Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education 2013 (e-ISBN 978-967-11768-0-1)

11-12 March 2013, Kuala Lumpur. Organized by WorldConferences.net 990

254 - Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education (GSE2013)
THE COMPARISON BETWEEN STAD AND TGT ON STUDENTS
ACHIEVEMENT AND MOTIVATION: SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
Dian Eki Purwanti
Faculty of Education
Sampoerna School of Education
dianekipurwanti@yahoo.co.id

ABSTRACT
This study compares two strategies in Cooperative Learning (Teams Games Tournaments
[TGT] and Students Team Achievement Division [STAD]) in term of mathematics
achievements of senior high school students. Slavin (1983) claims in STAD students
motivation in learning fostered by focusing on cooperation between members of different
teams. Sharan (1980) and Johnson & Johnson (1993) found that STAD is an ideal framework
when the goal is mastery the content and has been shown by research to increase students
achievement. Two grade X classes participated in the study. Both of them were taught using
Cooperative Learning, while one class taught by using TGT other class taught by using STAD
and getting homework. Evaluation of students achievement was conducted by post-test
administered in every meeting except on the tournament or quiz. Students motivation and
perception about mathematics was collected before and after the treatment. The result of this
study show how teaching methodologies could influence students achievement, motivation
and perception about mathematics.

Field of Research: Cooperative Learning, Students Achievement, Students Motivation.

1. Introduction
Mathematics become one of scared subject for several students because several concepts in
mathematics ask them to analyze and thought abstractly. Suhendro (2006) said that there
are several factors that could influence students achievement in mathematics, one of them
is teaching strategy that used by teacher. Many teacher still used direct instruction to
deliver mathematical learning concept (Bernero, 2000) and it make only few of learning
process really happen on students (Stein, 2001).

2. Mathematics Teaching Strategy
Many mathematics teachers teach practically by giving the formula without any open
discussion how the formula developed and used nowadays. In the earlier observation,
students difficulties resolved after getting explanation from their friends. Probably it
Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education 2013 (e-ISBN 978-967-11768-0-1)
11-12 March 2013, Kuala Lumpur. Organized by WorldConferences.net 991
decreases students level of stress that happen while they learned with their teacher. One of
learning strategy that promotes cooperation between students are students team learning
(STAD and TGT). Lasley and Matczynki (1997) said that TGT and STAD are extremely
useful when teachers are requiring students to focus on skills and content material that are
clearly define and on dealing with question that have relatively discrete answers for
example, mathematics.

3. STAD and TGT
The usage of STAD and TGT not necessarily replace direct instruction as the teaching
strategy but accustom teaching strategy that promotes cooperation or collaboration of
students. Good teaching strategy probably could influence students motivation to learn
mathematics. Chen (1999) stated learning process would be happen if each student
constructs their own knowledge not by remembering or permeate the given knowledge
from their teacher.

4. Research Question
Does students team learning (TGT and STAD) influence students achievements in learning
mathematics (logic topic)? Is there a relationship about students achievement and
students motivation on students team learning group? This study finds out the influence of
STAD and TGT on students achievement in learning mathematics and the relationship
between students achievement and students motivation.

5. Theoretical Framework
There are two kinds of motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic). Hakim (2004) defines
motivation as support that could influence people to do something to achieve several goals.
Five factors of motivation were measured on the motivation scale: self efficacy, cooperative
learning strategies, mathematics learning value, goal and learning environment.
Cooperative Learning (CL) formally called students-team learning is the term used to
describe instructional procedures whereby learners work together in small groups and are
rewarded for their collective accomplishments (Cruickshank, 2009). Purpose in CL is to
cause students to work together for both the individual and common good (Cruickshank,
2009). The characteristics of CL are heterogeneous group, group task, member help each
other and shared equally of group reward (Cruickshank, 2009).
Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education 2013 (e-ISBN 978-967-11768-0-1)
11-12 March 2013, Kuala Lumpur. Organized by WorldConferences.net 992


6. Methodology
6.1 Sample and data collection method
This study use quasi-experimental design where two groups students are getting two
different treatments. Population of this study is 6 class of grade X Public Senior High School
of 71 Jakarta. Sample of this study is 2 class of grade X Public Senior High School of 71
Jakarta. Essay question wwere developed to measure students motivation and
questionnaire to measure students motivation.

6.2 Instrumentation
Essay questions were developed to measure students achievement in logic topic in pretest
and posttest. Thirty four statements developed used Likert-type statement using 5 point
scales with strongly agree and strongly disagree at the extreme, adaptation from Wyk
(2012) questionnaire to measure students motivation.

