Abstract
This study aims to describe the influence of the use of student team-achievement division (STAD) model, group investigation (GI) model and interest in learning on student learning outcomes in junior high schools. Subject of this study are the students of junior high school East Java Indonesia. The method used in this study is an experiment. Data collection was carried out using test and questionnaire techniques. Analysis of the data used is two-way Anava.
The research findings are: 1) there are differences in learning outcomes from students taught using STAD model, GI model; 2) there are differences in learning outcomes between students who have high and low learning interests; 3) there is an interaction between the learning model and the interest in learning in learning.
Learning achievement of students taught using STAD model was higher than students taught using GI model. Learning outcomes of students with high learning interest are better than students with low learning interest. In learning it is very important to increase students' interest in learning through the selection of appropriate learning models.
Keywords: student team-achievement division models, investigation group models, and interest in learning.
Introduction
The existence of natural science teachers who have not used learning varies, especially the learning methods or models used, so this is interesting to study. Learning models that are suitable for natural science subjects need to be constantly sought so that the learning of natural science is always an interesting learning, not scary.
In learning natural sciences, the spirit of togetherness between students is also needed, souls help each other. Cooperative learning model is one of the models created in order to build cooperation between students, the cooperative learning model needs to be increased in the frequency of its use in classroom learning.
Natural science learning actually has a very important role. Natural science subjects are expected to be able to form ideal students who have a strong mentality, so they can overcome the problems they will face. The learning process of natural science must be able to provide opportunities for students to be able to develop their potential optimally, so that in the learning process there is a transfer of learning, transfer of training and transfer of principles.
From this description, it is very important to look for alternative learning that can attract students' interest so that natural science is no longer considered a difficult subject but instead becomes a challenging and exciting subject. The alternative is the learning system that can improve understanding, critical thinking skills and the ability to apply theories and concepts that have been used by natural knowledge to facilitate solving problems faced in everyday life.
Therefore, innovation in learning natural sciences should be done to overcome the gaps that still exist today. The use of cooperative learning models is one step to help overcome the gaps that arise in learning natural science. Isjoni (2009) states that cooperative learning models can be applied to motivate students to dare to express their opinions, respect the opinions of friends, and give each other opinions (sharing ideas).
In cooperative learning there are several types of learning models, including the type of Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) model and Group Investigation (GI) model. The STAD model was developed by Slavin and is one type of cooperative learning model that emphasizes the existence of activities and interactions among students to motivate each other and help each other in mastering subject matter in order to achieve maximum achievement.
The GI model is based on John Dewey's idea of education which explains that the class is a mirror of society and serves as a laboratory for learning about life in the real world which aims to examine social and interpersonal problems. Basically this model is designed to guide students to define problems, explore various horizons about the problem, collect relevant data, develop and test hypotheses.
With the application of the STAD model and GI model, it is expected to increase students' understanding of concepts in natural science subjects. In addition, it is also expected to grow a spirit of togetherness and help each other in mastering the material, so that it can create an active, creative, effective and enjoyable learning atmosphere that can work together and build optimal thinking power.
In this study there are other factors involved, namely students' interest in learning. Diah Nugraheni (2007), states that the role and function of interest in learning are: 1). Interest as a driver that directs one's actions in activities. 2) Interest can help in focusing attention on the problems at hand. 3) Interest as a helper in a person's growth and development in achieving a maturity and ideals.
Burhanuddin and Soejoto (2008) state that interest gives birth to spontaneous attention that allows the creation of concentration for a long time and thus, interest is the basis of concentration. To increase interest, the learning process can be carried out in the form of activities students work and experience what is in the environment in groups.
Slameto in Yatim Riyanto (2009) explains that the principle of learning based on the prerequisites needed in learning are: 1) In learning each student must be active in your knowledge, increase interest, and guide to achieve instructional goals. 2) Learning must be able to generate reinforcement and strong motivation for students to achieve instructional goals. 3) Learning needs a challenging environment where children can develop their abilities to explore and learn effectively. 4) Learning needs to have interaction between students and their environment.
