Vol 1, No 4, April -, 2021
p-ISSN 2775-3735- e-ISSN 2775-3727
205 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODELS OF LEARNING
EFFECTIVENESS TAI AND STAD TYPE IN IMPROVING STUDENT'S
CRITICAL THINKING
Yhusita Tyas Margaretha, Agustina Tyas Asri Hardini
Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana
Received:April
10th, 2021
Revised: April
16th, 2021
Approved:April
17th, 2021
Abstract
This study aims to determine the level of effectiveness of the
cooperative learning model type TAI "Team Assisted
Individulization" and type STAD "Student Teams Achievement
Divisions" as a learning model in improving the critical thinking
of elementary school students of class V in science subjects. This
experimental research was in the form of a Quasi Experimental
Design. The research design used is a quasi-experimental research
using the nonequivalent control group design pattern. This
research is an experimental research conducted at SD Negeri
Polobogo 03 and SD Negeri Polobogo 02 which are located in
Polobogo Village. The research was conducted from February to
March in the second semester of the academic year 2021/2022
which was carried out in class V. The samples in this study were
obtained through probability sampling techniques with purposive
random sampling type. Based on the research results, the
effectiveness of the cooperative learning model type TAI "Team
Assisted Individulization" showed an average increase of 28.57%
greater than the cooperative learning model type STAD "Student
Teams Achievement Divisions" which was 26.75%. Based on the
results of the research hypothesis test using the mean difference
test on the independent sample t-test, it shows that there is a
significant difference between the cooperative learning model of
the TAI type "Team Assisted Individulization" and the cooperative
learning model of the STAD type "Student Teams Achievement
Divisions" in terms of ability results. critical thinking of students
in science subjects.
Keywords: Team Assisted Individulization, Student Teams
Achievement Divisions, Critical Thinking Ability.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International
INTRODUCTION
Education is a science that is the goal in carrying out learning activities both at
school and outside of school to add and broaden the knowledge they have. According to
Article 2 (Law, 2003), national education functions to develop capabilities and shape the
character and civilization of a nation with dignity to educate the nation's life. Education
aims to develop the potential of students to become human beings who believe and fear
God Almighty, have a noble character, are healthy, knowledgeable, capable, creative,
independent, and become democratic and responsible citizens.
Following the mission and educational goals stated in Law no. 20 of 2003 above,
Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia No. 19 of 2005 Chapter III Article 7
Paragraph 3 states that in primary school education is regulated in a curriculum content
Yhusita Tyas Margaretha, Agustina Tyas Asri Hardini
Cooperative learning models of learning effectiveness tai and stad type in
improving student's critical thinking 206
that includes Mathematics, Languages, Natural Sciences, Skills, and Local Content.
Republic of Indonesia Government Regulation No. 19 of 2005 Chapter III Article
7 Paragraph 3 following the attachment to Permendiknas No. 22 of 2006 concerning the
content standard for basic education units according to the curriculum structure of the
education unit, five subjects must be taught, one of which is the content of science
subjects. The content of science learning needs to be applied in elementary schools
because education is a science that plays an important role in advancing human thinking
that leads to inquiry and action so that it is hoped that it can help students to gain a deeper
understanding of the natural surroundings.
According to (Sari, 2019) science is a branch of knowledge that originates from a
natural phenomenon. Meanwhile, according to (MANU, 2020) Science is defined as a
collection of knowledge about objects of natural phenomena obtained from the results of
thoughts carried out by experimenting using scientific methods. Therefore, the science
curriculum refers to the study of natural phenomena, so the approach used must be
appropriate and oriented towards students so that they can learn creatively and
effectively.
Based on the two definitions above, it can be concluded that science is a science
related to examining the collection of knowledge about objects of natural phenomena. In
the concept, not only the mastery of a collection of knowledge in the form of facts,
concepts, and principles which are the basis for the discovery process. Science education
is expected to be a vehicle for learning for students in learning natural materials around
themselves and themselves (Nurdyansyah, 2018).
This is an important role for teachers in carrying out their duties as educators in
determining and providing what students learn to enrich their learning experiences. As
agents of renewal, teachers are required to be active and creative (Sulfemi, 2019). In
carrying out their duties, the teacher needs to use the right learning model to make it
easier for students to understand the material presented (Nurdyansyah & Fahyuni, 2016).
In this case, the teacher only acts as a facilitator so that students play an active, creative
role so that they can train students' minds to think critically in developing self-potential
(Fristadi & Bharata, 2015).