7. Finding & Discussion
7.1 Reliability analysis

According to Tuan, Chin and Shieh (2005), students motivation scale has good internal
consistency, with a Cronbach alpha coefficient reported of 0.80. In the current study, the
Cronbach alpha coefficient was 0.932.

Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education 2013 (e-ISBN 978-967-11768-0-1)
11-12 March 2013, Kuala Lumpur. Organized by WorldConferences.net 993
7.2 Descriptive statistics & analysis

Sig value (Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics) more than 0.05 indicates normality of the
distribution improvement score for both groups.

In the output presented above, there is improvement score for both groups (STAD and
TGT), where mean differences between pre test and post test on STAD group is higher than
TGT group.

Significant value in Levenes test is more than 0.05, it means the variances for the groups
are same.

Significant value (2-tailed) column is above 0.05, it means there is no significant difference
on students achievement between two groups.
Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education 2013 (e-ISBN 978-967-11768-0-1)
11-12 March 2013, Kuala Lumpur. Organized by WorldConferences.net 994

The relationship between students motivation and students achievement was investigated
using Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient. There was very small negative
correlation in STAD group between two variables, r = - 0.082, n = 18, p < 0.005 with high
levels of students motivation associated with lower levels of students achievement. There
was very small positive correlation in TGT group between two variables, r = 0.033, n = 29, p
< 0.005 with high levels of students motivation associated with high levels of students
achievement.

8. Conclusion and Future Recommendation
Students couldnt connect the dot the topic and logic topic. The findings of this study
revealed the difference between groups in term of students achievement in the
improvement score was not significant. Its probably influence by content material,
learning habit, mark orientation and level difficulties of the problem constrain.

Acknowledgement
This paper is under scholarship of the university.