This research raises problems: 1) What are the differences in natural science learning outcomes for students taught by the Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) model and the group investigation model (GI)? 2) How is the difference in science learning outcomes for students who have high learning interest and who have low learning interest? 3) What is the interaction between the Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) model, the Group Investigation model and the interest in learning natural sciences for natural science learning outcomes?The objectives to be achieved in this study are: 1) Want to know the differences in the learning outcomes of natural science for students taught by the Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) model and group investigation (GI) model. 2) Want to know the differences in learning outcomes of natural science for students who have a high interest in learning and who have low interest in learning. 3) Want to know the interaction between the Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) model, Group Investigation model and interest to learn natural science for learning outcome of natural sciences.
There are any previous studies that examined the effect of the application of the STAD model, GI model, and interest in learning to the results of natural science learning for junior high school students. Among the research that has been done is the effect of applying the STAD model to learning outcomes, the effect of applying the GI model to learning outcomes, the effect of applying the STAD model to students' learning interests.
Cooperative Learning
Cooperative learning is another term for cooperative learning. Anita Lie in Isjoni (2009) calls cooperative learning with mutual cooperation learning. According to Slavin (1995), cooperative learning is a learning model in which students learn and work in small groups collaboratively whose members are 4-6 people with a heterogeneous group structure. Furthermore, Johnson in Isjoni (2009) stated, "Cooperanon means working together to accomplish shared goals. Within Cooperative Activities that are beneficial to all other groups members. Cooperative learning is an instructional use of small groups that allows students to work together to maximize their own and each other as learning. Based on the description, cooperative learning means working together in achieving common goals. In cooperative activities, students look for results that are beneficial for all group members. Cooperative learning is the use of small groups to maximize their learning and learning about other members in the group. Cooperative learning procedures are designed to activate students through inquiry and discussion in small groups of 4-6 people.
With cooperative learning, not only a small proportion of students will get smarter, but all members in heterogeneous groups will experience increased intelligence. This is different from the competitive approach that allows only a few students to be smarter but others become increasingly immersed in ignorance.
Bennet in Isjoni (2009) states that there are five basic elements that can distinguish cooperative learning from group work, namely: a) Positive interdependence; b) Interaction face to face; c) Personal responsibility regarding subject matter in group members; d) Requires flexibility.
The main objective in the application of cooperative learning models is so that students can learn in groups with their friends by respecting opinions and providing opportunities for others to express their ideas by expressing their opinions in groups. So cooperative learning can improve student learning towards better learning, helping attitude in some social behaviors.
Slavin (1995) delivered Cooperative learning uses group goals to get group awards. 1) Group awards are obtained if the group reaches a score above the specified criteria. 2) Individual responsibility focuses on the activities of group members who help each other in learning. 3) In order to create equal opportunities for success, the scoring method is used in cooperative learning which includes the development value based on the increase in achievement obtained by students from the previous one. According to Ibrahim, et al. in Isjoni (2009) there are at least three important learning goals in cooperative learning, namely: a) Academic learning outcomes; b) Acceptance of individual differences; c) Development of social skills.
The cooperative learning model has advantages as stated by Jarolimek & Parker in Isjoni (2009): a) Positive interdependence; b) There is recognition in response to individual differences; c) Students are involved in class planning and management; d) A relaxed and pleasant classroom atmosphere; e) Establishing warm and friendly relationships between students and teachers; f) Have many opportunities to express pleasant emotional experiences.
Jarolimek & Parker in Isjoni (2009) also suggested the weaknesses of the cooperative learning model, among others: a) the teacher must prepare learning carefully, in addition it requires a lot of energy, thought and time; b) so that the learning process runs smoothly, it requires the support of adequate facilities, tools and costs; c) during group discussion activities, there is a tendency for the topic of the problem to be discussed extends so that many are not in accordance with the specified time; d) during class discussions, sometimes someone is dominated, this results in other students becoming passive.
The Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) model, is a type of cooperative learning model developed by Slavin. Yatim (2009) translates in Indonesian as a Student Team Achievement Group. STAD model emphasizes the existence of activities and interactions between students to motivate each other and help each other in mastering the subject matter in order to achieve maximum achievement. According to Yatim (2009) there are 5 components in STAD model, namely: a) class presentation; b) team formation; c) quiz; d) changes / developments in individual scores; e) team recognition.Slavin in Yatim (2009) describes the steps of STAD model as follows: a) forming groups whose members = 4 people are heterogeneous (mix according to achievement, gender, ethnicity, etc.); b) the teacher presents lessons; c) the teacher assigns tasks to the group to be done by group members. Knowing members explain to the other members until all members in the group understand; d) The teacher gives quizzes / questions to all students. At the time of answering the quiz should not help each other; e) give evaluation; f) conclusions. In its implementation, STAD model there are 8 phases, namely: Phase 1: Presentation teacher, giving material that will be studied in broad outline and activity procedures, as well as procedures for group work. Phase 2: Teachers form groups, based on ability, gender, race, ethnicity, between 3-5 students. Phase 3: Students work in groups, students learn together, discuss or do assignments given by the teacher according to the student work sheet. Phase 4: Scafolding, the teacher gives guidance. Phase 5: Validation, the teacher holds a validation of the results of group work and gives conclusions to group assignments. Phase 6: Quizzes, teachers hold individual quizzes, the results of the scores are collected, averaged in groups, the difference in the base score of the individual with the score of the quiz result (development score) with calculations like table 1.1. Phase 7: Group awards, based on developmental scores obtained by members, on average, the results are adjusted to the predicate of the team (see Table 1.2). Phase 8: Evaluation conducted by the teacher.
Table 1.1 Calculation of Development Scores
No. | Test Score | Development Value |
|---|
1 | More than 10 points below the initial score | 5 |
2 | Ten to 1 point below the initial score. | 10 |
3 | Scores up to 10 points above it | 20 |
4 | More than 20 points above the initial score | 30 |
Table 1.2 Scores and Team Awards of STAD Type
No. | Test Score | Development Value |
|---|
1 | 15 - 19 | Good team |
2 | 20 - 24 | Great team |
3 | 25 - 30 | Super team |
STAD model has advantages, including: 1) In STAD model, knowledge is obtained by students by building their own knowledge through interaction with other students. 2) Can increase the acquisition of academic learning outcomes and student social skills. 3) Through interaction with group members, students have the opportunity to express their opinions/ gain knowledge from the results of discussions with group members. 4) With group learning, it is expected to improve the ability to solve problems, in this case the subject matter, with the help of friends / peer tutors. 5) By holding a student worksheet, it is hoped that it can motivate students to try better, both for themselves and for their groups, so that collaboration between students is expected to be well established.
Group Investigation (GI) model is based on John Dewey's idea of education, that class is a mirror of society and serves as a laboratory to learn about life in the real world that aims to examine social and interpersonal problems. Furthermore, investigative group learning was developed by Sharan in 1992. The investigation group learning model requires students to play an active role along with group members to find out the concepts of the lesson delivered by the teacher, and the teacher in this learning model only acts as a facilitator. Teacher learning should direct, help students find information, and act as a source of learning, which is able to create a social environment characterized by a democratic environment and scientific processes.
The steps of the GI model are stated by Yatim (2009) as follows: a) Present the problem / question based on the results of the observation; b) Cooperative group activities to answer problems (further observations or experiments); c) Report the results of group activities in the form of products or presentations; d) Group awards.
Interest
Regarding the interest in learning, Slameto in Graha Cendekia (2009) states that interest is the tendency of the soul to keep paying attention and remembering some activities or activities. According to this opinion that someone who is interested in an activity then he will pay attention to something that is consistent with pleasure. Because interest is related to one's soul, in this case students, then interest is related to the element of affective (emotion). The next link will affect the personality, so that finally interest contains elements of recognition (cognitive), affective (emotions) and the ability (conative) to achieve an object.
In addition, interest is closely related to needs. Interest arising from the needs of children will be a driving factor for children in carrying out their business. So, it can be seen that interest is very important in education, because it is the source of effort. Diah Nugraheni (2007) states that children do not need to get encouragement from the outside, if the work they do is interesting enough.
According to Gie in Graha Cendekia (2009), interest means being busy, interested, or fully visible with an activity because it realizes the importance of the activity. From this understanding it appears that interest in learning is the full involvement of a student with all the activities of the mind in full attention to gain knowledge and achieve an understanding of the scientific knowledge demanded at school.
Great interest influence on learning activities. Students who are interested in natural science will study natural sciences in earnest such as diligent study, feel happy following the presentation of natural science lessons, and can even find difficulties in learning to solve practice questions and practicum because of the attraction obtained by studying natural science. Students will easily memorize lessons that interest them. Interest is closely related to motivation. Motivation arises because there is a need, so is interest, so it is right if interest is a motivational tool. The learning process will run smoothly if accompanied by interest. Therefore, teachers need to arouse students' interest so that the lessons provided are easy for students to understand.
