1

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING TYPE TEAM

GAME TOURNAMENT IN IMPROVING STUDENTS’ VOCABULARY
ACHIEVEMENT

RIZKA INDAHYANTI, S. Pd., M. Pd.

NIDN. 0911128802

ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY OF MAKASSAR

September, 2016
 2

HALAMAN PENGESAHAN

Judul Penelitian : THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COOPERATIVE

Nama Rumpun Ilmu
Peneliti
a. Nama Lengkap
b. NIDN
c. Jabatan Fungsional
d. Program Studi
e. Nomor HP /surel
makassar.ac.id
f. Perguruan Tinggi
LEARNING TYPE TEAM GAME
TOURNAMENT IN IMPROVING STUDENTS’
VOCABULARY ACHIEVEMENT
: Pendidikan Bahasa (dan Sastra) Inggris
: Rizka Indahyanti, S.Pd., M.Pd
: 0911128802
: Asisten Ahli
: Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris
: 082336593243/rizkaindahyanti@uim-
: Universitas Islam Makassar

Kota Makassar, 20-09-2016

Mengetahui,
Dekan Peneliti

(Dr. H. M. Arfah Shiddiq, M.A.) (Rizka Indahyanti, S.Pd., M.Pd)

NIP/NIK 195102051978011001 NIDN. 0911128802

Menyetujui,
Ketua LPPM

(Dr. Ir. Musdalipa Mahmud, M.Si.)

NIP. 19630626 199203 2 001
 3

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter deals with background, problem statement, objective of the

research, significance of the research, and the scope of the research. Each of those
points will be discussed in turn in the following section.

A. Background

In learning a foreign language, vocabulary plays an important role. It is

one element that links the four skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing all
together. In order to communicate well in a foreign language, students should
acquire an adequate number of words and should know how to use them
accurately. The acquisition and the learning of vocabulary is fundamental need. It
is the heart of language learning and language use because through vocabulary,
speakers can communicate ideas, emotion, feelings, and thought both in oral and
written form. Without vocabulary, speakers cannot convey meaning and
communicate each other in a particular language.

Based on the researcher’s teaching training on November 2009 – January

2010, she found that the students’ vocabulary achievement was very low. During
teaching and learning process, the students often asked the teacher about the
meaning of the words. They also brought an electronic translator tool to find the
word’s meaning because of their lack of vocabulary. When the teacher asked them
to make a paragraph, for example to describe their favorite artist, they spent lot of
time to finish it. It indicates that the students really had restricted vocabulary.
Therefore, they were doubtful to express their ideas in developing their paragraph.

The lack of vocabulary is caused by many factors. Most of them are; the
laziness of the students in memorizing new words, the lack of students’ motivation
and the poor professional competence of the English teacher in designing
 4

techniques and strategies in teaching-learning process. Language learners have

nothing to do in a vocabulary learning section but they just listen to their teacher
and finish the task monotonously. The students sometimes feel that their teacher's
explanation in the classroom is boring. They consider the teacher is the center of
attention and is the only actor who has the main role in their learning
environment. It cannot be denied that the students will get new vocabulary during
teaching and learning process and it is saved in their memory, but in a few days, it
will be forgotten. Therefore, it is necessary for the teacher of English to have a
good method in presenting the materials in the classroom. The teacher should
make learning vocabulary more effective and efficient. It is not enough for the
teacher of English to give the students words to memorize. He/she has to use other
alternative way to improve students’ vocabulary. To solve this problem, of course,
the creativity of teacher in choosing method is needed.

Cooperative learning is an exact method to be implemented because it is

an instructional methodology that promotes an equal opportunity for students to
share with each other and apply concepts through fun activities. The latter that is
emphasized here is Team Game Tournament (TGT), one of types of cooperative
learning method. It is a classroom management technique in which students are
placed in mixed ability teams to compete in a game based on style of learning.
The purpose of TGT is to create an effective classroom environment in which
students are actively involved in the teaching process and are consistently
receiving encouragement for successful performance. The TGT structure
encourages competition and cooperation in a way that promotes peer group
rewards for academic achievement. Team Game Tournament is one of the team
learning strategies designed by Robert Slavin to review and mastery learning of
material. Students’ participation in Team Game Tournament helps them review
what they have just learned at the end of the unit. This activity will be fun for
students in helping them prepare for a future test. Furthermore, students are able
to demonstrate good sportsmanship within TGT.
 5

By looking at the background above, the researcher conducted a research

under the title The Implementation of Cooperative Learning “Type Team Game
Tournament” in Improving Students’ Vocabulary Achievement. This method can
be used in teaching vocabulary because the students are usually faced with
problems in memorizing words. They need teaching and learning process that is
really interesting, of course, by creating a good atmosphere in the class. Using
Team Game Tournament in the classroom helps teachers increase the students’
motivation and interest in English, which would hopefully result in improving
long lasting English vocabulary.

B. Problem Statement
This research focused on the implementation of cooperative learning type
team game tournament. Therefore, the researcher formulated problem
statement, as follows: Does the implementation of cooperative learning
“type team game tournament” improve students’ vocabulary achievement?

C. Objective of the Research

With reference to the problem statement above, the objective of this research
was to find out:
Whether or not the implementation of cooperative learning “type team game
tournament” improves students’ vocabulary achievement

D. Significance of the Research

The findings of this research are expected to be a useful reference for
English teachers who want to apply cooperative learning type team game
tournament (TGT) as an alternative in solving problems faced in order to
improve students’ English vocabulary achievement because this method can
reduce monotonous system and make students enjoy the learning. For
teachers, this method encourages them to be more creative, proactive, and
innovative in varying their teaching activities. For students, this method
creates a comfortable non-stressful environment for learning and practicing
English, helps them to learn more in a fun activity, and develops many other
 6

skills such as learning how to work with one another and how to socialize
and appreciate others opinion.