One of the components that influence the success of a learning process is the
learning model used in each learning activity with the relevant model as the teaching
material used. According to (Rahman, 2018) the learning model is a design of teacher
learning activities for students that refers to interactions with elements related to learning,
namely teachers, students, learning media as teaching materials, and material as the
subject. According to (Parasamya, Wahyuni, & Hamid, 2017) interesting learning and
triggers students to interact well can be done through the application of relevant learning
models, with relevant models focusing students on the material being taught. For this
reason, in determining a learning model that is relevant and able to attract student's
attention, the ability of competent teachers is needed so that students can increase their
level of critical thinking and increase their learning creativity in depth (Pianda, 2018).
Therefore, first, two types of cooperative learning models are explained, namely
the type of TAI (Team Assisted Individualization) and STAD (Student Teams
Achievement Divisions) as learning models. According to Slavin (1984) in (Setiawan &
Prihatnani, 2020), TAI is a pedagogical learning program that links the learning process
with individual student differences at the academic level.
The application of the TAI type cooperative learning model "Team Assisted
Individualization" is a learning model solution to improve students' critical thinking skills
which affect their learning outcomes (Hardiyanti, 2018). This learning model is student-
centered (Student-Centered) in shaping learning activities k heterogeneous study groups,
Yhusita Tyas Margaretha, Agustina Tyas Asri Hardini
Cooperative learning models of learning effectiveness tai and stad type in
improving student's critical thinking 206
understanding and finding a concept about the material that has been discussed.
The TAI type of cooperative learning model "Team Assisted Individualization"
emphasizes group rewards, the responsibility of each individual to get the same
opportunity to share with each member of the group (Lestari, 2014). The purpose of this
model is to minimize individual teaching to increase knowledge, become trained students'
critical thinking abilities, and motivate students through group learning that is formed.
Meanwhile, Wilna in (Setyomukti, 2012) explained that the STAD (Student
Teams Achievement Divisions) cooperative learning model is a learning model which is
one of the criteria for improving student learning achievement through critical thinking.
So that it is embedded in students to be motivated and have high motivation which affects
the level of their thinking patterns related to learning material.
Judging from the syntax, the cooperative learning model type TAI "Team
Assisted Individualization" and STAD "Student Teams Achievement Divisions" look
different, but have one side in common, namely through this learning model students are
required to have the ability to explore critical thinking and be able to solve related
problems. learning materials.
The efficacy of the TAI type of cooperative learning model "Team Assisted
Individualization" has been proven by (Arningsih, Suardana, & Selamet, 2018) based on
the results of his research entitled Comparison of Cooperative Learning Model Type
Teams Assisted Individualization and Cooperative Learning Model Type Student Team
Achievement Divisions on Problem Solving Ability. Ipa Viii Junior High School Students
who have learning effectiveness in addition to high learning outcomes. In his research,
students are encouraged to learn independently, be able to explore knowledge both their
own experiences which are used to study and understand learning material so that
students can receive material meaningfully so that they can develop a level of critical
thinking.
Observing the various potentials of the two learning models and the results of
research that show the efficacy of the two models empirically will certainly help teachers
in choosing a learning model to be applied in the science learning process in elementary
schools. It can be seen from the equally well-applied potential that it does not become a
doubt for the teacher to apply a relevant model for science subjects in elementary schools.
Through this research, researchers participated in proving that from several existing
learning models, researchers were interested in examining the efficacy of the TAI and
STAD cooperative learning models as models to be applied.
RESEARCH METHODS
This type of research is an experimental research in the form of a Quasi
Experimental Design. The research design used is a quasi-experimental research using the
nonequivalent control group design pattern. This research was conducted at SD Negeri
Polobogo 03 and SD Negeri Polobogo 02 which are located in Polobogo Village. The two
primary schools are in one area, namely Getasan District, Semarang Regency, Central
Java. Both SD are included in the Kartini Cluster.
This research was conducted by researchers at SD Negeri Polobogo 01 and SD
Negeri Polobogo 03 Semarang Regency. The population in the study were all students
from SD Negeri Polobogo 01 and SD Negeri Polobogo 03. While the sample in this study
were students of class V SD Negeri Polobogo 01 as an experimental group with a total of
21 students and students at SD Negeri Polobogo 03 as a control group with the number of
students is 20 students
The research was conducted from February to March in the second semester of
Yhusita Tyas Margaretha, Agustina Tyas Asri Hardini
Cooperative learning models of learning effectiveness tai and stad type in
improving student's critical thinking 208
academic year 2021/2022 which was carried out in class V. The samples in this study
were obtained through probability sampling techniques with the type of purposive
random sampling.
