IJSTR

International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research

Home About Us Scope Editorial Board Blog/Latest News Contact Us
0.2
2019CiteScore
 
10th percentile
Powered by  Scopus
Scopus coverage:
Nov 2018 to May 2020

CALL FOR PAPERS
AUTHORS
DOWNLOADS
CONTACT

IJSTR >> Volume 8 - Issue 4, April 2019 Edition



International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research  
International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research

Website: http://www.ijstr.org

ISSN 2277-8616



Utilization Of Students Team Achievement Division And Team Game Tournament: Effective Ways To Increase Students’ Mathematics Ability

[Full Text]

 

AUTHOR(S)

Nana Sepriyanti, Nofadila, Marhamah, Martin Kustati, Ahmad Sabri

 

KEYWORDS

STAD; TGT; Mathematics ability.

 

ABSTRACT

This research aims at finding out the differences of the mathematics learning outcomes of the students who learnt through Students Team Achieveement Division (STAD) and Team Game Tournament (TGT). A quasy experimental research with posttest only for control group design was implemented where the sampling technique used was simple random sampling. The research found that: STAD and expository learning showed a significant difference where count = 28.65 which means that the results of the students who learnt through STAD were higher than the ones with expository learning. There was a significant difference as well in the results of the students in TGT and expository learning where count = 7.33 which means that the result of the students who learnt through TGT were higher than the ones with expository learning method. There was significant difference of the results or outcomes of the students learning through STAD and ones who learnt through TGT in which count = 6.80.

 

REFERENCES

[1] S. Freeman et al., “Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 111, no. 23, pp. 8410–8415, 2014.

[2] B. Kramarski and Z. R. Mevarech, “Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: The effects of cooperative learning and metacognitive training,” Am. Educ. Res. J., vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 281–310, 2003.

[3] E. Zakaria, “Promoting cooperative learning in science and mathematics education: A Malaysian perspective,” Colecc. Digit. Eudoxus, no. 22, 2009.

[4] E. Zakaria, “Promoting cooperative learning in science and mathematics education: A Malaysian perspective,” Colecc. Digit. Eudoxus, no. 22, 2009.

[5] M. Boekaerts and L. Corno, “Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention,” Appl. Psychol., vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 199–231, 2005.

[6] S. G. Paris and A. H. Paris, “Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning,” Educ. Psychol., vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 89–101, 2001.

[7] P. R. Pintrich, “A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students,” Educ. Psychol. Rev., vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 385–407, 2004.

[8] M. P. Driscoll and M. P. Driscoll, “Psychology of learning for instruction,” 2005.

[9] J. A. Durlak, R. P. Weissberg, A. B. Dymnicki, R. D. Taylor, and K. B. Schellinger, “The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions,” Child Dev., vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 405–432, 2011.

[10] J. E. Zins, M. R. Bloodworth, R. P. Weissberg, and H. J. Walberg, “The scientific base linking social and emotional learning to school success,” Build. Acad. Success Soc. Emot. Learn. What Does Res. Say, pp. 3–22, 2004.

[11] S. Y. Duma, “The Influence of the Implementation of Learning Model, Cognitive Style and Initial Ability toward Mathematics Learning Result Student’s of Class VIII at SMPN 1 Rantepao,” Daya Mat. J. Inov. Pendidik. Mat., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 191–211, 2017.

[12] A. Veloo, R. Md-Ali, and S. Chairany, “Using Cooperative Teams-Game-Tournament in 11 Religious School to Improve Mathematics Understanding and Communication.,” Malays. J. Learn. Instr., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 97–123, 2016.

[13] G. Ghaith and A. Kawtharani, “Using CooperativeLearning,” Coop. Learn. Second Lang. Teach., p. 74, 2006.

[14] R. E. Slavin and C. Lake, “Effective programs in elementary mathematics: A best-evidence synthesis,” Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 427–515, 2008.

[15] R. E. Slavin, “Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know,” Contemp. Educ. Psychol., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 43–69, 1996.

[16] D. T. Campbell and J. C. Stanley, Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Ravenio Books, 2015.

[17] B. Kitchenham, “Procedures for performing systematic reviews,” Keele UK Keele Univ., vol. 33, no. 2004, pp. 1–26, 2004.

[18] B. W. Tuckman and B. E. Harper, Conducting educational research. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2012.

[19] M. B. Miles, A. M. Huberman, and J. Saldana, Qualitative data analysis. Sage, 2014.

[20] J. Kotrlik and C. Higgins, “Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research appropriate sample size in survey research,” Inf. Technol. Learn. Perform. J., vol. 19, no. 1, p. 43, 2001.

[21] G. Keppel and T. D. Wickens, “Simultaneous comparisons and the control of type I errors,” Des. Anal. Res. Handb. 4th Ed Up. Saddle River NJ Pearson Prentice Hall P, pp. 111–130, 2004.

[22] E. Alijanian, “The Effect of Student Teams Achievement Division Technique on English Achievement of Iranian EFL Learners.,” Theory Pract. Lang. Stud., vol. 2, no. 9, 2012.

[23] N. M. Balfakih, “The effectiveness of student team-achievement division (STAD) for teaching high school chemistry in the United Arab Emirates,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 605–624, 2003.

[24] G. Ghaith, “Correlates of the implementation of the STAD cooperative learning method in the English as a foreign language classroom,” Int. J. Biling. Educ. Biling., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 279–294, 2004.

[25] M. Tiantong and S. Teemuangsai, “Student Team Achievement Divisions (STAD) Technique through the Moodle to Enhance Learning Achievement.,” Int. Educ. Stud., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 85–92, 2013.

[26] R. E. Slavin, “Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know,” Contemp. Educ. Psychol., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 43–69, 1996.