E. The Scope of The Research

This study deals with language teaching and learning. Therefore, by
discipline, this research was under applied Linguistics. It was specified on
the implementation of cooperative learning type team game tournament
(TGT) in improving students’ vocabulary achievement. The kinds of
vocabulary that were presented in this research were noun, verb, and
adjective which were related to the students’ lesson theme. By this activity,
the students worked together in team study to show their individual
achievement in tournament.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter deals with previous related research findings, some pertinent
ideas, theoretical framework, resume, and hypothesis.
 7

A. Previous Related Research Findings

There have been some researches done related to this research. Some of
them are quoted below:
1. De Vries, David L., et al (1975) on their research “Teams-Games-
Tournament (TGT) Effects on Reading Skills in the Elementary Grades”.
This study tested the effectiveness of Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT)
for teaching basic reading skills. Fifty-three third-grade students were
randomly assigned to either a TGT or a control condition. The results
indicated a positive TGT effect on growth for vocabulary and verbal
analogy skills.

2. Herlina (2003) on her research “The Attitude of the Second Year

Students of SLTP Muhammadiyah Parepare toward Teaching English
Vocabulary through Language Games” reports that games can be used on
teaching vocabulary for variety and relaxation, and students are more
active in the teaching and learning process.

3. Marhaen (2006) led thesis research on “Increasing the students’

vocabulary achievement under cooperative learning type STAD in the
first year of SMAN 4 Kendari”. The purpose of this research was to offer
a descriptive account of the first year students’ vocabulary achievement
of SMAN 4 Kendari and their attitude toward teaching vocabulary under
cooperative learning type STAD and the conclusion of this research
showed the students’ positive attitude toward English teaching
vocabulary under cooperative learning type STAD.
4. Nursyamsi (2009) on her research “Enriching the students’ vocabulary
achievement of the second year students of MAN Pangkep through
jigsaw of cooperative learning method” found that there was significant
difference between the result of pretest and posttest of the students who
are taught vocabulary by using the jigsaw technique and she concluded
that the use of jigsaw technique can enrich the students’ vocabulary
achievement.
 8

5. Symons, Gill, and Friederich (2008) on their research reported that the
use of team game tournament (a cooperative learning strategy) increased
motivation and academic achievement of Science and English students,
particularly among boys. The survey data clearly indicated that students
enjoy TGT’s collaborative, competitive, and reward. This high level
agreement among students likely promoted heightened students
engagement in classes.
Based on the explanation above, the researcher concludes that
some researchers used games and Team Game Tournament in other field of
study. Also used cooperative learning in different type. This research was
also used cooperative learning but specifically in type team game
tournament to improve students’ English vocabulary achievement.

B. Some Pertinent Ideas

1. The Concept of Vocabulary
a. Definition of Vocabulary
According to Cambridge International Dictionary of English
(1995), vocabulary is all the words used by particular person or all the
words which exist in particular language or subject. While the New
Shorter Oxford English dictionary defines that vocabulary is (1)
alphabetical list of words with definitions or translations, as in grammar
or reader of foreign language; (2) the range of language of particular
author, group, discipline, book, etc; the sum of words known or
habitually used by an individual; (3) the sum or aggregate of words
composing a language; (4) a set of artistic or stylistic forms, techniques,
movements, etc.; the range of such forms available to a particular
person.
Quirck (1987: 117) defines “vocabulary as a list of words with
their meaning glossary, sum up words used in language or in particular
book or branch of science, etc. by particular person, class, and
profession”.

b. Types of Vocabulary
 9

Vocabulary has been classified by some writers in different ways. In the

following some classifications are given.
Harmer (1991:159) distinguishes two types of vocabulary, namely
active and passive vocabulary:
1. Active vocabulary refers to vocabulary that the students have been
taught or learnt and which they are expected to be able to use.
2. Passive vocabulary refers to the words which the students will
recognize when they meet them but which they will probably not
able to produce.
Schail (1967:57) also states that every person has three types of
vocabulary:
1. Active vocabulary is the words that we use in speaking and writing
probably runs 5000 up to 10000 words.
2. Reserve vocabulary is the words that we know but rarely used in
ordinary speech. We use them in writing letter when we have time to
consider, or search for synonym.
3. Productive vocabulary is the words that we recognize vaguely but
they are not sure of the meaning, however using them in either
speaking or writing and we just know that we have seen before.
For more specific meaning, Good (1959) in Nursyamsi divided
vocabulary into four kinds, they are:
1. Oral vocabulary refers to words that a person employs them in
expressing ideas orally and actively.
2. Writing vocabulary refers to words that commonly used in writing.
3. Listening vocabulary refers to words that a person can understand
when they are heard.
4. Reading vocabulary refers to words that someone can recognize
them when he finds them in written form.

2. The Concept of Cooperative Learning

a. Definition of Cooperative Learning

According to Samra (2001), cooperative learning is a successful

teaching strategy in which small teams, each with students of different
levels of ability, use a variety of learning activities to improve their
understanding of a subject. Each member of a team is responsible not
 10

only for learning what is taught but also for helping teammates learn,
thus creating an atmosphere of achievement.

According to Kagan (1994) in Dotson, Cooperative Learning is a

teaching arrangement that refers to small, heterogeneous groups of
students working together to achieve a common goal. Students work
together to learn and are responsible for their teammates' learning as
well as their own. Students encourage and support each other, assume
responsibility for their own and each other's learning, employ group
related social skills, and evaluate the group's progress.

Cooperative learning is a set of instructional strategies “which

employs small teams of pupil to promote peer interaction and
cooperation for studying academic subject” (Sharan 1980, p.242) in
Nursyamsi.