The data collection technique used in this study was the critical thinking ability of
elementary school students in class V. In obtaining the data, the researcher used several
steps, including documentation and test techniques to be used as data collection methods.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. Research Results
1. Descriptive Analysis
In this study, descriptive analysis was used based on the results score after
treatment between the experimental group and the control group, then presented in the
form of a statistical descriptive table containing the minimum value which would later be
processed using SPSS 26.00 for windows software. The purpose of using this descriptive
analysis, the researcher can find out the data on the results of differences in student
learning outcomes from the two groups who are given different treatments. Thus the data
presented is data on student learning outcomes before being given treatment or pretest as
data to measure students' initial critical thinking skills in science subjects, so that later
data on learning outcomes will be obtained after receiving treatment or posttest.
2. Learning Outcomes Data for Experiment Class Learning Model TAI "Team
Assisted Individulization”
Based on the results of the data obtained related to the pretest and posttest
learning outcomes consisting of the lowest score, the highest value, the average and the
standard deviation. The following is a table of data on the results of the following
experimental group:
Table 3
Experimental Group Learning Outcomes Data
Descriptive Statistics
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std.
Deviation
pretest
21
25
75
53.33
13.814
posttest
21
65
95
81.90
8.136
Valid N (listwise)
21
Based on the data obtained through the table above, it can be seen that the pretest
average value in the experimental group before being given a treatment using the TAI
"Team Assisted Individulization" learning model is 53.33. Then after being given a
treatment using the TAI learning model "Team Assisted Individulization" the average
value became 81.90. The highest score before being given a treatment uses the TAI
"Team Assisted Individulization" learning model, which is 75 and the lowest score is 25.
Then after being given a treatment using the TAI "Team Assisted Individulization"
learning model, the highest score becomes 95 and the lowest score becomes 65.
In this study, the frequency table was used to process data on student learning outcomes
in the experimental group. The frequency table of the experimental group pretest learning
outcomes is as follows:
Vol 1, No 4, April -, 2021
p-ISSN 2775-3735- e-ISSN 2775-3727
209 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
1) Data Range (J)
J = Nmak – Nmin
= 75 – 25
= 50
2) Class Interval (k)
K = 1 + 3,3 log n
= 1 + 3,3 log 21
= 1 + 4,36
= 5,36
= 5
3) Class Length (h)
P = p/k
= 50/5
= 10
Thus it can be concluded that the number of interval classes is 5 with the class
length is 10.As for the pretest frequency distribution table for the experimental group, as
follows:
Table 4
Frequency Distribution of Experimental Group Pretest
No.
Interval
Frequency
Percentage
1.
25 – 29
1
5,56%
2.
30 – 34
0
0%
3.
35 – 39
1
5,56%
4.
40 – 44
4
22,2%
5.
45 – 49
2
11,2%
6.
50 – 54
2
11,2%
7.
55 – 59
2
11,2%
8.
60 – 64
2
11,2%
9.
65 – 69
3
16.7%
10.
70 – 74
3
16.7%
Total
18
100%
Based on the frequency distribution table of the experimental group pretest in the
table above, it is known that students who get a value of learning outcomes between 25-
29 are as many as 1 student with a percentage of 5.56%, while students who get a score of
35-39 are 1 student with a percentage gain. amounted to 5.56%, then the acquisition value
of learning outcomes between 40-44 was 4 students with a percentage acquisition of
22.2%.
Whereas for students who got a score between 45-49 as many as 2 students with
the acquisition of a percentage value of 11.2%, then for the acquisition value between 50-
54 is 2 students with a percentage acquisition of 11.2%, then the acquisition value
between 55 -59 as many as 2 students with a percentage acquisition of 11.2%, then the
acquisition value between 60-64 as many as 2 students with a percentage acquisition of
11.2%, while the acquisition value between 65-69 was 3 students with a percentage
acquisition of 16.7 %, and the acquisition value between 70-74 as many as 3 students
with a percentage acquisition of 16.7%.
Yhusita Tyas Margaretha, Agustina Tyas Asri Hardini
Cooperative learning models of learning effectiveness tai and stad type in
improving student's critical thinking 210
Based on data processing from student learning outcomes on the posttest results
using the experimental group frequency distribution table, as follows:
1) Data Range (J)
J = Nmak – Nmin
= 95 – 65
= 30
2) Class Interval (k)
K= 1 + 3,3 log n
= 1 + 3,3 log 21
= 1 + 4,36
= 5,36
= 5
3) Class Length (j)
P = p/k
= 30/5
= 6
Thus it can be concluded that the number of interval classes is 5 with the class
length is 6.As for the pretest frequency distribution table for the experimental group, as
follows:
Table 5
Posttest Frequency Distribution of Experiment Group
No.
Interval
Frequency
Percentage
1.
65 – 69
1
5,56%
2.
70 – 74
3
16,7%
3.
