FINAL ASSIGNMENT FOR ACADEMIC WRITING

The Effects of Cooperative Learning Method to Students’

Achievement in Science Class at Elementary Schools in
Nanggalo District, Padang City

Written by:
Zulferi
(Technology of Education, Universitas Negeri Padang)
2005

(Original Title: Pengaruh Metode Cooperative Learning dan Motivasi

Belajar Siswa Sekolah Dasar Kecamatan Nanggalo Kota Padang, 2005)

REPORTED BY:

SAYUTI. M (NIM: 19324)

Student of English Graduate Program, Room C

PROGRAM PASCASARJANA
UNIVERSITAS NEGERI PADANG
2011
 RESEARCH REPORT

The Effects of Cooperative Learning Method to Students’ Achievement in

Science Class at Elementary Schools in Nanggalo District, Padang City

Zulferi
Technology of Education
Universitas Negeri Padang

Abstract–The core concept of teaching science for elementary school is to provide

sufficient knowledge to students which is mainly about natural resources; how to
make use of them at the present and the future time. This experiment compared the
effects of using cooperative learning method and conventional method on the
performance of elementary students at Nanggalo, Padang City. The research was
aimed to test the three hypotheses: 1) Students who were taught using cooperative
learning method performed better in standardized science test than those who were
taught using conventional method, 2) Students who had higher level of motivation
and being taught using cooperative learning strategy performed better in standardized
science test than those who had higher level of motivation and being taught using
conventional strategy, and 3) Students who had lower level of motivation and being
taught using cooperative learning strategy performed better in standardized science
test than those who had lower level of motivation and being taught using
conventional strategy. The population was students of Grade IV in Nanggalo District
with the total number of students were 974 from as many as 25 elementary schools.
Random cluster sampling technique was to be used and SD Negeri 10 Surau Gadang
was randomly selected as the sample. It had two classes for grade IV with as many as
61 students. Using t-test, it was found that for hypothesis 1, t-observed (7.31) was
higher than t-table (2.39) with the coefficient of significance 5%; Ho was rejected
and Ha was accepted. It means that using cooperative learning method improved
students’ performance in science class. Hypothesis 2, t-observed (3.751) was higher
than t-table (2.62) with the coefficient of significance 1%; Ho was rejected and Ha
was accepted. It means that using cooperative learning strategy for students who had
higher level of motivation improved their performance in science class. Hypothesis
3, t-observed (4.433) was higher than t-table (2.62) with the coefficient of
significance 1%; Ho was rejected and Ha was accepted. It means than using
cooperative learning strategy for students who had lower level of motivation
improved their performance in science class.

Introduction
The teaching and learning process of science at schools are still dominated by
teacher centered activities. Students tend to be passive learners. This is perhaps to be
the cause for not being the utmost achievement in science classes. Teaching science
should be made the most from students based activities, in which students are
encouraged to explore their surroundings; to build their basic knowledge, to
understand and to apply the basic concepts of science theories.
Cooperative learning according to Stahl (in Kadir, 2000), is one of the
methods that is capable of building up students’ creativity. This method encourages
students to work cooperatively with a classmate. The characteristic of cooperative
learning is not similar to work group. In cooperative learning, each student within the
group has to work his or her own role to accomplish or to make their project
successful. This method of learning is expected to increase the level of students’
motivation and their critical thinking pattern as well as their creativity. Thus, by
using cooperative learning, students are expected to perform better in their science
classes.
Anita Lee (2002) proposes some reasons of why it is important to use
cooperative learning model in a classroom: 1) knowledge is to be found, and to be
explored by the children. The teacher, on the other way, creates the settings and
makes them possible for the students to learn and to find meanings in each session,
2) learning is a students’ activity; it is not something to be manipulated for the
students’ sake. Students are able to activate their own cognitive structures and build
new structures to accommodate new knowledge inputs (Anderson & Armbruster:
1982), 3) each student brings with them certain potency, because of that, teaching
and learning process must be concentrated to make use of students competence as
effectively as possible, 4) Teaching and learning process is an activity that cannot be
separated from individuals’ interactions.
Meanwhile, to generate the utmost attainment of teaching and learning
process, teachers should be able to enhance a certain level of students’ motivation.
According to Sadiman (1986, 25), motivation is needed in teaching and learning
process because it can act as the inner mover of the students to create better and
meaningful learning quality. The higher the level of students’ motivation is, the more
likely are students to perform during their learning process.
The purpose of this study was to ascertain the effect of using cooperative
learning method as compared to conventional method in teaching science to
elementary students. This topic was identified as being of importance to teachers in
providing them the necessary background to teach lessons for further improvement;
not only for science class, but also is for any subject being taught at schools.

Method
The study was conducted as a control-experiment groups only research or a
quasi experiment (Ed: no reference). It involved one controlled group and one
experimental group. A controlled was taught using conventional method and an
experimental group was taught using collaborative learning method. Both groups
shared the same characteristics; grade IV, materials, teaching hours, and the same
teacher. The only difference shared by the two groups was the teaching method
treatment. Experimental group was manipulated using the collaborative learning
method, while controlled group was taught using conventional method as usually
occurred in the science for the group. Unfortunately, the writer does not mention
what type or types of conventional method to be used by the teacher in teaching
science.

