p<0,05).
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa STAD dibandingkan dengan direct
instruction mendorong sikap positif, menunjukkan prestasi belajar yang lebih baik, dan memotivasi siswa untuk belajar IPS.
1
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1Background of the Research
Education is one of the most important aspect in life, people will
obtain the better life if they get the higher level in education. Furthermore,
education is one of the fundamental priorities of nation building (Zulfikar,
2009:13), by producing intelligent people a nation will more progressive and
competitive in global world. For this reason, so many efforts that have been
done by related party (such as government, organizations, schools, teachers,
parents, etc.) to increase the quality of education.
To support the successful in increasing the quality of education,
particularly education in Indonesia, then the effort of enhancement education
quality is implemented by exploiting teaching learning process improvement.
(Feriyati, 2nd Februay 2013). One of the indicators of success in learning
process can be observed from students achievement, and to achieve the
successful of teaching learning process is obtained by increasing students’
understanding toward the concepts of materials and actives students in
teaching-learning process (Apriza, dkk, 2012:198).
When the researcher had experience in teaching in SMP Negeri 2
Babalan, she found that the teaching-learning process in Social Studies more
display an individualistic and competitive environment. It was evidenced
2
Researcher divided the students into several groups to work on group
assignment, after the groups was divided there were some students that
complained and did not pleased to be in their group because their friends in
group had low proficiency and ability. Moreover, students learning outcomes
is still very poor. This case is proved by comparing Minimum Compeleteness
Criteria (Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal) 75 with students’ Midterms Test
(Ujian Tengah Semester Ganjil) that is still so far from expectation, only
47,59% from 353 students is stated completed.
Table 1.1 The Condition of Social Studies Student Achievement in Midterms Test class VIII
No Class Number of Students Complete Incomplete
1 VIII-1 32 29 3
When researcher carry out observation at SMP Negeri 2 Babalan, she
found that students would show their actives if they had enough motivation to
arouse their passion about a subject matter. It is supported by Williams’ (23th
February 2013) argument that, “Students motivation is an essential element
that is necessary for quality of education”, it means that to get a qualified
education in teaching learning process is needed some factors which
3
learn. Robert Schuller (in Williams and Williams, 23th February 2013) said
that, “You cannot push anyone up the ladder unless he is willing to climb
himself”. If students are not sufficiently motivated, then they tend to indicate a
lack of concern attitudes about the learning environment.
Placement of models in program of study is important, as is blending
them appropriately (Joyce and Weil, 1972:23). Therefore, teacher as an expert
and professional should be able to apply of teaching models that appropriate
and suitable with the subject matter and students need. Furthermore, teacher
should be able to design the teaching-learning process to be an environment
that promotes students may have better attitudes in interacting one another and
create cooperative learning environment.
Basically, the learning objectives of Social Studies are to educate and
give the provision of base ability for students to develop they self that
appropriate with their aptitude, interest, ability and environment, and the
provision for students to continue their education to the higher level
(Solihatin and Raharjo, 2008:15). From the learning objectives above, it need
a learning that can realize the successful of those goals. Teachers ability in
selecting and placing models, methods and strategies that appropriate with
students’ need, will determine the successful of those goals.
The revision of students learning outcomes can be achieved through
increasing students understanding toward the learning materials which are
given and also along with students’ activity in learning process in class is
4
teaching model can be used as a solution to improvement of students
achievement. According to Arends (2009:354), there are three effects of
Cooperative Learning on learners outcomes, they are: effects on cooperative
behavior, effects on tolerance of diversity and effects on academic
achievement. Moreover, Arends argued that Cooperative Learning helps
students become engaged with one another. Thus, Cooperative Learning is not
only can improve students’ academic achievement but also can increase
interaction and helps one another through sharing skills and building
relationships. The success of Cooperative Learning will produces both
academic and social benefits.
There are so many methods of Cooperative-Learning model, one of
them is Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD). STAD was
developed by Robert E. Slavin and his colleagues in John Hopkins University
and one of the simplest and the best cooperative learning method to be used
for a new beginning for teachers who use cooperative approach (Slavin,
2005:143). The purposes of using STAD are to drastically improve and
accelerate learner performance (Wyk, 2005:262) and to motivate students to
encourage and help one another master skills presented by teacher (Slavin,
1994 in Wyk, 2005:262)
The used of STAD in education researches which was done by some
researchers (Wyk, 2012 and Norman, 2005) showed great success. The
findings in their researches indicated STAD promotes positive attitudes,
5
research found that STAD accelerates academic as well has having positive
effects on important non-academic factors such as motivation, liking of
school, and working with others in learning groups.