75 – 79
4
22,2%
4.
80 – 84
5
27,8%
5.
85 – 89
3
16,7%
6.
90 – 94
2
11%
Total
18
100%
Based on the frequency distribution table of the posttest experimental group in
the table above, it is known that students who get a learning result value between 65-69
are 1 student with a percentage of 5.56%, while students who get 70-74 scores are 3
students with a percentage gain. amounted to 16.7%, then the acquisition value of
learning outcomes between 75-79 was 4 students with a percentage acquisition of 22.2%.
Whereas for students who received scores between 80-84 as many as 5 students with a
percentage value of 27.8%, then for the acquisition of values between 85-89 were 3
students with a percentage acquisition of 16.7%, then the acquisition value was between
90 -94 for 2 students with a percentage gain of 11%.
3. Data on Learning Outcomes for Control Class STAD Learning Model
Based on the results of the data obtained related to the pretest and posttest
learning outcomes consisting of the lowest score, the highest value, the average and the
standard deviation. The following is a table of data obtained from the following control
group:
Vol 1, No 4, April -, 2021
p-ISSN 2775-3735- e-ISSN 2775-3727
211 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
Table 6
Control Group Study Result Data
Descriptive Statistics
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std.
Deviation
pretest
20
30
70
52.00
12.074
posttest
20
45
95
78.75
13.463
Valid N
(listwise)
20
Based on the data obtained through the table above, it can be seen that the pretest
average value in the control group before being given a treatment using the STAD
learning model is 52.00. Then after being given a treatment using the STAD learning
model the average value became 78.75. The highest score obtained before being given a
treatment uses the STAD learning model of 70 and the lowest score is 30.Then after
being given a treatment using the STAD learning model the highest score becomes 95
and the lowest score becomes 45.
In this study, the frequency table is used for data processing of control group
student learning outcomes. The frequency table of the experimental group pretest learning
outcomes is as follows:
1. Data Range (J)
J = Nmak – Nmin
= 70 – 30
= 40
2. Class Interval (k)
K = 1 + 3,3 log n
= 1 + 3,3 log 20
= 1 + 4,29
= 5,29
= 5
3. Class Length (j)
P = p/k
= 40/5
= 8
Thus it can be concluded that the number of interval classes is 5 with the class
length of 8.As for the control group pretest frequency distribution table, as follows:
Table 7
Pretest Frequency Distribution Control group
No.
Interval
Frequency
Percentage
1.
30 – 34
1
6,25%
2.
35 – 39
1
6,25%
3.
40 – 44
3
19%
4.
45 – 49
3
19%
5.
50 – 54
2
12,5%
6.
55 – 59
3
19%
7.
60 – 64
1
6,25%
8.
65 – 69
2
12,5%
Total
16
100%
Yhusita Tyas Margaretha, Agustina Tyas Asri Hardini
Cooperative learning models of learning effectiveness tai and stad type in
improving student's critical thinking 212
Based on the frequency distribution table of the control group pretest in the table
above, it is known that students who get a value of learning outcomes between 30-34 are
as many as 1 student with a percentage of 6.25%, while students who get a score of 35-39
are 1 student with a percentage gain. amounted to 6.25%, then the acquisition value of
learning outcomes between 40-44 is as many as 3 students with a percentage acquisition
of 19%. Whereas for students who got a score between 45-49 there were 3 students with a
percentage value of 19%, then for the acquisition value between 50-54 were 2 students
with a percentage gain of 12.5%, then the acquisition value was between 55-59. as many
as 3 students with a percentage gain of 19%, while students who got a percentage of 60-
64 were 1 student with a percentage gain of 6.25%, and 65-69 as many as 2 students with
a percentage gain of 12.5%.
Based on data processing from student learning outcomes on the posttest results
using the control group frequency distribution table, as follows:
1) Data Range (J)
J = Nmak – Nmin
= 95 – 45
= 50
2) Class Interval (k)
K = 1 + 3,3 log n
= 1 + 3,3 log 20
= 1 + 4,29
= 5,29
= 5
3) Class Length (j)
P = p/k
= 50/5
= 10
Table 8
Control Group Posttest Frequency Distribution
No.
Interval
Frequency
Percentage
9.
30 – 34
1
6,25%
10.
35 – 39
1
6,25%
11.
40 – 44
3
19%
12.
45 – 49
3
19%
13.
50 – 54
2
12,5%
14.
55 – 59
3
19%
15.
60 – 64
1
6,25%
16.