Slameto in Graha Cendekia (2009) also states that mental conditions are very much needed in the learning process. That means that interest as a psychological aspect gives birth to its own attraction to pay attention to a particular object. Based on the results of psychological research shows that a lack of interest in learning can result in a lack of interest in a particular field, and can even give birth to an attitude of rejection to the teacher.
From the description above shows that interest is an important factor in relation to the implementation of studies because: 1) Interest in giving birth to immediate attention. 2) Interest in facilitating concentration. 3) Interest in preventing outside interference. 4) Interest in strengthening the inherent learning material in memory. 5) Interest in minimizing the boredom of learning in yourself.
An interest can be expressed through a statement that shows that students prefer something more than anything else, it can also be manifested through participation in an activity. Students who have an interest in certain subjects tend to give greater attention to the subject.
Given interest as an important aspect of learning, the teacher should measure this interest in learning. Some reasons why a teacher needs to take measurements of children's interests include the following: a) To increase children's interest. b) To maintain new interests arising. c) To prevent interest in things that are not good. d) As a preparation to provide guidance to the child about further study / work that is suitable for him.
Factors that influence students' interest in learning according to Abdullah in Graha Cendekia (2009) are classified into two major groups, namely external factors (factors that originate from outside the student) and internal factors (factors that originate within students). Among these factors are: a) Factors from within students; b) Curriculum Factors; c) Teaching Method Factors; d) Teacher Factors; e) Facilities and Infrastructure Factors
Natural science is related to how to find out about nature systematically, so that natural science is not only mastery of a collection of knowledge in the form of facts, concepts, or principles but also is a process of discovery. Natural science education is expected to be a vehicle for students to learn about themselves and their surroundings, as well as the prospects for further development in applying them in their daily lives. The learning process emphasizes providing direct experience to develop competencies in order to explore and understand the natural environment scientifically. Natural science education is directed towards inquiry and action so that it can help students to gain a deeper understanding of the environment.
Natural science learning should be carried out in scientific inquiry (scientific inquiry) to foster the ability to think, work and be scientific and communicate it as an important aspect of life skills. Therefore learning natural sciences in junior high schools emphasizes the provision of direct learning experiences through the use and development of process skills and scientific attitudes.
Referring to the problems and the theoretical foundation described above, the hypotheses proposed in this study are: 1) There are differences in the learning outcomes of natural science students taught by the Student Team Achievement Division model and the investigation group model. 2) There are differences in the results of learning natural science students who have a high interest in learning and who have low interest in learning. 3) There is an interaction between the Student Team Achievement Division model, the Investigation Group model, and the interest in learning to the results of natural science learning.
Research Methods
This research is an experimental quantitative study with post-test experimental design. This study seeks to reveal a causal relationship. The design of this study was a factorial 2 x 2 experimental research design in the Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) model, investigation group model and interest in learning.
In this experimental study, independent variables were manipulated to be tested for their influence on the dependent variable. The independent variables in this study are learning models that are differentiated into: (a) STAD model and (b) group investigation model. In addition, there are moderator variables in the form of student learning interest. This moderator variable is divided into two, namely high learning interest and low learning interest. This moderator variable will also be seen to influence the dependent variable. The dependent variable is in the form of student learning outcomes.
Learning outcomes are the results obtained from the whole measurement activity or value as a result of changes in the individual after going through the learning process.
The subjects of this study were 8th grade students from two junior high schools in Sidoarjo District. Total population of 504 students. From the population randomly taken as sample 144 students.
To collect data, first students are grouped into two groups of students who will be taught using the STAD model and students who will be taught using an investigative group model. After learning is complete, a test is carried out to find out the learning outcomes. The number of items in question is 11 short description items. After testing, to obtain data on learning interest, students are given an interest questionnaire consisting of 30 items with details as follows.
Tabel 1.4 Indicator of measurement of interest in learning interest
No. | Condition | Question of Interest |
Positive Question Number | Positive Question Number |
1 | Attention | 1, 15, 21, 24, 29 | 4, 10, 26 |
2 | Relevance | 2, 5, 13, 20, 22, 23, 28 | 8, 25 |
3 | Confidence | 3, 6, 11, 27, 30 | 9, 17 |
4 | Satisfaction | 7, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, |
|
The following is example of questionnaire.