In addition, Kessler, (1992:6) quoted in Wichadee proposed that

cooperative learning is a within-class grouping of students usually of
differing levels of second language proficiency, who learn to work
together on specific tasks or projects in such a way that all students in
the group benefit from the interactive experience.

Based on the concept above, the researcher states that cooperative

learning is an instructional methodology that provides opportunities for
students to develop skills in group interactions and in working with
others. In this case, the students learn together and help each other to
correct exercise and tasks, to find solution, to pace the students’
learning, and to work cooperatively. In cooperative learning, the teacher
systematically organizes groups of five to six students to work and learn
together. The students are assigned roles in their group for completing
the task. Students depend on each other to learn academic material
while developing stronger social skills. Since the students work in a
 11

team to accomplish the academic goal, it produces a cooperative

environment that can have a positive outcome for students. Besides
that, cooperative reward structures are used as incentive to encourage
the students to learn the material.

b. Basic Principle of Cooperative Learning

According to Johnson in Chriest & Maher, there are five basic
principles fundamental to cooperative learning.
1) Face-to-Face Interaction
By using face-to-face interaction, learning becomes active rather
than passive. Teams encourage discussion of ideas and oral
summarization. Peer assistance clarifies concepts for both helper and
the student being helped. Cooperative teams help students learn to
value individual differences and promote more elaborate thinking.
2) Positive Interdependence
Students must feel that they need each other in order to complete the
group's task, that is, they "sink or swim together." Positive
interdependence can be built into a reward structure by assigning
team points based on team averages, on members reaching a
predetermined criterion, or on team improvement rather than outright
grades.
3) Individual Accountability
Students must feel that they are each accountable for helping to
complete a task and for mastering material. They must know that a
"chauffeur/hitchhiker" situation will not be productive. Ways to build
in individual accountability include: students take individual quizzes;
each student is responsible for a specific portion of a task; each must
be able to summarize another's ideas; any student may be called on
at random to answer for the team. This individual accountability
motivates students to do a good job of peer tutoring and explaining
concepts, as the only way for a team to succeed is if all the team
members have mastered the information or skills being taught.
4) Interpersonal and Collaborative Skills
These include skills for working together effectively (staying on
task, summarizing, recording ideas) as well as group maintenance
 12

skills (encouraging each other). Ways to foster skill development

include teacher modeling, brainstorming characteristics of "good"
skills, direct practice, process observing, and reflection. Skill
practice can be "tacked on" to academic lessons through games (e.g.,
Talking Chips) or by making social skills a separate objective to be
practiced and observed.
5) Group Processing of Interaction
Processing means, giving students the time and procedures to
analyze how well their groups are functioning and how well they are
using the necessary collaborative skills. Processing can be
individual, team-wide, or at the whole collaborative class level.
c. The Role of Teacher in Cooperative Learning
McDowell in Kessler (1992:163-175) describes the roles of the teacher
in cooperative learning as follows:
1. Teacher as an inquirer
Effective learning is to know what the students learn and how they
learn. Therefore, the teacher, before giving or presenting materials to
the students, he personally asks and examines the students of their
belief, values, and assumptions, and of the teaching method or the
material lesson.
2. Teacher as a creator
Johnson et.al (1984) in Kessler (1992:165) pointed that the teacher is
creating the social climate, setting goal, planning, and structuring the
task, establishing the physical arrangement of the classroom,
assigning students to groups and roles, and selecting materials and
time. Moreover, he designs the learning environment based on what
he knows about the students’ prefer and what would be appropriate
in term of approach and resource.
3. Teacher as an observer
Observing and monitoring his students are the most basis of making
decision about each learner’s progress. He may reflect and intervene
but in supportive way toward the students’ learning. This observation
could be global observation which the teacher uses checklist in order
 13

to identify essential skills for cooperative interaction. But the

observation is being objective and non-judgmental.
4. Teacher as a facilitator
The teacher is based on what the problems or learning environment
evolve in the classroom. It could be he interacts, teaches, refocuses,
questions, clarrifies, and supports, expands, celebrates, and
emphatizes. Mostly, he nudges the students toward the goal of
successful problem solving.
5. Teacher as change agent
In this role, the natural agent for change is classroom inquiry.
Therefore, the teacher becomes researcher to be an advocate to
collaborative and generate with the students to answer the questions
or solve the problems by possible active professionalism. Moreover,
the teacher can also become an adviser, guide, helper, supporter, and
partner in a cooperative venture (Rivers: 1983) based on the
students’ communicative needs.

3. The Concept of Team Game Tournament

a. Definition of Team Game Tournament (TGT)

According to Johnson & Johnson in Rouviere, Team Game

Tournament is cooperative learning activity which consists of teaching,
team study, and tournament games. This is used at the conclusion of
each chapter. The usual heterogeneous groups are split up temporarily.
Students are put into homogeneous ability groups of four or five
students for a competition, using the list of questions at the end of the
chapter. Students randomly select a numbered card corresponding to the
question they are going to answer. Their answers can be challenged by
the other students and the winner keeps the card. Students earn points
(one point for each card won) to bring back to their regular teams, a
team average is taken, and the teams' averages are announced and all
congratulated.
 14

According to Margaree and Emma, students work together in four-

or five-member heterogeneous teams in Team Game Tournament to
help one another master material and prepare for competitions against
members of other teams. For the competitions, each student is assigned
to a five-person table with students from other teams who are similar in
skill level. In this way, all students have an equal chance to earn points
to contribute to their team score.