65 – 69
2
12,5%
Total
16
100%
Based on the frequency distribution table of the experimental group posttest in
the table above, it is known that students who get a learning result value between 45 - 49
are 1 student with a percentage of 5.56%, while students who get a score of 55 - 59 are 1
student with a percentage gain. amounted to 5.56%, then the acquisition value of learning
outcomes between 65 - 69 was 2 students with a percentage of 11%. Whereas for students
who received scores between 70 - 74 there were 3 students with a percentage value of
16.7%, then for the acquisition of values between 75 - 79 were 2 students with a
percentage acquisition of 11%, then the acquisition value between 80 - 84 as many as 3
students with
Vol 1, No 4, April -, 2021
p-ISSN 2775-3735- e-ISSN 2775-3727
213 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
a percentage acquisition of 16.7%, then the acquisition value between 85 - 89 as many as
3 students with a percentage acquisition of 16.7%, while the acquisition value between
65-69 was 3 students with a percentage acquisition of 16.7%, and the acquisition value
between 90 - 94 as many as 3 students with a percentage acquisition of 16.7%.
4. The Difference In The Average Score Of The Experimental Group And The
Control Group
In this study, the researcher tested the difference in the average score before and
after the treatment was given to determine the extent to which the learning model applied
could be said to be effective. Thus the average pretest and posttest scores from the
experimental group and the control group are as follows:
Table 8
Average Value of Experiment Group and Control Group
Class
Pretest
Posttest
Change in Results
Experiment
53,33
81,90
28,57
Control
52,00
78,75
26,75
Based on the comparison in the table above, it shows that there has been a change
in learning achievement in both the experimental group and the control group. Thus it can
be seen that there is a change in learning achievement achievement that is greater in the
experimental group than in the control group. Changes that occur have increased by 28.57
after being given a treatment using the learning model in the experimental group.
Based on the distribution of the learning achievement interval in the experimental
group it is in the high category while the control group is in the medium category. Thus it
can be seen that the use after being given treatment by applying the learning model in the
experimental group has an increase in learning outcomes. Thus it can be said that the
learning model applied to the experimental group can be said to be effective in improving
the critical thinking of fifth grade students in science subjects.
B. Data Analysis
This study used descriptive data analysis as a prerequisite test consisting of a
normality test and a homogeneity test. as a prerequisite test is carried out before the
difference test (t) with the aim of knowing whether there is a difference in the average of
the experimental group and the control group.
1. Test Requirements
Normality test
a) Experiment Group
In conducting the normality test of the experimental group on students' critical
thinking skills through student learning achievement, this study used a tool in the form of
Analyze, non-parametric one-sample Kolmogorov Smirnov test with the Shapiro-Wilk
technique using SPSS 26.00 for windows software. Then from the test results it was
found that the preset and posttest results of class V students were normally distributed.
This can be seen based on the significance level of p> 0.05 which is equal to 0.383 from
the pretest results and 0.271 from the posttest results. based on this data, the test table can
be seen as follows:
Yhusita Tyas Margaretha, Agustina Tyas Asri Hardini
Cooperative learning models of learning effectiveness tai and stad type in
improving student's critical thinking 214
Table 10
Experimental Group Normality Test
Tests of Normality
kelas
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
a
Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic
df
Sig.
Statistic
df
Sig.
hasil
pretest
.134
21
.200
*
.953
21
.383
posttest
.151
21
.200
*
.945
21
.271
Based on the results of the normality test of the experimental group between the
pretest and posttest results, if seen through the test table, it means that, if a significance
value is obtained <0.05, the data is not normally distributed, but if a significance value is
obtained> 0.05, the data obtained normally distributed. Thus it can be concluded that, the
data from the normality test of the experimental group is normally distributed.
The level of significance of the pretest value in the experimental group using the TAI
learning model "Team Assisted Individualization" is 0.383> 0.05, which means that it is
normally distributed.
The significance level of the posttest value in the experimental group using the
TAI learning model "Team Assisted Individualization" is 0.271> 0.05, which means that
it is normally distributed.
b) Control Group
In conducting the normality test of the experimental group on student learning
achievement through critical thinking, this study used a tool in the form of the Analyze,
non-parametric one-sample Kolmogorov Smirnov test with the Shapiro-Wilk technique
using SPSS 26.00 for windows software. Then from the test results it was found that the
preset results and posttest class V students are normally distributed. This can be seen
based on the significance level of p> 0.05 which is equal to 0.369 from the pretest results
and 0.264 from the posttest results. based on this data, the test table can be seen as
follows:
Table 11
Control Group Normality Test
Tests of Normality
class
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
a
Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic
df
Sig.
