Melola Discovery

← Melola Discovery

Jurnal

Jigsaw Learning VS Student Team Achievement Divisions (STAD): Which One is Better in Improving Learning Outcomes

Journal of Primary Education · Vol. 8 No. 9 (2019) · hlm. 261–267

DOI
10.15294/jpe.v10i3.34900
ISSN
2502-4515, 2252-6404
Terbit
2019-10-17
Penerbit
Universitas Negeri Semarang
Bahasa
eng

Abstrak

Social study is an essential subject for intellectual, emotional, cultural and social development for students, namely being able to develop responsible ways of thinking, behaving and behaving as individuals and citizens. The average cognitive results of students from the four schools based on midterm exam (UTS) I scores only 35.4% of students completed, while the rest were failed.The purpose of this study was to determine the differences oflearning outcomes between the Jigsaw learning model and Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) in the cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains. This comparative experimental study uses a pre-test–post-test comparations group design. The data collection tool uses test instruments and non-tests with quantitative data analysis techniques. The cognitive domains of students were measured using test instruments, including pre-test and post-test questions, while to measure affective, and psychomotor were measured using non-test instruments in the form of student observation sheets. The results of this study show that there is no difference increase in cognitive learning outcomes of students taught using Jigsaw and STAD learning models, but there are differences for affective and psychomotor domains. The Jigsaw learning model is more effective in improving social studies learning outcomes compared to that of the learning model (STAD). The highest score of Jigsaw in the cognitive domain is 84.17, and the affective domain is 64.17, but the lowest score of Jigsaw in the psychomotor domain is 63.09. The advantages of STAD in the psychomotor domain is 81.40, but in the affective domain is 59.58, based on learning outcomes in social studies students.

Jaringan kolaborasi para penulis

40 penulis · 133 tautan kepenulisan bersama · 1 lintas organisasi · menampilkan 40 yang paling banyak terhubung

Arahkan kursor atau ketuk sebuah nama untuk menyorot rekan penulisnya. Klik dua kali untuk membuka halaman penulis.

  • State University of Semarang
  • Universitas Mega Buana Palopo
  • Tarumanagara University
  • Afiliasi tidak diketahui
  • Organisasi berbeda
  • Organisasi sama
  • Afiliasi tidak diketahui
  • Garis lebih tebal = lebih banyak artikel bersama · lingkaran lebih besar = lebih banyak artikel
Tampilkan sebagai tabel
Rekan penulisOrganisasiArtikel bersama
Rusdarti RusdartiAfiliasi tidak diketahui5
Yudi SiswantoAfiliasi tidak diketahui4
Joko SutartoAfiliasi tidak diketahui4
Tri Joko RaharjoAfiliasi tidak diketahui4
Eva BanowatiAfiliasi tidak diketahui3
Titi PrihatinAfiliasi tidak diketahui3
Dewi Liesnoor SetyowatiState University of Semarang3
Amin YusufAfiliasi tidak diketahui3
Farid AhmadiAfiliasi tidak diketahui3
Abdul MalikUniversitas Mega Buana Palopo2
Bagus KisworoAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Fakhruddin FakhruddinAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Yuli Kurniawati Sugiyo PranotoAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Wasino WasinoTarumanagara University2
Thriwaty ArsalAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Sri WardaniState University of Semarang2
Sri Sularti Dewanti HandayaniAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Yuli Kurniawati Sugiyo PranotoAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Utsman UtsmanAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Erni SuhariniAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Diva Pramesti PutriAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Safira Arbella Aurell UrrofikAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Fadia Talia Salsabila HerviAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Muarifuddin MuarifuddinAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Nanda Artyasta Dwi PangestikaAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Denta Septian PamungkasAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Siti RahmawatiAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Bambang SubaliAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Harianingsih HarianingsihAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Tri Joko RaharjoAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Lintang Markhamah Watianur AzizahAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Ella ElistianiAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Itsnaini Iflachatun AzkiyaAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Ganeza Adien MarcellaAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Dwi Anna HastutiAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
marlia devi roihanahAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Abdul RohmadAfiliasi tidak diketahui1

Afiliasi berasal dari OpenAlex; metadata OAI-PMH jurnal tidak memuatnya. Penulis tanpa ID OpenAlex dicocokkan berdasarkan nama, sehingga dua orang bisa tergabung atau satu orang bisa terpisah.

Sumber metadata: OAI-PMH (metadata jurnal) https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/jpe/oai, pertama di-harvest 6 Nov 2026, terakhir terlihat 6 Nov 2026.
Metadata asli (oai_dc)
<oai_dc:dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/  http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
	<dc:title xml:lang="en-US">Jigsaw Learning VS Student Team Achievement Divisions (STAD): Which One is Better in Improving Learning Outcomes</dc:title>
	<dc:creator>Fatihannisa, Fadhilah</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator>Suhandini, Purwadi</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator>Suminar, Tri</dc:creator>
	<dc:description xml:lang="en-US">Social study is an essential subject for intellectual, emotional, cultural and social development for students, namely being able to develop responsible ways of thinking, behaving and behaving as individuals and citizens. The average cognitive results of students from the four schools based on midterm exam (UTS) I scores only 35.4% of students completed, while the rest were failed.The purpose of this study was to determine the differences oflearning outcomes between the Jigsaw learning model and Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) in the cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains. This comparative experimental study uses a pre-test–post-test comparations group design. The data collection tool uses test instruments and non-tests with quantitative data analysis techniques. The cognitive domains of students were measured using test instruments, including pre-test and post-test questions, while to measure affective, and psychomotor were measured using non-test instruments in the form of student observation sheets. The results of this study show that there is no difference increase in cognitive learning outcomes of students taught using Jigsaw and STAD learning models, but there are differences for affective and psychomotor domains. The Jigsaw learning model is more effective in improving social studies learning outcomes compared to that of the learning model (STAD). The highest score of Jigsaw in the cognitive domain is 84.17, and the affective domain is 64.17, but the lowest score of Jigsaw in the psychomotor domain is 63.09. The advantages of STAD in the psychomotor domain is 81.40, but in the affective domain is 59.58, based on learning outcomes in social studies students.</dc:description>
	<dc:publisher xml:lang="en-US">Universitas Negeri Semarang</dc:publisher>
	<dc:date>2019-10-17</dc:date>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion</dc:type>
	<dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
	<dc:identifier>https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/jpe/article/view/34900</dc:identifier>
	<dc:identifier>10.15294/jpe.v10i3.34900</dc:identifier>
	<dc:source xml:lang="en-US">Journal of Primary Education; Vol 8 No 9 (2019): November 2019; 261-267</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2502-4515</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2252-6404</dc:source>
	<dc:source>10.15294/jpe.v10i3</dc:source>
	<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
	<dc:relation>https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/jpe/article/view/34900/14433</dc:relation>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en-US">Copyright (c) 2019 Journal of Primary Education</dc:rights>
</oai_dc:dc>