Team Game Tournament is a classroom management technique in

which students are placed in mixed ability teams to compete in a game
based on style of learning. The purpose of TGT is to create an effective
classroom environment in which students are actively involved in the
teaching process and are consistently receiving encouragement for
successful performance. The TGT structure encourages competition and
cooperation in a way that promotes peer group rewards for academic
achievement. Students are assigned to teams on the basis of maximum
heterogeneity, i.e. a mix of ability levels, gender, race, etc. Teaching of
material takes place using any method chosen by teacher relevant to the
topic. Students then study the material in groups and prepare for the
academic games. The game is then played in a weekly tournament
where students compete against members of other teams that are of
comparable ability to them. After the tournament team scores are
collated, points are awarded to winning teams.

b. Teaching Activities in Team Game Tournament

Team Game Tournament (TGT) simply consists of a normal cycle of
teaching process with the following activities:
1. Classroom Presentation. The material to be learned is initially
presented to the whole class by the teacher. Therefore, she needs to
prepare a topic or a lesson material. Since the teachers present the
material, the students have to focus on the presented material.
2. Team Study. The teacher asks the students to form a team which is
comprised of four or five members. The students then, work in group
 15

of a given topic. In this case, the teachers inform each member

which assignment to be completed. After that, they are working in
group discussion. While the task is finished, the teachers ask each
team once again to review and make clear about the question arise
previously. This is to make each member is sure that group work
done better.
3. Tournament. Students are evaluated via games through shuffle card.
The tournament based on the material given and that have discussed
more in team. The game assesses individual achievement on the
material presented in the class and practiced in team. The question is
in forms of reader to read and challenger who answer the question.
4. Team recognition. Lastly, as the learning goes impressed, the teacher
uses news letter, bulletin boards, or other forms of social recognition
and rewards to teams for high weekly performance and/or high
cumulative standings. Recognition is provided for an individual who
performs exceptionally well or who are most improved.

c. Advantages of Team Game Tournament

It is important to note that Team Game Tournament implies a group
work to give students opportunities to learn with each others in the
classroom. Group work is a teaching and learning technique where the
learners work in small groups to do activities in the classroom. There are
many educational advantages of group work for teachers and learners
found in Al-Maqbali; according to Harmer (2001) group work increases
the amount of talking individual students can do. Lightbown & Spada
(1999) also report research which suggests that in group work learners
ask and answer more questions and have more opportunities to
communicate with less inhibition. Another advantage of group work, as
pointed out by Littlewood (1981) is that group work creates social
interaction and this provides opportunities for learners to develop good
relationships with one another.
By using Team Game Tournament in the classroom, teacher can
give competition to the students in a constructive or positive situation.
 16

Also, the classroom atmosphere is more enjoyable and the students can
feel relax. The students have to realize that they will face competition
wherever and whenever they are, but TGT gives them a regulation and
strategy to compete as individual after asking a favor from their own
teammates. Of course the students have a responsibility to do the best in
the tournament table because their teammates have done the best for
them in their team study. In Team Game Tournament situation, students’
goal achievements are positively correlated; students perceive that they
can reach learning goals if and only if the other students in the learning
group also reach their goals. Thus, students seek outcomes that are
beneficial to all those with whom they are cooperatively linked. Students,
who work together discuss the material with the other group members,
explain how to complete the work, listen to each other's explanations,
encourage each other to try to understand the solutions, and provide
academic help and assistance.

C. Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework underlying of this research was given in the
following diagram:

Input
 17

Cooperative Learning “Type Team Game Tournament”

Process
Classroom Presentation
Team Study
Tournament
Team Recognition

Students’ Vocabulary Output Achievement

D. Resume
Based on the previous research findings and some pertinent ideas, the
researcher resumes that the implementation of cooperative learning “type
team game tournament” gives an opportunity to improve students’ vocabulary
achievement because this method can reduce monotonous system and make
students enjoy the learning process.

E. Hypothesis
Based on the background, review of related literature and some findings
above, the researcher formulated hypothesis as follows:
H0: The implementation of cooperative learning “type team game
tournament” does not improve students’ vocabulary achievement
H1: The implementation of cooperative learning “type team game
tournament” improves students’ vocabulary achievement
 18

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHOD

This chapter deals with research method and design, variables of the
research, population and sample, instrument of the research, procedure of
collecting data, and technique of data analysis.

A. Research Method and Design

The method used in this research was quasi-experimental method in which
two groups were involved. They were experimental group and control group.
 19

Pre-test was administered before treatment while post-test was administered

after treatment to measure its effect. The design of this research is described
as follows:
E: O1 X1 O2
C: O1 X2 O2
Note:
E : Experimental Group
C : Control Group
O1 : Pre-test
O2 : Post-test
X1 : Treatment by using team game tournament
X2 : Treatment without team game tournament (Verbal Explanation)

B. Variables of the Research

Variables of this research consisted of dependent and independent variable.
Dependent variable : Students’ vocabulary achievement
Independent variable : Team game tournament

C. Population and Sample

1. Population
The population of this research was the second year students of SMP
Negeri 33 Makassar. There were nine classes and each class was about 37
students. So the total number of population was about 333 students.
2. Sample
The researcher used cluster random sampling technique in this research
and two classes were taken as the sample, one class as the experimental
group and another as control group.

D. Instrument of the Research

This research used two instruments. Those instruments were explained as
follows:
1. Test
Test, as the main data, was used in pretest and posttest. The pretest was
intended to investigate the students’ prior knowledge on English
vocabulary before giving treatment while the posttest was given to
measure the students’ achievement on English vocabulary after the
treatment has been given.
 20

2. Observation Checklist
Observation checklist was used to support the main data that explained
the effect of team game tournament in improving students’ vocabulary
achievement. The observation included the students’ progress toward
the implementation of cooperative learning “type team game
tournament” from the first until the third treatment.