Statistic
df
Sig.
result
pretest
.119
20
.200
*
.950
20
.369
posttest
.132
20
.200
*
.942
20
.264
Based on the results of the control group normality test between the pretest and
posttest results, if seen through the test table, it means that, if a significance value is
obtained <0.05, the data is not normally distributed, but if a significance value is
obtained> 0.05, the data obtained normally distributed. Thus it can be concluded that, the
data from the normality test of the experimental group is normally distributed.
The significance level of the pretest value in the experimental group using the
TAI "Team Assisted Individualization" learning model was 0.369> 0.05, which means
that it is normally distributed.
The level of significance of the posttest value in the experimental group using the
TAI learning model "Team Assisted Individualization" is 0.264> 0.05, which means that
it is normally distributed.
Vol 1, No 4, April -, 2021
p-ISSN 2775-3735- e-ISSN 2775-3727
215 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
Homogeneity Test
The next step before the difference test is to test the homogeneity of the data. The
data homogeneity test meant whether the data from the two groups between the
experimental group and the control group obtained had the same variant or not. In
conducting the homogeneity test, the Levene's Test was carried out. Based on data from
the results of the study, the data can be said to be homogeneous if the significance value
is> 0.05 and the data is not homogeneous if the significance value is <0.05. Thus the test
results can be seen in the table, as follows:
Table 12
Homogeneity Test of Data Before Treatment
Test of Homogeneity of Variance
Levene
Statistic
df1
df2
Sig.
hasil
Based on Mean
.721
1
39
.401
Based on Median
.619
1
39
.436
Based on Median and
with adjusted df
.619
1
38.540
.436
Based on trimmed mean
.702
1
39
.407
Based on the data from the table above, the results of the homogeneity test using
the Levene's Test method are obtained, which chooses one of the statistical interpretations
based on the average of the Based on Mean. Thus it can be seen that the results of the
homogeneity test before being given the treatment obtained a significance value of 0.401
where the significance value> 0.05, which means that both the experimental group and
the control group have the same variants in other words, namely homogeneous.
Table 13
Homogeneity Test of Data After Treatment
Test of Homogeneity of Variance
Levene
Statistic
df1
df2
Sig.
hasil
Based on Mean
2.933
1
39
.095
Based on Median
2.296
1
39
.138
Based on Median and
with adjusted df
2.296
1
32.758
.139
Based on trimmed mean
2.701
1
39
.108
Based on the data from the table above, the results of the homogeneity test using
the Levene's Test method are obtained, which chooses one of the statistical interpretations
based on the average of the Based on Mean. Thus it can be seen that the results of the
homogeneity test before being given the treatment obtained a significance value of 0.095
where the significance value> 0.05, which means that both the experimental group and
the control group have the same variants in other words, namely homogeneous.
Different Test
The final step in this research is to do a different test. Different tests were
conducted to determine whether there were differences in learning achievement between
students who were treated or not given treatment from the experimental group and the
control group. Thus the test results can be seen through the table, as follows:
Yhusita Tyas Margaretha, Agustina Tyas Asri Hardini
Cooperative learning models of learning effectiveness tai and stad type in
improving student's critical thinking 216
Table 14
Data Difference Test
Independent Samples Test
Levene's
Test for
Equality
of
Variance
s
t-test for Equality of Means
F
Sig.
t
df
Sig.
(2-
tailed
)
Mean
Differenc
e
Std.
Error
Differen
ce
95%
Confidence
Interval of
the
Difference
Low
er
Uppe
r
Kema
mpuan
berpik
ir
kritis
Equal
varianc
es
assume
d
2.66
4
.11
1
8.71
8
39
.000
28.714
3.294
22.0
52
35.37
7
Equal
varianc
es not
assume
d
8.65
2
34.75
6
.000
28.714
3.319
21.9
75
35.45
3
Based on the t test analysis from the table above using the independent sample T
test, it can be interpreted that based on the data tested, the t count is 8.718 with a
significance value found in the sig column. (2-tailed) of 0,000. The mean difference
between the experimental group and the control group in the mean difference column is
28.714. Thus the t table that can be obtained from the table above is 1.585.
Hypothesis testing
Based on the results of the Independent Sample T-Test in the table, the next step
is to test the research hypothesis data. The data in the research hypothesis will determine
whether the hypothesis can be accepted or not. Thus the following in the research carried
out, as follows:
H0: μ1 ≤ μ2 There is no significant difference in the effectiveness of critical thinking
skills in grade V SD in the TAI learning model "Team Assisted Individualization" and
STAD "Student Teams Achievement Divisions".
Ha: μ1 ≥ μ2. There is a significant difference in effectiveness on the critical thinking
skills of grade V SD in the TAI learning model "Team Assisted Individualization" and
STAD "Student Teams Achievement Divisions".
The criteria for making decisions are as follows:
1) Using the Sig. based on the provisions:
If the value is Sig. count Probability <0.05 then H0 is rejected.