QUESTIONNAIRE INTEREST FOR LEARNING
Student's name: | Date and time : |
Class / Semester: |
|
Instructions
This questionnaire consists of 30 statements. Carefully consider each statement in relation to the learning material that you just learned, and determine the truth. Give an answer that really matches your choice.
Your answers should not be influenced by answers to other statements. Thanks.
Description Options:
1. = strongly disagree
2. = disagree
3. = doubt
4. = agree
5. = strongly agree
No | Question | Choice of Answers |
|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|
3 | I am sure that I will succeed in this learning. |
|
|
|
|
|
4 | This learning is less interesting to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
5 | The teacher makes this subject matter important |
|
|
|
|
|
6 | I need to be lucky to get good grades in this learning |
|
|
|
|
|
7 | I have to work very hard to succeed in this learning. |
|
|
|
|
|
To analyze data using two-way Anava or two-factor Anava. Ferguson in Sudjana (1990) states the requirements for using inferential statistics in testing research hypotheses, need to pay attention to the distribution of data and the distribution of these data must meet normality. So before the data is analyzed, it is necessary to first test the normality and homogenity. The normality test uses the Kolmogorov Smirnov test and homogeneity test using the Levene test with SPSS.
After the data is known to be normally distributed and homogeneous, then next to test the hypothesis the researcher uses inferential statistical analysis in this case the analysis of two-way variance. To calculate F count, the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) program was used.
Research Results and discussion
The normality test of the distribution of scores was carried out on the variable results of learning science using the Kolmogorov Smirnov Test. The results of the calculation of the distribution normality test for variable scores are reported in the following table.
Table 1.6. The results of the calculation of variable score distribution normality test
Asymp.sig value. in the calculation, the results for the symp.sig obtained from the learning outcomes using the STAD model was 0.140 and for learning outcomes using the group investigation learning model was 0.056. Both asymp.sig values greater than 0.05 indicate that the data obtained is normally distributed.
Another requirement that is required in the use of F and ANOVA test techniques is the homogeneity requirement, namely whether the residual score of the dependent variable for each independent variable score is homogeneous. Through this homogeneity test, it can be seen that the similarity of variance scores of the dependent variables based on each variation of the scores of certain independent variables. The results of the homogeneity test are shown in Table 4.2 below:
Table 1.7 Summary of Homogeneity Tests
The results of the homogeneity test calculation obtained a value of 0.149. This value is greater than 0.05. This shows that the variants in this study are homogeneous.
Test the Hypothesis. The results of the F count can be considered in the following table.
Table 1.8 Dependent Variables Results of learning Natural Sciences
Testing the First Hypothesis. The first hypothesis states that there are differences in learning outcomes in knowledge of students of class VIII State Junior High School who are taught by the STAD model and GI model. From the calculation results obtained F count = 6.252 while the price of F table dF1 = 1 and dF 2 = 143 is 3.91, meaning F test > F table. The level of significance in this analysis is 0.014, this is smaller than the significant level of 0.05. Thus, H1 is accepted, while H0 is rejected, which means there is a significant difference in learning outcomes of knowledge of class VIII State Junior High School in Sidoarjo which are taught by STAD model and GI model.
Testing the second hypothesis.The second hypothesis states that there are differences in learning outcomes of knowledge of class VIII students of State Junior High School in Sidoarjo District who have high interest in learning and who have low interest in learning. The results of the calculation of the F count for interest in learning are 223,400, while the F table dF1 = 1 and dF2 = 143 is 3.91. Thus, Fcount> Ftable. For a significant level a value of 0,000 is obtained; this value is smaller than 0.05. Thus, H1 is accepted, while H0 is rejected, which means there is a significant difference in the learning outcomes of knowledge of class VIII State Junior High School in Sidoarjo which offer high learning and those who have low interest in learning.
The calculation results obtained F value calculated for the learning method is 4.460 F table dF1 = 1, dF2 = 143 is 3.91, while the significant level is 0.036 <0.05, this means Ha = accepted, Ho is rejected. The hypothesis reads "There is an interaction between the STAD model, GI model and interest in learning towards science learning outcomes of class VIII State Junior High School in Sidoarjo District".