References
Asmani, Jamal Mamur. 2009. Jurus-jurus Belajar Efektif untuk SMP dan SMA. Jakarta: Diva
Press.
Bernero, J. (2000). Motivating students in math using Cooperative Learning. Chicago, IL:
Master of Arts Action Research Project. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED446999)
Chen, Hsiu-chuan. (1999). A Comparison Between Cooperative Learning and Traditional,
Whole Class Methods-Teaching English in a Junior High School. Academic Journal of
Kang-Ning no.3 hal 69-82
Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education 2013 (e-ISBN 978-967-11768-0-1)
11-12 March 2013, Kuala Lumpur. Organized by WorldConferences.net 995
Cohen, A. (1984, March). Instrospecting about Second Language Learning. Paper presented
at the ninth ILASH Conference, Netanya, Isrel. (Cited in Chen, Hsiu-chuan. (1999). A
Comparison Between Cooperative Learning and Traditional, Whole Class Methods-
Teaching English in a Junior High School. Academic Journal of Kang-Ning no.3 p.69-
82)
Cohen, Louis; Manion, Lawrence & Morrison, Keith. 2007. Research Methods in Education
(6
th
Ed). Oxcon: Routledge. Retrieved from http://books.google.co.id/books?id=i-
YKKgtngiMC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=educational+research+purposive+sampli
ng&source=bl&ots=zW1EE4IKhN&sig=iZOTW5ePffAnC5j1LE6dFAh_XSY&hl=id&sa
=X&ei=ktLLT-
LtIorTrQfniom0Dg&ved=0CHEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=educational%20research
%20purposive%20sampling&f=false at 04 June 2012.
Creswell. 2005. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative
and Qualitative Research (2
nd
Ed). USA: Pearson Education.
Cruickshank, Jenkins & Metcalf. 2009. The Act of Teaching (5
th
Ed). New York: Mc Graw
Hill.
Djamarah, Syaiful Bahri. 2002. Psikologi Belajar. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Ellis, Arthur K. 2005. Research on Educational Innovation (4
th
Ed). New York: Eyeon
Education.
Hakim, Thursan. (2004). Belajar Efektif. Jakarta: Puspa Swara. Diperoleh dari
http://www.google.co.id/books?hl=id&lr=&id=-
cMn5UtUwjAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=definisi+belajar&ots=AfCUK9bHe8&sig=5Qe-
G4RWWSR1m0D8UygYMNGxafU&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=definisi%20belajar&f
=false tanggal 25 Mei 2012
Hamalik, Oemar. 2005. Proses Belajar Mengajar (edisi keempat). Jakarta: Bumi Aksara
Isjoni. 2011. Cooperative Learning: Meningkatkan Kecerdasan Komunikasi Antar Peserta
Didik. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Johnson, D.W., R. T. Johnson, and E. J. Holubec. (1993). CIRCLES OF LEARNING:
COOPERATION IN THE CLASSROOM 4th edition. Edina,MN: Interaction Book.
Key, James. 1997. Research Design in Occupational Education. Oklahoma: Oklahoma State
University. Retrieved from
http://www.okstate.edu/ag/agedcm4h/academic/aged5980a/5980/newpage15.ht
m at 04 June 2012
Maharani, Ellen. Mini Research: Analisis atas Pengaruh LAKIP dan Faktor Motivasi
terhadap Peningkatan Kinerja Sekolah Tinggi Akuntansi Negara. Retrieved from
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22966922/22/T-4-Hasil-Uji-Reliabilitas-Cronbach-
Alpha-%E2%80%93-Piloting-Kuesioner at 06 June 2012
Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education 2013 (e-ISBN 978-967-11768-0-1)
11-12 March 2013, Kuala Lumpur. Organized by WorldConferences.net 996
Mansoer, Winarini. 2008. Hawadi, Reni (Eds). Hubungan Kecerdasan Emosional dan
Prestasi Belajar dalam AKSELERASI: A-Z Informasi Program Percepatan Belajar dan
Anak Berbakat Intelektual. Jakarta: Grasindo. Retrieved from
http://books.google.co.id/books?id=bUaKi6MfRpkC&pg=PA168&dq=prestasi+belaj
ar&hl=id&sa=X&ei=pLfLT_zENM3IrQfkzqTGDg&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q
=prestasi%20belajar&f=false at 4 June 2012
Mc Milan, H. 1996. Educational Reseearch: Fundamental for the Consumer (2
nd
Ed). New
York: HarperCollins. Retrieved from
http://www.odu.edu/~jritz/attachments/edrefu.pdf
Milati, Nuril. 2009. Penerapan Cooperative Learning Tipe TGT (Teams Games Tournament)
Untuk Meningkatkan Prestasi Belajar Matematika Murid Kelas V Madrasah
Ibtidaiyah Ar-Rahmah Jabung Malang. Malang: Universitas Islam Negeri Maulana
Malik Ibrahim. Diperoleh dari http://lib.uin-
malang.ac.id/files/thesis/fullchapter/07140073.pdf pada 25 Mei 2012
Nasution. 2005. Teknologi Pendidikan. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
Olivia, Femi. 2011. TOOLS for STUDY SKILLS: Teknik Ujian Efektif. Jakarta: Elex Media
Komputindo. Retrieved from
http://books.google.co.id/books?id=n5G9H731fb8C&pg=PA73&dq=prestasi+belaja
r&hl=id&sa=X&ei=37fLT93iIYryrQfH89jNDg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&
q=prestasi%20belajar&f=false at 04 June 2012
Purwanto. 2011. Evaluasi Hasil Belajar.Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
R. E. Slavin. (1983b). Cooperative Learning. New York: Longman.
Riyanto, Yatim. 2010. Paradigma Baru Pembelajaran: Sebagai Referensi Bagi Guru/
Pendidik dalam Implementasi Pembelajaran yang Efektif dan Berkualitas. Jakarta:
Kencana Prenada.
Rochimah, Umi & Akhdinirwanto, Wakhid. 2011. Penerapan Field Study untuk Peningkatan
Aktivitas dan Prestasi Belajar Fisika pada Murid Kelas XI IPA Madrasah Aliyah An
Nawawi Berjan Purworejo. Yogyakarta: Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta. Retroived
from
http://file.upi.edu/Direktori/FPMIPA/JUR._PEND._FISIKA/AHMAD_SAMSUDIN/Pub
likasi/37PFis_Umi.pdf
Sardiman. 2001. Interaksi dan Motivasi Belajar-Mengajar. Jakarta: RajaGrafindo Persada.
Sharon, S. (1980). Cooperative Learning in Small Groups: Recent Methods and Effects on
Achievement, Attitudes, and Ethnic Relations. Review of Educational Research, vol.
50, hal 241-271.
Slameto. 2003. Belajar dan Faktor-faktor yang Mempengaruhinya. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education 2013 (e-ISBN 978-967-11768-0-1)
11-12 March 2013, Kuala Lumpur. Organized by WorldConferences.net 997
Stein, M. (2001). Mathematical argumentation: Putting umph into classroom discussions.
Mathematical Teaching in the Middle School, 7(2), 110- 114.
Sugiyono. 2012. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan Kualitatif Kuantitatif dan. Bandung:
Alfabeta.
Suhendro. Dampak Pola Fikir Abstrak Terhadap Prestasi Belajar Matematik. Jakarta: LIPI
Likithapradnya. Vol I April 2006
Sukmadinata, Nana. 2010. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.
T. J. Lasley II, and T. J. Matczynki. (1997). Strategies for Teaching in a Diverse Society.
Instructional Model. USA: Wadsworth Pub.
Walpole, RE. 1995. Pengantar Statistika Edisi ke-3. Jakarta: Gramedia Utama.