If the value is Sig. count Probability> 0.05 then Ha is accepted.
Vol 1, No 4, April -, 2021
p-ISSN 2775-3735- e-ISSN 2775-3727
217 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
2) Using the t coefficient count with the following conditions:
If the t value <0.05 then H0 is rejected.
If the value of t count> 0.05 then Ha is accepted.
C. Data Description
Based on the results of research conducted when viewed from the average results
of the pretest and posttest in the critical thinking ability of students both from the
experimental group who were given treatment using the TAI learning model was higher
than the control group using the STAD learning model. Thus it can be concluded that the
experimental group using the TAI learning model is more effective than using the control
group.
Thus the researcher conducted the N-Gain test to strengthen the effectiveness of a
learning model that was used through the application of the two learning models between
the TAI learning model and STAD learning. The formula used in the N-Gain test is as
follows:
N-Gain:
Information:
S Posttest : Score Posttest
S Pretest : Score Pretest
S max : Score Maximum Ideal
Table 15
N-Gain Score Category Acquisition
Limitation
Category
g > 0,7
High
0,3 < g 0,7
Medium
g < 0,3
Low
As for the results of the N-Gain test analysis to see the effectiveness of the two
learning models of TAI "Team Assisted Individualization" and STAD learning "Student
Teams Achievement Divisions", can be seen in the table, as follows:
Table 16
Experimental Class N-Gain Test Results
No.
N-Gain
Category
1.
0.83
High
2.
0.5
Medium
3.
0.58
Medium
4.
0.71
High
5.
0.5
Medium
6.
0.38
Medium
7.
0.86
High
8.
0.5
Medium
9.
0.43
Medium
10.
0.67
Medium
11.
0.6
Medium
Yhusita Tyas Margaretha, Agustina Tyas Asri Hardini
Cooperative learning models of learning effectiveness tai and stad type in
improving student's critical thinking 218
12.
0.5
Medium
13.
0.56
Medium
14.
0.62
Medium
15.
0.42
Medium
16.
0.8
High
17.
0.64
Medium
18.
0.82
Tinggi
19.
0.67
Medium
20.
0.5
Medium
Table 17
Control Class N-Gain Test Results
No.
N-Gain
Category
1.
0.43
Medium
2.
0.14
Low
3.
0.46
Medium
4.
0.67
Medium
5.
-0.1
Low
6.
0.78
High
7.
0.64
Medium
8.
0.83
High
9.
0.83
High
10.
-0.17
Low
11.
0.6
Medium
12.
0.58
Medium
13.
0.73
High
14.
0.78
High
15.
0.5
Medium
16.
0.64
Medium
17.
0.33
Medium
18.
0.18
Low
19.
0.63
Medium
20.
0.83
High
Table 18
Average N-Gain Test Results for Experiment Class and Control Class
No.
Group
Averange
1.
Eksperimen
0,59
2.
Control
0,51
Based on the results of the N-Gain test in the experimental group with treatment
using the TAI learning model "Team Assisted Individualization" showed that there was
an increase of 0.59, which means that the average experimental group experienced an
increase in the moderate category. While the average results of the control group treated
using the STAD learning model "Student Teams Achievement Divisions" also showed an
increase of 0.51 with the control group's average in the moderate category. Thus it shows
that the experimental group has a higher increase compared to the control group.
Vol 1, No 4, April -, 2021
p-ISSN 2775-3735- e-ISSN 2775-3727
219 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
D. Discussion
Based on the data analysis of research results that have been carried out by
researchers using two learning models including the TAI learning model and the STAD
learning model, it has been proven to improve the critical thinking skills of grade V
elementary school students in science subjects. This can be seen based on several aspects
in improving students' critical thinking skills, including identifying the subject matter,
determining and analyzing questions, strategies for concluding data and categorizing.
This research activity was carried out based on a pretest to find out earlier students'
critical thinking abilities, then give a treatment to students using the learning model in the
experimental group and the STAD learning model in the control group.
In addition, after being given a pretest as an initial ability, the next step is that
students are given a posttest to determine the level of critical thinking of students after
being given the treatment, the goal is to see the results of a significant difference in value.
Thus the researchers conducted an analysis that the TAI learning model had an increase
of 18% compared to the STAD learning model which only experienced an increase of
16%. Thus, based on the results of the study, it can be concluded that the TAI learning
model is more effective in improving the critical thinking skills of fifth grade elementary
school students in science subjects compared to using the STAD learning model.