Discussion
From the test results, the first hypothesis shows that there are differences in the learning outcomes of natural science students taught with the STAD model and group investigation models. This is in line with the theory put forward by Slavin (1995) that the STAD model emphasizes the existence of activities and interactions between students to motivate each other and help each other in mastering subject matter in order to achieve maximum achievement. While GI model learning, which was initiated by John Dewey, is also called the type of Investigation Group abbreviated as KI (Yatim, 2009) considers that the class is a mirror of society and serves as a laboratory for learning about life in the real world that aims to examine social and interpersonal problems . Maybe because the problems discussed in class are not a social problem, it is not appropriate to use the GI model. This means that it is more appropriate to use the STAD model.
The test results on the second hypothesis indicate that there are differences in the learning outcomes of natural science from students who have a high interest in learning and who have low interest in learning. Slameto in Graha Cendekia (2009) states that interest is a fixed tendency of the soul to pay attention to and remember some activities or activities. Great interest influence on learning activities. Students who are interested in a lesson, such as natural sciences, will study natural sciences in earnest such as diligent study, feel happy following the presentation of natural science lessons, and can even find difficulties in learning to complete practice questions and practicum because of the attractiveness gained by studying natural science.
The results of the test for the third hypothesis state that there is an interaction between the STAD model, the GI model and the interest in learning about the results of natural science learning. Interest is influenced by several factors, and in principle the factors that influence learning are the same as the factors that influence interest, because interest is part of learning itself. One of them is the learning model or method used in the class. The learning process requires the right learning method or model.
This research is very important to add to the results of the study of the application of learning STAD models and GI models. This is important so that in determining the learning model a teacher is not wrong in choosing which impact reduces students' interest in learning and ultimately the learning outcomes are not optimal.
Conclusion
Based on the results of the F count, the conclusions obtained are: 1) there are significant differences in the results of natural science learning students taught using the STAD model and the GI model; 2) there are significant differences in student learning outcomes with high learning interest and low learning interest; 3) there are interactions between learning interest factors and learning models in this study.
From the results of this study it can be suggested to natural science teachers that the STAD model be used as an innovative step in learning Natural Sciences, which is tailored to existing competencies. In learning natural sciences, it should also pay attention to affective aspects, such as the learning interest of students in order to obtain better learning outcomes.
To other researchers, it is advisable to conduct research development on the STAD model and the GI model for other competencies in natural science or other subjects; examine other learning models that are predicted to improve student learning outcomes.
School leaders are advised to always use the reference results of research to provide input to teachers to make learning innovations in order to improve the quality of education.
Suggestion to other researchers, to develop research on the STAD model and GI model for other competencies in Natural Sciences or other subjects. In addition, other learning models need to be studied which are predicted to improve student learning outcomes.
REFERENCES
Almeda, R., Sahyar, and Motlan. (2017). Efek Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Group Investigation Berbantuan Phet dan Kemampuan Kerjasama Terhadap Pengetahuan Konseptual Siswa. Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika p-ISSN 2252-732X e-ISSN 2301-7651 Vol. 6 No.2 Desember 2017. Retrieved from http://jurnal.unimed.ac.id/2012/index.php//jpf/article/view/7657/pdf
Bogdan, R. C. dan Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative Research for Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Chotimah, N. and Rukmini, D. (2017). The Effectiveness Of Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) and Group Investigation (GI) Techniques to Teach Reading Comprehension to Students with High and Low Motivation. EEJ 7 (1) (2017). Retrieved from https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/eej/article/view/14685
Dinas Pendidikan Nasional Indonesia. (2005). Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 14 Tahun 2005 Tentang Guru Dan Dosen. Jakarta: Dinas Pendidikan Nasional.
Ferina, F. (2015). STAD As A Strategy of Teaching Reading Comprehension in Junior High School. JEELS, Volume 2, Number 1, May 2015. Retrieved from https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/91113-EN-stad-as-a-strategy-of-teaching-reading-c.pdf
Gie, T. L. (2007). Pengantar Filsafat Ilmu. Cetakan Ketujuh. Yogyakarta: Liberty.
Hamzah B. U. (2008). Perencanaan Pembelajaran. Cetakan Keempat. Jakarta: PT Bumi Aksara.
Isjoni. (2009). Cooperative Learning. Cetakan 2. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Karyono, A. H. (2009). Penelitian Tindakan Kelas Teori dan Praktik. Malang: Surya Pena Gemilang.
