The Effectiveness of STAD in Improving Students

Study Case The Effectiveness of STAD in Improving Students' Understanding of Chemical Element Concepts in Secondary Schools Michael Kurniawan (2018123456) University of Cincinnati, 2600 Clifton Ave, Cincinnati, OH 45221, United States kurniaml@mail.uc.edu Abstract This study aims to determine the improvement in chemistry learning outcomes through the application of the Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD) cooperative learning model. The research subjects were 12th grade students majoring in Science at Cincinnati High School in the 2017/2018 academic year. The research objects included student learning activities and chemistry learning outcomes. Activity data were collected using observation sheets, while learning outcomes were obtained through academic achievement tests. The data were analyzed using qualitative descriptive methods. The results showed that (1) the application of the STAD cooperative learning model improved chemistry learning outcomes from cycle I to cycle II and encouraged increased student participation in learning activities; (2) the classical learning completeness rate in cycle I was 76.47% with a class average score of 78.32, increasing to 91.18% with an average of 86.41 in cycle II; and (3) the level of student learning activity increased from 65.45% in cycle I to 81.82% in cycle II. Based on these results, it can be concluded that the application of the STAD model is effective in improving student learning outcomes and activities, thus accepting the hypothesis of this action research. Keywords: learning outcomes, learning activities, STAD. INTRODUCTION According to the U.S. Department of Education (2016), the learning process in secondary schools must be designed and implemented in a flexible and varied manner MICHAEL KURNIAWAN 1 Study Case that meets national learning standards. The learning process should be interactive, inspiring, enjoyable, and challenging in order to motivate students to participate actively. Learning should also provide space for students' creativity and independence in accordance with their talents, interests, and cognitive and psychological development. In the context of science education in secondary schools, learning should not only focus on mastering scientific concepts and principles, but also on developing scientific thinking skills through observation and experimentation. Science is viewed as a process of discovery (scientific inquiry) and not merely a collection of theories. Thus, science education is expected to help students understand natural phenomena and apply them in everyday life [1]. Chemistry, as a branch of science, has unique characteristics because it involves observation, experimentation, and theoretical modeling. Chemistry seeks to answer questions about the composition, structure, properties, and changes of substances. Therefore, chemistry learning in secondary schools must emphasize a balance between chemistry as a product of knowledge (facts, concepts, laws, theories) and chemistry as a scientific process. Thus, the assessment of chemistry learning outcomes must take both aspects into account [2]. STAD TYPE COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL According to Robert Slavin from Johns Hopkins University [3], there are several cooperative learning models, one of which is Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD). This model is one of the simplest and most effective forms of cooperative learning to improve student academic achievement. STAD is used to teach new concepts through the presentation of information both verbally and in writing. Table 1. Stages of the STAD Learning Model MICHAEL KURNIAWAN 2 Study Case LEARNING ACTIVITIES AND STUDENT MOTIVATION Learning activities include all forms of student engagement, both physical and mental, during the learning process. According to the National Training Laboratories [4], students are considered active if they show enthusiasm, interact with teachers and classmates, work together in groups, and participate in discussions and drawing conclusions. Student activities play an important role because active involvement helps them understand abstract concepts more concretely. Therefore, the selection of learning methods must consider strategies that can encourage student participation and collaboration [5]. INITIAL CONDITIONS AND PROBLEMS Based on initial observations at Cincinnati High School, it was found that the average student score in chemistry was still low, namely 60.05 for the material on elements and 60.55 for the first semester exam of the 2017/2018 academic year. Only about 40% of students achieved the minimum passing score (≥ 60.0). This result is still far below the learning completeness standard set at 78.00. Analysis shows that the low learning outcomes are due to low student motivation and learning activities. Only about 5% of students appear ready to actively participate in learning. Most students tend to be passive, rarely ask questions, and participate less in discussions. The teaching model used previously, which consisted of lectures, limited demonstrations, and conventional discussions, proved unable to attract students' interest. In addition, limited time and laboratory equipment meant that experiments were rarely conducted. As a result, students had difficulty understanding abstract and theoretical chemistry concepts. MICHAEL KURNIAWAN 3 Study Case METHOD The research was conducted at Cincinnati High School from October 2017 to December 2017. The research subjects were 32 students (12 male and 20 female) in the 12th grade majoring in Science in the first semester of the 2017/2018 academic year. This research was in the form of classroom action research consisting of two cycles, in accordance with the provision that there must be at least two cycles of activities (see [1]). Each cycle included planning, preparation of actions, monitoring/observation, and reflection. The action plan for Cycle I was