Based on the results of research on success in improving students' critical
thinking skills using the TAI learning model, the results of this study strengthen research
with previous studies that have been conducted by (Arningsih et al., 2018) which shows
that the TAI type cooperative learning model can improve IPA learning outcomes of
fourth grade elementary school students with the results of the study that there was a
significant difference between the group of students who were taught with the TAI type
of learning model compared to the group of students who were taught with the
conventional model..
CONCLUSION
Based on the results of the research that has been done, it can be concluded that
the cooperative learning model of TAI type "Team Assisted Individulization" is proven to
be more effective than using the cooperative learning model of STAD "Student Teams
Achievement Divisions". The effectiveness of the TAI type “Team Assisted
Individulization” cooperative learning model can be seen based on the average results of
81.90 which experienced a moderate increase with an N-Gain value of 0.59. Meanwhile,
the STAD cooperative learning model "Student Teams Achievement Divisions" obtained
a lower average score than the TAI type "Team Assisted Individulization" cooperative
learning model, which was 78.76 with an N-Gain value of 0.51. Thus, based on the
results of the average value and the N-Gain value which explains that the TAI type
“Team Assisted Individulization” cooperative learning model is more effective in
improving the critical thinking skills of grade V elementary school students in science
subjects compared to the cooperative learning model. STAD “Student Teams
Achievement Divisions”.”.
REFERENCES
arningsih, N. P. Wahyu Dewi, Suardana, I. Nyoman, & Selamet, Kompyang. (2018).
Comparison Of Teams Asissted Individualization Cooperative Learning Models
Yhusita Tyas Margaretha, Agustina Tyas Asri Hardini
Cooperative learning models of learning effectiveness tai and stad type in
improving student's critical thinking 218
And Student Team Achievement Divisions Cooperative Learning Models To The
Vol 1, No 4, April -, 2021
p-ISSN 2775-3735- e-ISSN 2775-3727
219 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id
Viii Class Of Junior High School Problem Solving Ability. Indonesian Journal Of
Education And Science Learning (Jppsi), 1 (2), 96–106.
Fristadi, Restu, & Bharata, Haninda. (2015). Improve Students' Critical Thinking Ability
With Problem Based Learning. National Seminar On Mathematics And Education,
Ysu, 597–602.
Hardiyanti, Siti. (2018). The Effect Of Team Assisted Individualization Cooperative
Learning Model On Mathematics Critical Thinking Ability Of Class X Students Of
Sma Negeri 2 Percut Sei Tuan Tp 2018/2019. Meddan State Islamic University Of
North Sumatra.
Lestari, Sri Santi. (2014). Collaboration Of Mind Mapping Learning Model With Team
Assisted Individualization (Tai) To Improve Accounting Learning Activities And
Results Of Class X Ak Students In Smk 2 Raksana Medan 2013/2014 Learning
Year. Unimed.
Manu, A.Viona. (2020). The Effect Of Experimental Methods On The Results Of
Students 'Science Learning Ii Sd Inpres Sikumana 3 Kota Kupang. University Of
Image Nation.
Nurdyansyah, Nurdyansyah. (2018). Problem-Based Learning Model In Natural Science
Lessons On Ecosystem Components. Muhammadiyah University Sidoarjo.
Nurdyansyah, Nurdyansyah, & Fahyuni, Eni Fariyatul. (2016). Learning Model
Innovation According To The 2013 Curriculum. Nizamia Learning Center.
Parasamya, Cut Eka, Wahyuni, Agus, & Hamid, Ahmad. (2017). Efforts To Improve
Student Physics Learning Outcomes Through The Application Of Problem Based
Learning (Pbl) Learning Models. Scientific Journal Of Physics Education Students,
2 (1), 42–49.
Pianda, Didi. (2018). Teacher Performance: Teacher Competence, Work Motivation And
Principal Leadership. Cv Trace (Publisher Footprint).
Rahman, Taufiqur. (2018). Application Of Learning Models In Classroom Action
Research. Cv. Pillars Of The Archipelago.
Sari, Yuli Indah. (2019). Nature-Based Ipa Learning To Implement Characters Of Private
School Students. Basic Education National Seminar, 1.
Setiawan, Yoga, & Prihatnani, Erlina. (2020). Comparison of TAI and NHT on
Trigonometric Learning Outcomes in terms of Interpersonal Intelligence.
Mosharafa: Journal of Mathematics Education, 9 (2), 299–310.
Setyomukti, Eni. (2012). Increasing Activeness in Mathematics Learning through
Cooperative Model Type Stad Students of Class V SD Negeri Gading 1, Tanon
District, Sragen Regency, Academic Year 2011/2012.
Sulfemi, Wahyu Bagja. (2019). The professional competence of Indonesian teachers in
facing the MEA.
Constitution. (2003). national education system. Ministry of Education.
