Melola Discovery

← Melola Discovery

Journal

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) · pp. 261–267

DOI
10.15294/jpe.v10i3.34900
ISSN
2502-4515, 2252-6404
Published
2019-10-17
Publisher
Universitas Negeri Semarang
Language
eng

Abstract

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.

Collaboration network of the authors

40 authors · 132 co-authorship links · 1 across different organisations · showing the 40 most connected

Hover or tap a name to highlight its co-authors. Double-click to open the author's page.

  • State University of Semarang
  • Universitas Mega Buana Palopo
  • Tarumanagara University
  • Affiliation unknown
  • Different organisations
  • Same organisation
  • Affiliation unknown
  • Thicker line = more joint articles · bigger circle = more articles
Show as table
Co-authorOrganisationJoint articles
Rusdarti RusdartiAffiliation unknown5
Yudi SiswantoAffiliation unknown4
Joko SutartoAffiliation unknown4
Tri Joko RaharjoAffiliation unknown4
Eva BanowatiAffiliation unknown3
Titi PrihatinAffiliation unknown3
Dewi Liesnoor SetyowatiState University of Semarang3
Amin YusufAffiliation unknown3
Farid AhmadiAffiliation unknown3
Abdul MalikUniversitas Mega Buana Palopo2
Bagus KisworoAffiliation unknown2
Fakhruddin FakhruddinAffiliation unknown2
Yuli Kurniawati Sugiyo PranotoAffiliation unknown2
Wasino WasinoTarumanagara University2
Thriwaty ArsalAffiliation unknown2
Sri WardaniAffiliation unknown2
Sri Sularti Dewanti HandayaniAffiliation unknown2
Yuli Kurniawati Sugiyo PranotoAffiliation unknown2
Utsman UtsmanAffiliation unknown2
Erni SuhariniAffiliation unknown2
Diva Pramesti PutriAffiliation unknown1
Safira Arbella Aurell UrrofikAffiliation unknown1
Fadia Talia Salsabila HerviAffiliation unknown1
Muarifuddin MuarifuddinAffiliation unknown1
Nanda Artyasta Dwi PangestikaAffiliation unknown1
Denta Septian PamungkasAffiliation unknown1
Siti RahmawatiAffiliation unknown1
Bambang SubaliAffiliation unknown1
Harianingsih HarianingsihAffiliation unknown1
Tri Joko RaharjoAffiliation unknown1
Lintang Markhamah Watianur AzizahAffiliation unknown1
Ella ElistianiAffiliation unknown1
Itsnaini Iflachatun AzkiyaAffiliation unknown1
Ganeza Adien MarcellaAffiliation unknown1
Dwi Anna HastutiAffiliation unknown1
marlia devi roihanahAffiliation unknown1
Abdul RohmadAffiliation unknown1

Affiliations come from OpenAlex; journal OAI-PMH metadata carries none. Authors without an OpenAlex ID are matched by name, which can merge or split people.

Metadata source: OAI-PMH (metadata jurnal) https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/jpe/oai, first harvested 6 Nov 2026, last seen 6 Nov 2026.
Original metadata (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>