Muhammad Ishtiaq, M., Ali, Z., and Salem, M. (2015). The Effects of Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD) on Motivation of Saudi EFL Adult Learners. International Journal of Language Education and Applied Linguistics (IJLEAL). Copyright © Penerbit Universiti Malaysia Pahang ISSN: 2289-7208 print, 2289-9294 online 03 (2015) 11-24. Retrieved from http://journal.ump.edu.my/ijleal/article/view/471/87
Mulyasa, E. (2008). Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan. Cetakan Kelima. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya.
Novianti, I. (2013). Experimentation Cooperative Learning Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) Type Viewed From Learning Motivation. Asian Journal of Education and e-Learning (ISSN: 2321 – 2454) Volume 01– Issue 05, December 2013 Asian Online Journals (www.ajouronline.com) 272. Retrieved from https://ajouronline.com/index.php/AJEEL/article/view/656/351
Nugraheni, D. (2007). Dengan Menggunakan Pendekatan Kontekstual (Contextual Teaching And Learning) Pada Pokok Bahasan Cahaya Siswa Kelas V Semester Ii Sekolah Dasar Negeri Kedungmundu 01 Semarang Tahun Pelajaran 2006/2007, diambil dari http://digilib.unnes.ac.id/gsdl/collect/skripsi/archives/HASH0140/c5131c87.dir/doc.pdf
Nurkancana, W & Sumartana. (1986). Evaluasi Pendidikan. Surabaya: Usaha Nasional.
Oemar Hamalik. (2008). Kurikulum dan Pembelajaran. Cetakan ketujuh. Jakarta: PT Bumi Aksara.
Parinduri, S. H., Sirait, M., and Sani, R. A. (2017). The Effect of Cooperative Learning Model Type Group Investigation for Student's Conceptual Knowledge and Science Process Skills. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME) e-ISSN: 2320–7388,p-ISSN: 2320–737X Volume 7, Issue 4 Ver. III (Jul - Aug 2017), PP 49-54. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320538684_The_Effect_of_Cooperative_Learning_Model_Type_Group_Investigation_for_Student's_Conceptual_Knowledge_and_Science_Process_Skills
Rajagukguk, N., Bukit, N., and Turnip, B. M. (2017). Effect of Cooperative Learning Model Type Group Investigation with Animation, Motivation on Students’ Conceptual Knowledge Junior High School. Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) Vol.8, No.21, 2017 42. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a8c4/8e602669f8e92470f9d148769b2d34d779dc.pdf
Riyanto, Y. (2006). Pengembangan Kurikulum dan Seputar Kurikulum tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (KTSP). Surabaya: Unesa University Press.
Riyanto, Y. (2008). Metodologi Penelitian Pendidikan Kulaitatif dan Kuantitatif. Cetakan kedua. Surabaya: UNESA University Press.
Riyanto, Y. (2008). Paradigma Baru Pembelajaran. Cetakan pertama. Surabaya: Perdana Media.
Saefudin, S. (2008). Inovasi Pendidikan. Cetakan Ke-1. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Santoso, S. (2007). Soal-Jawab Statistik dengan SPSS dan Excel. Jakarta: Eelx Media Komputindo.
Slavin, R. E. (1987). Cooperative learning in student teams: What research says to the teacher.Washington, D.C.: National Education Association.
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Sudjana, N. (1989). Cara Belajar Siswa Aktif dalam Proses Belajar Mengajar. Bandung: Sinar Baru Algensindo.
Sugiyono. (2008). Statistika Untuk Penelitian. Cetakan Ketiga belas. Bandung: CV Alfabeta.
Sukmadinata, N. S. (2008). Metode Penelitian Pendidikan, Cetakan Keempat, Bandung, PT Remaja Rosdakarya.
Sunardi, H. dan Pramesti, W. (2008). Statistika, Cet. 1, Surabaya, University Press Adi Buana Surabaya.
Surapranata, S. (2005). Panduan Penulisan Tes Tertulis Implementasi Kurikulum 2004, Bandung, PT Remaja Rosdakarya.
Wiryokusumo, I. dan Ansori, S. (2009). Pengantar Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Surabaya, Unesa University Press.
Yamin, M. (2008). Paradigma Pendidikan Konstruktivistik, Cetakan Pertama, Jakarta, Gaung Persada Press.