For this present study the application of STAD is expected can
produce an active learning, increase students attitude toward cooperative
learning, sharing each other, and positive interdependence. Afterwards, the
positive interdependence, created by STAD as Cooperative Learning groups,
helps to increase the motivation in groups and finally students achievement
can be improved.
Refers to the background above, researcher is interested to do research
which is titled The Effects of the STAD-Cooperative Learning Method on
Student Achievement, Attitude and Motivation in Social Studies at Class VIII SMP Negeri 2 Babalan Academic Year 2012/2013.
1.2Problem Identification
Based on the background of the research above, it identified some
cases, they are:
a. Students achievement in Social Studies is still low.
b. The students attitudes toward cooperative learning is very poor.
c. There is no students motivation on learning cooperatively in Social
Studies.
6
1.3The Scope of the Problem
The scope of the problem in this research is limited on the effects of
the STAD-cooperative learning on student achievement, attitude and
motivation in Social Studies, the material is Demand and Supply at class VIII
SMP Negeri 2 Babalan academic year 2012/2013.
1.4Research Questions
Based on the background of the research, this study was guided by the
following specific research questions, those are:
1. Is there the difference between effect of the STAD as a cooperative
learning approach and the direct instruction approach on students
achievement in Social Studies?
2. Is there the difference beetween effect of the STAD as a cooperative
learning approach and the direct instruction approach on students attitude
toward learning Social Studies and cooperative learning?
3. Is there the difference between effect of the STAD as a cooperative
learning approach and the direct instruction approach on students
motivation toward learning Social Studies and cooperative learning?
1.5 The Purposes of the Research
Based on the research questions above, the purpose of this research is
to explore the effects of STAD in relation to direct instruction, more
7
1. To find out the difference between the effect of STAD as a cooperative
learning approach and the direct instruction approach on students
achievement in Social Studies.
2. To find out the difference beetween the effect of STAD as a cooperative
learning approach and the direct instruction approach on students attitude
toward learning Social Studies and cooperative learning.
3. To find out the difference between effect of STAD as a cooperative
learning approach and the direct instruction approach on students
motivation toward learning Social Studies and cooperative learning.
1.6The Significances of the Research
Based on purposes of the research above, the significances of the
research are:
1. For Students
As an effort to improve students’ achievement, increase students’ attitude
toward cooperative learning, and motivate students to learning Social
Studies cooperatively.
2. For Teachers
To inform teachers to be aware about the important of selecting the
teaching models that appropriate with students’ need, and considering
STAD-Cooperative Learning as one of the effective teaching models to
be used in Social Studies.
3. For Future Research
80
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1. Conclusions
Based on the finding and discussion, the following are the conclusions,
they are are manifested into three categories:
1. The calculation of independent t-test results of data gained from posttest
tratio (6,276) > ttable (1,66), and p (0,000) < (0,05). It indicates that there is
a significant difference of mean score in experiment class and control
class. So, can be concluded that there is a significant difference between
the effect of STAD as a cooperative learning approach and the direct
instruction approach on students achievement in Social Studies at class
VIII SMP Negeri 2 Babalan academic year 2012/2013. In other words,
STAD as a cooperative learning experience is more effective in promotes
the student achievement than direct instruction.
2. The calculation of independent t-test results of data gained from attitude
questionnaire tratio (4,274) > ttable (1,66) and p (0,000) < (0,05). It
indicates that there is a significant difference of attitude between the
experiment class and the control class. So, can be concluded that there is a
significant difference between the effect of STAD as a cooperative
learning approach and the direct instruction approach on attitude in Social
Studies at class VIII SMP Negeri 2 Babalan academic year 2012/2013. In
81
in promotes the positive attitudes, minimize the individualistic and
competitive environment than direct instruction.
3. The calculation of independent t-test results of data gained from
motivation questionnaire gained tratio (5,342) > ttable (1,66) and p (0,000) <
(0,05). It indicates that there is a significant difference of motivation
between the experiment class and the control class. So, can be concluded
that there is a significant difference between the effect of STAD as a
cooperative learning approach and the direct instruction approach on
motivation in Social Studies at class VIII SMP Negeri 2 Babalan academic
year 2012/2013. In other words, STAD as a cooperative learning
experience is more effective in promotes the higher motivation to achive,
motivation to learn together and tolerance the diversity than direct
instruction.
5.2. Suggestions
Based on the findings, the study suggests the following areas, they are
manifested into three points:
1. For Students
Students should be focused in achieving the learning goals, because
every learning goal has the benefit in social life.
2. For Teachers
STAD is the appropriate cooperative learning method for Demand and
82
when Demand and Supply is taught, should be prepare this model of teaching
as well as possible. During teams phase, teacher should be frequently remind
the students to help their friends who have the low ability. STAD will
progressing well when all of the members in the teams collaborated each
other. Therefore, teacher have to support all of the teams to achieve the goals
and finally teacher should be give the recognition to the success teams.
