Abstract
This study aims to obtain an objective picture of the effect of the Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) type cooperative learning model on mathematics learning outcomes in underachievers. This research is an actual experiment with a randomized pretest-posttest control group design. The sample of this study consisted of two classes, namely the experimental class and the control class, with a total of 30 people, each determined by random sampling technique. The data analysis technique used is the t-test. The results of this study indicate that the mathematics learning outcome obtained on average in the experimental group is 39.633, while in the control group is 27.267. This means that learning outcomes using the STAD method are better than mathematics learning outcomes using conventional models. The high average score in the experimental group positively affected the testing of hypotheses performed using the t-test
Publisher
Universitas Widya Gama Mahakam
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences,General Environmental Science
Reference26 articles.
1. (NRC), N. R. (1989). Everybody Count. A Report to The Nation on The Future of Mathematic Education. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
2. Akintunde, D. O., & Olukemi, D. E. (2014). Efficacy of Cooperative and Self-Directed Learning Strategies in Enhancing Mathematics Achievement of Underachieving Gifted Students in Nigeria. IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science, 19(9): 41-50.
3. Asri, D., Setyowati, P., Hitipeuw, I., & Chusniyah, T. (2017). The Influence of Project-based Learning Strategy and Self-regulated Learning on Academic Procrastination of Junior High School Student Mathematic Learning. American Journal Of Education Research, 5(10): 88-96.
4. 'Aturrahmi, N., & Zikra, Z. (2019). Personality Types of Underachiever Students and the Implication for Guidance and Counseling Services. Jurnal Neo Konseling, 1(4): 1-8. https://doi.org/10.24036/00166kons2019.
5. Bennett-Rappell, H. (2016). Underachieving gifted students: Two case studies. Issues in Educational Research, 26(3): 407-430.