E. Procedure of Collecting Data

The procedure of collecting data was chronologically performed as follows:
1. Pre-test
The pre-test was administered to the students before the treatment.
2. Treatment
a. Experimental group
The procedures of teaching and learning process (treatment) were
presented as follows:
1) Classroom Presentation
a) Making lesson plan and students’ work sheet based on the
material taught for each meeting.
b) Making the format of observation sheet in order to look the
condition of the students in the classroom during the teaching
and learning process of this research.
c) Making question list based on the material that is taught with
the number of question as many as the shuffle card.
d) Making the numbered question card
e) Preparing the activity procedure and game’s regulation
f) Preparing the group formation based on the capacity level of
the students and the steps for forming team study can be from
the result of the students’ pre-test which is arranged based on
the highest score to the lowest score. These students are
categorized in five score levels: 7 students are in the first
highest level, second highest level, third highest level, fourth
highest level, and fifth highest level. From those five levels,
we take one student for each level to unite in one team. The
student who is in the first level of the first highest level is
joined with the student in the first level of the second highest
 21

level, first level of the third highest level, first level of the
fourth highest level and first level of the fifth highest level.
Their team namely team A. The student who is in the second
level of the first highest level is joined with the student who
is in the second level of the second highest level, the third
highest level, the fourth highest level, and the fifth highest
level. Their team namely team B. From now or until formed 7
groups which consist of five students who have different
capacity, and their team continually given name C, D, E, F,
and G.

2) Team Phase Study

a) Doing the teaching activity and explaining the material
classically.
b) Dividing students in some small heterogeneous teams, it
means that they have different academic capability and are in
the same group.
c) Giving the task to each group to answer the question in
students’ work sheet which has been divided. The tasks are
done in team; it means that the smart student can help his/her
members who are in the low one.

3) Tournament Phase
a) Forming the new teams which consist of the students who
have the same capability. This is taken from each group in
study phase (the member of team on team study is in different
team).
b) Dividing game’s procedure sheet, one evaluation sheet and
one pack game card to each group.
c) Doing the tournament with the game procedures are in the
following:
(1) Each student takes one card from the stock of
tournament card.
(2) Students with the highest number of the card who starts
the game.
 22

(3) The student who plays first is called first reader, shake
the card and then take one card. Read the question
based on the number which is in the card taken. The
game continues clockwise.
(4) After the questions have read, the student who is on the
left of the first reader who calls first challenger gives
the answer or he can say pass if he does not know the
answer. The student who is in the left of the first
challenger or the second challenger can give the answer
if the first challenger says pass or the answer is
different. It is the same with the student who is in the
left of the second challenger, called third challenger.
(5) If the first challenger can answer correctly, save the
question card and if it is wrong, it can be challenged by
the other challenger, if it cannot answer so, question
card is put in pack and save under all cards.
(6) The other game continues clockwise. First challenger
can be the second reader. The second challenger is the
first challenger. The third challenger is the second
challenger. The game continuous until the shuffle card
completed or time is up.
(7) After finishing the games, all students count the
number of question card which are answered correctly.
(8) All students move the question on card into the
evaluation sheet reported.
d) Changing the members of the team as in the first step every
period of tournament.
e) Counting the score of heterogeneous team by checking the
point of students’ tournament.
f) Giving rewards for the team which get the highest score.

b. Control group
1) The researcher gave a text to the students and explained the
lesson material related to the theme.
2) The students read and listed the new words from the text given
 23

3) The researcher wrote down a number of words on the whiteboard

4) The researcher translated the words into Indonesia and asked the
students to memorize those words in a few minutes.
5) Then, the researcher used those words in sentence.

3. Post-test
After giving treatment to the students, the researcher administered the
post-test. It was administered to see the value of the treatment using
Team Game Tournament (TGT). The test given was the same as the test
before. The designing of the test was based on the material written in
students’ book for Junior High School students.

F. Technique of Data Analysis

The data obtained from the test was analyzed by using the procedures as
follows:
1. Scoring the students’ correct answer at pretest and posttest by using this
formula:

Score =

2. Classifying the students’ score into seven classifications:

Score: 9.6 – 10 = Excellent

Score: 8.6 – 9.5 = Very good
Score: 7.6 – 8.5 = Good
Score: 6.6 – 7.5 = Fairly good
Score: 5.6 – 6.5 = Fair
Score: 3.6 – 5.5 = Poor
Score: 0 – 3.5 = Very poor
(Depdikbud in Sjahrun, 2005:26)
3. Computing the frequency and rate percentage of students’ score:
F
P X 100%
N
 24

Where: P= Percentage
N= Total number of student
F = Frequency
(Mason & Bramble, 1978: 73)

4. Calculating the mean score of students’ answer in both pretest and

posttest by this formula:

Note : = Mean

= The Sum of all Score

N = Number of Subject
(Gay 1981: 298)

5. Finding standard deviation of the students pretest and posttest by

applying formula below:

Note : SD = Standard Deviation

= Sum of all Score

= Sum Square of all Score

N = Number of Students
(Gay 1981: 298)
6. To find out whether the differences between pre-test and post-test value
of the test using the following formula:

Note: t = Test of significance

1 = Mean score of experimental group

2 = Mean score of control group

 25

SS1 = Sum square of experimental group

SS2 = Sum square of control group
n1 = Number of students of experimental group
n2 = Number of students of control group

Where:

(Gay 1981: 327)

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

 26

This chapter deals with two sections. The first section deals with
research findings. The findings of this research cover the description of the result
of data analysis through test and observation checklist. The second section deals
with discussion.