3. For Future Researchers
In this present study has less research time. Additional research should
be conducted in the future, so for the future research who want to investigates
the similar research can investigates the possible long-term effects of STAD
as a cooperative learning. Future research should also focus on comparison
between two method of cooperative learning, STAD and Jigsaw for example.
It aims to determine if other cooperative learning models are equally effective
83
REFERENCES
Anderson, R. C. & Faust, D. W. 1973. Educational Psychology : The Science of Instruction and Learning. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.
Arends, R. I. 2009. Learning To Teach (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C. & Sorensen, C. K. 2010. Introduction to Research in Education Eighth Edition. USA: Wardsworth, Cengage Learning.
Cangelosi, J. S. 1990. Designing Tests for Evaluating Student Achievement. New York & London: Longman.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. 2000. Research Method in Education Fifth Edition. London & New York. RoutledgeFalmer.
Cresswell, J. W. 2012. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, & Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research Fourth Edition. Boston: Pearson Education.
Dembo, M. H. 1994. Applying Educational Psychology, fifth edition. New York: Longman Publishing Group.
Dahar, R. W. 2011. Teori Belajar dan Pembelajaran. Erlangga.
Eggen, P., and Kauchack D. 2012. Strategi dan Model Pembelajaran
Mengajarkan Konten dan Keterampilan Berpikir, Edisi 6. Jakarta: Indeks.
Gage, N. L., and Berliner, D. C. 1984. Educational Psychology. 3rd Ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Gagné, R. M. 1977. The conditions of learning. 3rd Ed. Japan: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
84
Gredler, E. M. 2011. Learning and Instruction: Teori dan Aplikasi. Ed. 6. Cet. 1. Jakarta: Kencana
Hardini, I. dan Puspitasari, D. 2012. Strategi Pembelajaran Terpadu (Teori, Konsep, & Implementasi). Cet. 1. Yogyakarta: Familia.
Huda, M. 2011. Cooperative Learning: Metode, Teknik, Struktur dan Model Terapan. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Johnson, R. T. & Johnson D. W. 1975. Learning Together and Alone: Cooperation, Competition, and Individualization. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Joyce, B., Weil, M. 1978. Information Processing Models of Teaching: Expanding Your Teaching Repetoire. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Joyce, B., and Weil, M. 1996. Models of Teaching (5th ed.) Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Noor, J. 2013. Metodologi Penelitian: Skripsi, Tesis, Disertasi, dan Karya Ilmiah. Jakart: Kencana.
Norman, D.G. 2005. Using STAD in an EFL Elementary School Classroom in South Korea: Effects on Student Achievement, Motivation, and
Attitudes Toward Cooperative Learning. Asian EFL Journal.
University of Toronto. (26th February 2013, 07.23pm)
Purwanto, Ngalim. 2004. Psikologi Pendidikan. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.
Rusman, 2012. Model-model Pembelajaran: Mengembangkan Profesinalisme
Guru. Ed. 2. Cet. Ke-5. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.
Rian, M. B., et al. November 2012. Pengaruh Pembelajaran Kooperatif STAD
terhadap Hasil Belajar Matematika Siswa. Jurnal Pendidikan
Matematika. Vol. 1, nomor 5. 233-237.
85
Slavin, R. E. 2005. Cooperative Learning: Teori, Riset, dan Praktik. Bandung: Nusa Media.
Slavin, R. E., et al. Cooperative Learning in the Social Studies: Balancing the Social and the Studies. Johns Hopkins University. (8th February 2013, 09.45pm)
Slameto. 2010. Belajar dan Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya. Rineka Cipta: Jakarta
Solihatin, Etin and Raharjo. 2008. Coopertaive Learning: Analisis Model Pembelajaran IPS. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
Sudjana, Nana. 2009. Penilaian Hasil Proses Belajar Mengajar. Cet.13. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya.
Trianto. 2009. Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif-Progresif: Konsep, Landasan, dan Implementasinya pada Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (KTSP). Ed.1. Cet. ke-4. Jakarta: Kencana.
Trihendradi, C. 2010. Step by step SPSS 18: Analisis Data Statistik. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Andi.
Williams, K. C., and Williams C. C. Five key ingredients for improving student motivation. Research in Higher Education Journal. (23rd February 2013)
Wyk, M. M. van. 2012. The Effects of STAD-Cooperative Learning Method on Student Achievement, Attitude and Motivation in Economics Education. Department of Curriculum and Instructional Studies, College of Education, Eniversity of South Africa. 33(2): 261-270.