Population
The population for the study consisted of Grade IV students at 25 Elementary
Schools in Nanggalo District. The number of the students was 974 students. The
technique that writer used to get the sample is random cluster sampling. The
Elementary School (SD) Negeri 10 Surau Gadang was chosen to be the sample. It
had two classes of Grade IV, and Class IV-a was randomly selected as control class
while Class IV-b was the experimental class.
Furthermore, to assess the level of students’ motivation, the writer distributed
a questionnaire. Students in each class were then discriminated into two groups;
students who had higher level of motivation and students who had lower level of
motivation. To discriminate these groups of students, a questionnaire was distributed.
The writer picked up as many 27% of total number of students (8 students) within the
perimeter of the highest score and 27% of total number of students (8 students)
within the perimeter of lowest score for questionnaire.
Procedure of Research
The writer did not mention enough information about the procedure of his
research. He did mention the date of the research from August 7 th to September 20th,
2004, but he did not write anything about how many times the study took place, how
many minutes each session was, and what topics each session would be given. He
wrote something to infer those problems above by saying that the schedule of this
research was based on the school’s schedule. Unfortunately, though, the schedule he
was mentioning could not be found in his thesis, or in the appendix section.
About the instrument to be used in this study, the writer referred only to the
questionnaire to assess the level of students’ motivation. He did not mention
anything about the procedure or the material for evaluation instrument which was
necessary for measuring the attainment of concepts in the learning packages. This
study seems slightly odd when reading through chapter IV, that assessment
instrument for academic attainment was measured by “a test” which was referred to
appendix IX page 117. It should have been better to mention about the test on the
earlier section (chapter III), because this test was one of the key instrument for this
study.
Another “incomplete” logical arrangement of this study is the hypotheses
formulation. The writer did not formulate or discriminate the hypotheses into
statistical hypotheses which comprise null hypothesis (Ho) and alternative hypothesis
(Ha). It should be crucial when the writer, in chapter IV, explained his findings with
statistical treatment.

Results
Each group was given the same written test after being subjected to the
teaching and learning process using conventional method for controlled class and
cooperative learning method for experimental class.
Table 1. Distribution of Test Result for Experimental Class

No. Score Interval Frequency Percentage

1. 52.5 – 59.4 1 3.45
2. 59.5 – 67.4 4 13.80
3. 67.5 – 75.4 9 31.03
4. 75.5 – 83.4 11 37.93
5. 83.5 – 90.4 1 3.44
6. 90.5 – 98.4 3 10.35
Total 29 100.00

The test result for experimental class, as reported in the table above, showed
that the score ranged from 52.5 to 97.5. Meanwhile, the mean score of this
experimental class was 75.603.

Table 2. Distribution of Test Result for Controlled Class

No. Score Interval Frequency Percentage

1. 37.5 – 44.4 7 21.87
2. 44.5 – 52.4 5 15.63
3. 52.5 – 59.4 10 31.25
4. 59.5 – 67.4 6 18.75
5. 67.5 – 75.4 3 9.37
6. 75.5 – 83.4 1 3.13
Total 32 100.00

The test result for controlled class, as reported in the table above, showed that
the score ranged from 37.5 to 82.5. Meanwhile, the mean score of this controlled
class was 55.234.

Discussion
The average post-test score for both experimental and controlled class was
reported in the following table. The t-test was used to isolate more specifically how
to treat the hypotheses.

Table 3. The Average Score of Test Result for Both Classes

 Level of Motivation
Learning / Teaching Method
High Low
Cooperative Learning 79.688 73.125
Conventional 60.000 48.125

Based on the calculation of t-test, for the first hypothesis, it was concluded
that the students’ scores after being taught using cooperative learning method was
higher than after being taught using conventional method. The second and the third
hypothesis tested students who had higher and lower level of motivation, it was
concluded that the students’ performance after being taught by using cooperative
learning and conventional method was different. The score attained by students who
had been taught by using cooperative learning had higher score than those who had
been taught by using conventional method. It indicated that the use of cooperative
learning was capable of increasing students’ performance.
The following conclusions are subject to the conditions and limitations of this
study: 1) Cooperative learning method was more effective than conventional method;
2) Cooperative learning method was able to improve the level of students’
motivation better than conventional method; 3) There was a correlation (interaction)
between learning method and learning motivation, although it was not significant.

Reference
Arikunto, Suarsimi, 1999, Dasar-dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan, (Edisi Revisi), Jakarta:
Bumi Aksara

Bloom, S. Benyamin, et.al., 1986, Taxonomi of Educational Objectives: The

Classification of Education Goal, Handbook I, Cognitive Domain, New
York: David McKay Company, Inc.

Gagne, Robert M & Brigg, Leslie, 1977, Principles of Instructional Design, New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston

Hadi, Sutrisno, 1990, Metodologi Research IV, Yogyakarta: Andi Offset

Hamalik, Oemar, 1992, Psikologi Belajar dan Mengajar, Bandung: Sinar Baru

Lee, Anita, 2002, Cooperative Learning, Mempraktekkan Cooperative Learning di

Ruang-ruang Kelas, Jakarta: Grasindo
Sardiman, 1986, Interaksi dan Motivasi Belajar Mengajar, Jakarta: Rajawali

Slavin, Robert. E, 1994, Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice, Fourth

Edition, Johns Hopkins University

Snelbecker, Glenn E, 1974, Learning Theory: Instruuctional Theory, and

Psychoeducational Design, New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Sudjana, 1996, Metode Statistika, Bandung: Tarsito