A. Findings
The findings of this research were derived from two instruments, test
and observation checklist. Based on the statistical data, the implementation of
cooperative learning “type team game tournament” improved students’
vocabulary achievement as indicated by the result of mean score of pretest and
posttest that can be seen as follows:

Table 1 Mean score and standard deviation at pretest and posttest

Mean Score Standard Deviation
No Group
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
1 Experimental 5.27 8.02 1.18 1.45
2 Control 4.84 5.80 1.02 1.16

Table 1 shows that, for experimental group, the mean score at pretest
was 5.27 with standard deviation was 1.18 while the mean score at posttest
improved to be 8.02 with standard deviation was 1.45. It indicates that the
students’ vocabulary achievement improved significantly after giving treatment
by using team game tournament. In other side, the mean score of control group
at pretest was 4.84 with standard deviation was 1.02. Control group also made
a progress but it was not as significantly as experimental group. The mean
score of control group at posttest was 5.80 with standard deviation was 1.16.
The mean scores for both experimental and control group were obtained from
the students’ classification score as follows:

Table 2 Students’ classification score at pretest and posttest

Experimental Group Control Group
Classification Score Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
F P (%) F P (%) F P (%) F P (%)
Excellent 9.6 – 10 - - 4 11.42 - - - -
Very Good 8.6 – 9.5 - - 10 28.58 - - - -
Good 7.6 – 8.5 - - 7 20 - - 2 5.72
 27

Fairly Good 6.6 – 7.5 4 11.42 8 22.86 1 2.86 7 20

Fair 5.6 – 6.6 15 42.86 4 11.42 8 22.86 11 31.42
Poor 3.6 – 5.5 12 34.29 2 5.72 21 60 15 42.86
Very Poor 0 – 3.5 4 11.42 - - 5 14.28 - -
Total 35 100% 35 100% 35 100% 35 100%

Table 2 shows the students’ classification score for both experimental

and control group at pretest and posttest. In experimental group, students’
vocabulary achievement at pretest was very low. The data shows that there
were not students who got excellent, very good and good score. It shows that
there were 4 (11.42%) out of 35 students got fairly good score, 15 students
(42.86%) got fair score, 12 students (34.29%) got poor score, and 4 students
(11.42%) got very poor score. In posttest, there was an improvement of
students’ score. There were 4 out of 35 students (11.42%) got excellent score,
10 students (28.58%) got very good score, 7 students (20%) got good score, 8
students (22.86%) got fairly good score, 4 students (11.42%) got fair score, 2
students (5.72%) got poor score, and no one got very poor score.
For control group, there were not students who got excellent, very good and
good score at pretest. The data shows that there was only 1 (2.86%) out of 35
students got fairly good score, 8 students (22.86%) got fair score, 21 students
(60%) got poor score and 5 students (14.28%) got very poor score. While in
posttest, the improvement was not really significant. the data shows that there
were not still students who got excellent and very good score. It shows that
there were 2 out of 35 students (5.72%) got good score, 7 students (20%) got
fairly good score, 11 students (31.44%) got fair score, 15 students (42.86%) got
poor score, and no one got very poor score.
From the data above, researcher concludes that the students’ rate
percentage in posttest was greater than the rate percentage in pretest.
Experimental group score was also greater than control group score. It means
there was an improvement of students’ vocabulary achievement after giving
treatment.
After finding the mean score and standard deviation, also students’
classification score, the researcher calculated whether or not both groups are in
statistically significant difference at level of significance (p) = .05 with degree
 28

of freedom (df) = 68. The result of those calculation are presented in the
following table:
Table 3 T-test and t-table value at pretest and posttest
No Variable T-test T-table
1 Pretest 1.65 2.000
2 Posttest 7.07 2.000

Table 3 shows that t-test value at pretest was 1.65 and t-table value was
2.000. In this case, t-test value was smaller than t-table value (1.65 < 2.000). It
indicates that there was no significant difference between those mean scores.
Therefore, null hypothesis (H0) was accepted and alternative hypothesis (H1)
was rejected.
It is different from the result found in posttest. The t-test value was 7.07
and t-table value was 2.000. In this case, t-test value was greater than t-table
value (7.07 > 2.000). It indicates that the difference between those mean scores
were statistically significant. Therefeore, null hypothesis (H0) was rejected and
alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted at posttest. Based on this hypothesis
testing, it can be concluded that there was a significant difference between the
students who were taught by using team game tournament and without team
game tournament (verbal explanation).
Another evidence that proves that the implementation of cooperative
learning “type team game tournament” improved students’ vocabulary
achievement can be showed by the result of observation checklist as a
supporting data in this research. This observation checklist showed that there
were students’ progress from the first until the third treatment. In this
supporting data, there were some aspects observed, namely: students’ attention
to the lesson presented, the frequency of students in asking question, the
interaction of student-student, student-teacher, and teacher-student, the team
acceptance to the students who are in low academic status, students’
participation in team study, students’ enthustiastically in tournament, and also
the effect of team recognition to the students’ motivation in learning English
vocabulary. The result of those observation checklist can be showed as follows:
 29

In the first treatment, 5 (83.33%) out of 6 observers chose that the

students’ attention to the lesson presented was classified as less and only 1
observer (16.67%) chose average. For the frequency of students in asking
questions, 6 observers (100%) chose less. In term of interaction, there are 3
aspects observed. Student-student (4 observers chose less and 2 observers
chose average), student-teacher (6 observers chose less) while teacher-student
(6 obervers chose good). In the contrary, 6 observers (100%) chose less in the
team acceptance for the students who are in the low academic status. There
were 5 observers (83.33%) chose less and 1 observer (16.67%) chose average
for students’ participation in team. Meanwhile, 5 obervers (83.33%) chose
good and 1 observer (16.67%) chose average for the students’ enthustiastically
in tournament. Generally, all observers found that team recognition effected
the students’ motivation in learning English.
In the second treatment, 4 (66.67%) out of 6 observers chose that the
students’ attention to the lesson presented was classified as average and 2
observers (33.33%) chose good. For the frequency of students in asking
questions, 6 observers (100%) chose average. In term of interaction, student-
student (6 observers chose good), student-teacher (5 observers chose average
and 1 observer chose less), teacher-student (6 obervers chose good). It found
that 2 observers (33.33%) chose good and 4 observers (66.67%) chose average
in the team acceptance for the students who are in the low academic status. In
the contrary, there were 4 observers (66.67%) chose good and 2 observers
(33.33%) chose average for students’ participation in team. Meanwhile, 5
obervers (83.33%) still chose good and 1 observer (16.67%) chose average for
the students’ enthustiastically in tournament. Generally, all observers also still
found that team recognition effected the students’ motivation in learning
English.
In the third treatment, 5 (83.33%) out of 6 observers chose that the
students’ attention to the lesson presented was classified as good and only 1
observer (16.67%) chose average. For the frequency of students in asking
questions, 6 observers (100%) chose good. In term of interaction, 6 observers
also chose good for the three aspects observed, namely student-student,
 30