based on the initial problem identification to determine whether the learning obstacles arose from student conditions or teaching factors. The planning for Cycle II was based on the results of the reflection from the implementation of Cycle I. Data collection included quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data were obtained through formative tests/achievement tests, while qualitative data were collected through observation sheets of student activities. Data analysis was carried out by looking at the results of observations and evaluations, then comparing them with the predetermined success indicators. In the reflection stage, several questions are used as measures of success, including: whether the learning process has been carried out in accordance with the methodology (e.g., questioning techniques, motivation, classroom management), whether the objectives and basic competencies have been achieved, what the quantitative results are (learning completeness compared to the 78.00 criterion), and what the students' responses/feedback are to the learning process. The results of this reflection form the basis for the preparation of an action plan for the next cycle. The criteria for the success of the research are set if there is an increase in learning activities and outcomes in each cycle and > 80% of students obtain a score of ≥ 78 in both cognitive and affective aspects. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Implementation of Cycle I The actions in Cycle I were carried out in 3 meetings starting on October 2, 2017. The implementation of learning referred to the prepared Lesson Plan. During the process, students were given exercises to be done individually or in groups, and student activities were observed by the researcher (acting as an observer-teacher). At the end of MICHAEL KURNIAWAN 4 Study Case Cycle I, a final test was conducted to measure student learning achievement. Table 2. Student Learning Outcomes Data for Cycle I Based on the table above, the average class score in Cycle I was 78.32 with a classical mastery level of 76.47%, showing an improvement from the initial condition (initial average = 60.05) but still not meeting the target mastery level of ≥ 78.00 classically (>80%). Table 3. Student Learning Activity Data for Cycle I MICHAEL KURNIAWAN 5 Study Case Table 3 shows that student engagement in Cycle I was still relatively low (65.45% activity). However, the implementation of STAD raised the average class score from the initial condition of 60.05 to 78.32 in Cycle I, indicating an increase in understanding even though the classical target had not been achieved. The affective observation analysis (assessment of student attitudes/responses) in Cycle I showed that 35.30% of students gave a very good response, 52.94% gave a good response (assessed as affectively complete), and 11.76% showed an adequate response (declared incomplete). Several obstacles that arose in Cycle I included: lack of variety and intensity of demonstrations/experiments due to time and material limitations, the presence of students who still depended on more capable group members, and the speed of material delivery, which may have been too fast, resulting in some students not fully understanding the concepts. Improvements for Cycle II Based on reflections at the end of Cycle I, the researcher made improvements, particularly in the frequency of practice questions and the arrangement of group interactions so that discussions were more focused and each member had a clear role. Cycle II was conducted on November 13 and November 20, 2017 (2 core meetings, ending with a final test on November 20, 2017). Implementation of Cycle II The learning principle in Cycle II still referred to the STAD model but with more emphasis on repeated practice and supervision of the discussion process by the teacher (researcher) who circulated around the classroom to help groups if they encountered obstacles. MICHAEL KURNIAWAN 6 Study Case Table 4. Student Learning Outcomes Data for Cycle II In Cycle II, the average score increased to 86.38 and the classical mastery level reached 91.18%, thus meeting the success target (>80% of students ≥ 78). Table 5. Student Learning Activity Data for Cycle II MICHAEL KURNIAWAN 7 Study Case Student activity in Cycle II increased to 81.82%, exceeding the minimum engagement target. Improvements in each student's role in the group and a higher frequency of practice questions contributed to increased collaboration, courage to ask questions, and the ability to present discussion results in front of the class. Figure 1. Diagram of Student Learning Outcome Improvement Figure 2. Diagram of Student Affective Score Improvement A comprehensive analysis shows that the application of the STAD method—which emphasizes structured group interaction, individual responsibility, and repeated practice questions—helps students experience the learning process directly so that their understanding of concepts becomes more profound and lasting. The experience of solving problems in groups and then presenting the results improves students' communication skills and learning independence. MICHAEL KURNIAWAN 8 Study Case CONCLUSION Based on the results of the classroom action research that has been carried out, it can be concluded that: 1. The application of the Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD) method in learning chemical elements effectively improves student learning outcomes from Cycle I to 2. Cycle II. The class average score increased from 78.32 (Cycle I) to 86.38 (Cycle II), while the classical mastery increased from 76.47% to 91.18%. 3. Student learning activities/participation also increased significantly from 65.45% (Cycle I) to 81.82% (Cycle II). 4. With the fulfillment of the success indicators (completion rate and activity > 80% in Cycle II), the action hypothesis that STAD can improve chemistry learning activities and outcomes was accepted. REFERENCE MICHAEL KURNIAWAN 9 Study Case MICHAEL KURNIAWAN 10