student-teacher, and teacher-student. It also found that 6 observers (100%)

chose good in the team acceptance for the students who are in the low
academic status, students’ participation in team, and the students’
enthustiastically in tournament. For the effect of team recognition to the
students’ motivation in learning English, 6 (100%) observers still chose good.

B. Discussion
In the previous chapter, the mean score of pretest of two groups were
almost statisticaly the same. It means both experimental and control group
have an equal vocabulary achievement before giving treatment. The two
groups were taught vocabulary under different technique. Experimental
group was taught by using team game tournament while control group was
taught without team game tournament (verbal explanation). After giving
treatment, the students’ vocabulary achievement at experimental group
improved significantly from 5.27 up to 8.02. This improvement was affected
by many factors, such as; the role of peer tutors who help the studets in
mastering the materials. Both peer tutor and other students have the same
level of language, therefore, it was easy for them to catch and to understand
the materal. Besides that, the students enjoy collaborative, competitive, and
reward in team game tournament. In contrary, the students’ vocabulary
achievement at control group did not improved significantly, from 4.84 up
to 5.80. It was happened because the students did not actively involved in
teaching and learning process. They just listen to their teacher’s explanation
and finish the task monotonously. Therefore, their vocabulary achievement
did not improve signnificantly. The students also did not apply concepts
through fun activities like what experimental group did.
For experimental group, the treatment was conducted for three times.
When the teacher divided students into groups, there were some students
refused and protest to unite with students who were in a low academic
status. They also did not want to join with male students and who were not
their close friends. Therefore, they could not cooperate each other.
In the first treatment, especially when finishing the worksheet, they
just relied on their friend who was capable with because they did not
 31

concern about the lesson material that was presented by their teacher before.
There were so many activites they did, namely; joking, talking out of
materials, finishing their homework, even moving back and forth from one
group to another group. If the teacher asked a question, there was a little bit
response from the students. Most of them just talked without cooperating
each other especially for the groups that were dominated by male students.
Therefore, there were only few students who could gain some points in
tournament. This is because the students had not understood the main
function and their postion in team study. The students actually felt
enthusiastically in tournament but the process run less effectively because
they did not understand the game’s regulation. When the student, who was
in turn, did not know the answer; the other students directly answered the
question without knowing whether it was their turn or not, of course, the
overlap could not be avoided. That is why, the researcher was assisted by
some instructors who could handle the game in each tournament table.
During the treatment, students sometimes asked the teacher about meaning
of the word by saying “What is the Indonesian for ...?”. The researcher
concludes that English vocabulary in students’ mind is only about
Indonesian meaning of that word or transfering meaning from source to
target language. This problem is actually influenced by the former teacher’s
way of teaching that used to be applied in the classroom. Therefore, the
researcher tried to explain to the students about meaning of the word by
describing or by giving paraphrase. The relationship among students in team
study still had not showed the positive interaction, but they could interact
with other students from other groups. Also students were reluctant to
communicate well to their teacher.
Second treatment was different from the first one. Students’ attention
to the lesson presented increased. Teaching and learning process run
effectively. Also the students’ relationship was closer each other without
concerning whether they were in a low or high academic status. They could
already cooperate with other members in finishing their worksheet although
 32

they were not close friends. They tried to motivate their members to gain
some points in tournament. The interaction of student-teacher had showed
the intense relationship. The constraint appeared also decreased. It was only
about the students’ comprehension to the material presented. There were
some students could not determine when they should put word that has same
part of speech but different meaning, for example; presenter and
presentation, actor and action, or careful and careless. This problem could
be solved easily because team study, especially for peer tutor in one team,
gave chance for students to learn more. Also tournament was a step where
students could apply concept through activities.
Teaching and learning process in the third treatment was more
effective because the students’ attention just focused on their teacher’s
explanation. They sometimes gave opinion and ideas related to the material
presented. The relationship among students was also more intense. They
could cooperate very well because most of the students had already known
their position and their function in team. They did not stop learning till their
members really understood the lesson. As Johnson said in Chriest and
Maher, students feel that they need each other to complete the group task,
that is, they sink or swim together. Therefore, students’ enthusiasm in
finishing their worksheet increased. They could not reach the learning goals
if and only if the other members also reach the goals. The constraint
appeared in the third treatment was only about the students’ noises, but it
was not be a serius problem because they were noisy when they cooperated
each other and gave a correct answer in competiton. In this case, the noises
appeared when they were thinking and doing something positively. By
giving tournament for three times and team recognition in the last session
brought the students to struggle with other team members to find out the
answer of the question cards. Especially for team recognition, the students
were more enthusiastic to participate actively in every step of team game
tournament.
For control group, the treatment was also conducted for three times,
but without the implemetation of Team Game Tournament. This group was
 33

taught by using verbal explanation. During the treatment, the researcher

concluded that the students in control group felt bored in learning
vocabulary because they did not involve actively in teaching and learning
process. They just listened to their teacher as if the teacher was only the
center of attention in the classroom. There were not peer tutor roles and the
application of concept through fun activities.
It is believed that the differences of students’ vocabulary achievement
after treatment are influenced by treatment given to them. It was proved the
result of statistical data analysis found. It was also supported by the result of
observation checklist that indicated the students’ progress for each
treatment. Therefore, it can be concluded that there was a significant
difference of vocabulary achievement between students who were taught by
using team game tournament and without team game tournament.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

This chapter consists of two sections. The first section is conclusion,

which is based on the research findings. The second section is suggestion based
on the conclusion.

A. Conclusion
Based on the result of data analysis and the discussion in the previous
chapter, the researcher presents the conclusion as follows:
There is a significant difference of vocabulary achievement between the
students who were taught by using team game tournament and without team
game tournament (verbal explanation). It was proved by the t-test value that
was greater than t-table value at posttest. It is also supported by the
observation checklist analysis that showed the students’ progress from each
treatment. Therefore, it can be concluded that the implementation of
cooperative learning “type team game tournament” improves students’
 34

vocabulary achievement. Team game tournament gives an opportunity for

students to share with each other and apply concept through fun activities.
Also collaborative, competitive, and reward motivated the students to learn
more.

B. Suggestion
Based on the conclusion above, the researcher gives some suggestions as
follows:
1. In applying Team Game Tournament, the teacher should be assisted by
some instructors to handle the game in each tournament table.
2. In applying Team Game Tournament, the teacher should think fastly but
act slowly because this type of cooperative learning method will make
them frustrated without mastering the step, students’ division in team
and tournament, the procedure or game’s regulation, and the students’
assessment.
3. The teachers, who try to apply Team Game Tournament, should also
consider the time management in finishing all steps of this technique.
4. The teacher should apply fun activities and give some rewards to keep
the students’ motivation.
5. The teacher can combine Team Game Tournament with other types of
Cooperative Learning method, for example; STAD (Student Team
Achievement Division) to improve students’ vocabulary achievement.
 35

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Al-Maqbali, Rashid Saif. _____. Improving the Effectiveness of Group Work.

Batinah North Region.
http://www.moe.gov.om/portal/sitebuilder/sites/eps/English/MOE/baprojec
t/version2/Ch5%20Improving%20the%20effectiveness%20of%20group
%20work%20Rashid%20Al-Maqb.pdf.
Brown, Lesley. _____. The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary Volume 2.
New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Chriest, Allene., & Maher, Jeff. _____. A Guide to Cooperative Learning.
http://www.pgcps.pg.k12.md.us/~elc/learning1.html
DeVries, David L., et al. 1975. Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT) Effects on
Reading Skills in the Elementary Grades. Report No. 200.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/deta
ilmini.jsp?
_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED109662&ERICExtSe
arch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED109662
Dotson, Jeanie M. 2001. Cooperative Learning Structures can Increase Student
Achievement. Kagan Online Magazine.
http://kaganonline.com/KaganClub/FreeArticles/IncreaseAchievement.htm
l
Gay, L. R. 1981. Educational Research Competencies for Analysis and
Application Second Edition. Columbus. Ohio: Charles E. Merrill
Publishing Company.
Harmer, Jeremy. 1991. The Practice of English Language Teaching. London:
Longman Group.
Herlina, S. 2003. The Attitude of the Second Year Students of SLTP
Muhammadiyah Parepare toward Teaching English Vocabulary
through Language Games. Thesis. UMPAR.
Kessler, Carolyn. 1992. Cooperative Language Learning. USA: Prentice Hall
Regent.
Margaree S, Crosby., & Emma M, Owens. ______. The Disadvantages of
Tracking and Ability Grouping: A Look at Cooperative Learning as
an Alternative. http://www.dropoutprevention.org/pubs/pdfs/SS05.pdf.
Marhaen. 2006. Increasing the Students’ Vocabulary Achievement under
Cooperative Learning Type STAD in the First Year of SMAN 4 Kendari.
Unpublished Thesis. Makassar: PPs UNM.
 36

Mason & Bramble. 1987. Understanding and Conducting Research. New York:
MC Graw Hill Inc.
Nursyamsi. 2009. Enriching the Students’ Vocabulary Achievement of the Second
Year Students of MAN Pangkep through Jigsaw of Cooperative Learning
Method. Thesis. FBS UNM.
Procter, Paul (Ed). 1995. Cambridge International Dictionary of English.
Cambridge: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Quirck, Randolph. 1987. Teaching Vocabulary. USA: Houghton Publisher.
Rouviere, Carolyn W. _____. Continuous Evaluation Using Cooperative
Learning. Lebanon Valley College.
http://www.maa.org/saum/maanotes49/140.html
Samra, Nada Abi. 2001. Team Building Workshop “Cooperative Learning”.
_______ http://www.nadasisland.com/team/cooplearning.html

Schail. 1967. Seven Days Faster Reading. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sjahrun, Rizal. 2005. Improving Students’ Reading Comprehension through Self
Access Strategy. Thesis. FBS UNM.

Symons, S., Gill, N., & Friederich, R. 2008. Improving Student Engagement and
Achievement through The Use of Teams Games Tournaments. Frank Hurt
Secondary School.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?
a=v&q=cache:SXvCQYAhxt8J:www.leadershipacademy.sd36.bc.ca/action
research/20072008/Frank%2520Hurt-TGT.0708-
JV.pdf+team+game+tournament+of+cooperative+learning+method&hl=id
&gl=id&sig=AHIEtbSTBEUr0oteAExvKLQV7NW8fw_Ozw
Wichadee, Saovapa. (2005). The Effects of Cooperative Learning on English
Reading Skills and Attitudes of the First-Year Students at Bangkok
University.
http://www.bu.ac.th/knowledgecenter/epaper/july_dec2005/saovapa.pdf