cooperative learning application in english language
TRANSCRIPT
COOPERATIVE LEARNING APPLICATION IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE
LEARNING: A META-ANALYSIS
(A Statistical Synthesis of Students’ Theses in English Education Department of
UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta at 2015-2019 Period)
By:
KRISMA NURMAYA
111601400000030
ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES FACULTY
UIN SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH JAKARTA
2020
i
COOPERATIVE LEARNING APPLICATION IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE
LEARNING: A META-ANALYSIS
(A Statistical Synthesis of Students’ Theses in English Education Department of
UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta at 2015-2019 Period)
SKRIPSI
Submitted to the Educational Sciences Faculty in a Partial Fulfillment of the
Bachelor Degree (S.Pd.) Requirements in English Education Department
Submitted by:
KRISMA NURMAYA
111601400000030
Approved by
Advisor I Advisor II
Dr. Ratna Sari Dewi, M.Pd. Zaharil An’asy, S.Ag., M. Hum.
NIP.19720501 199903 2 013 NIP. 19761007 200710 1 002
ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES FACULTY
UIN SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH JAKARTA
2020
ii
iii
iv
ABSTRACT
Krisma Nurmaya, 11160140000030. Cooperative Learning in English
Language Learning: A Meta-Analysis (A Statistical Synthesis of Students’
Theses in English Education Department of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta
at 2015-2019 Period). Skripsi, English Education Department, Educational
Sciences Faculty, UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
Advisor I : Dr. Ratna Sari Dewi, M. Pd.
Advisor II : Zaharil An‟asy, S. Ag, M. Hum.
Keywords: meta-analysis, Cooperative Learning, English language learning,
English skills
The purpose of this research is to analyze the effect-size of Cooperative Learning
application in English language learning. This research's methodology was a
meta-analysis, a statistical synthesis of previous studies based on a certain theme
which the primary focus and goal strive to integrate empirical research to create
generalizations. The analyzed sample was 21 theses of English Education
Department students published in 2015-2019 at Institutional Repository UIN
Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta. These theses were conducted in Junior and Senior
High Schools by experimental research design with Cooperative Learning as the
independent variable, while English skills are the dependent variable. Based on
the analysis of effect sizes, it was found that the average of effect size was 1.2 and
was categorized as a big effect score. The findings also showed that Cooperative
Learning has a big effect size score based on school levels, English skills, and
applied method types. However, this result is only based on the including sample,
the theses in English Education Department of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta at
2015-2019 period.
v
ABSTRAK
Krisma Nurmaya, 11160140000030. Cooperative Learning in English
Language Learning: A Meta-Analysis (A Statistical Synthesis of Students’
Theses in English Education Department of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta
at 2015-2019 Period). Skripsi, Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Fakultas Ilmu
Tarbiyah dan Keguruan, UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
Pembimbing I : Dr. Ratna Sari Dewi, M. Pd.
Pembimbing II : Zaharil An‟asy, S. Ag, M. Hum.
Kata kunci: meta-analysis, Cooperative Learning, English language learning,
English skills
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis besarnya pengaruh Penerapan
Pembelajaran Kooperatif dalam pembelajaran bahasa Inggris. Metodologi
penelitian ini adalah meta-analisis, sintesis dari penelitian-penelitian sebelumnya
berdasarkan satu tema tertentu yang fokus utamanya adalah untuk
mengitegrasikan data empiris untuk membuat generalisasi. Sampel yang dianalisis
adalah 21 skripsi mahasiswa Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris yang diterbitkan
tahun 2015-2019 di Institutional Repository UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
Semua penilitian skripsi dilakukan di SMP dan SMA dengan desain penelitian
eksperimental dengan pembelajaran kooperatif sebagai variabel bebas, sedangkan
keterampilan bahasa Inggris sebagai variabel terikat. Berdasarkan analisis effect-
size didapatkan rata-rata effect-size sebesar 1.2 dan dikategorikan sebagai efek
besar. Hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa pembelajaran kooperatif
memiliki Effect-size yang besar berdasarkan tingkatan sekolah, kemampuan
bahasa Inggris, dan jenis metode yang diterapkan. Bagaimanapun, hasil ini hanya
berdasarkan pada sampel yang diambil, yakni skripsi di Jurusan Pendidikan
Bahasa Inggris, UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta pada tahun 2015-2019.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Praises be to Allah subhanahu wata’ala. Because of His mercy and
blessings, the researcher can finish this study. Peace and salutation may always be
upon beloved prophet Muhammad, his family, companions, and all his adherents.
Because of him, the researcher never gives up on her life and her dreams. He is
the light and the inspiration of her life.
In this opportunity, the researcher especially wants to thank all involved
people who helped her complete this research. The first and ever, the researcher
would like to say endlessly thank and timelessly love to her precious parents,
Ayahanda Oteng Ruhimat and Ibunda Wiwi Witarsih. Thank you for always
loving her, encouraging her, praying for her, and never give up on her. These
pages will not get enough for her to write reasons why she put you first upon
everything, after her God and the prophet.
The great honor and attitude are addressed to her advisors, Dr. Ratna Sari
Dewi, M. Pd. and Zaharil An‟asyi, S. Ag, M. Hum, who directly guide the
researcher to conduct and finish this research. Because of their advice, cares, and
guidance, the researcher can fully arrange this skripsi. The researcher also would
like to send her gratitude sincerely to:
1. Dr, Sururin, M. Ag., the Dean of Educational Sciences Faculty UIN
Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta
2. Head of English Education Department, Didin Nuruddin Hidayat, M.
A., Ph. D
3. All the English Education Department lectures who have taught and
educated the researcher beneficial knowledge and useful skills.
4. Sisters Ulis Yulistia, Santi Rosanti, and Brother Furqan Nurhakim,
also all family members who always being her motivation.
5. Friends who always stand for her in sadness and happiness, friends
who always try to listen, care, and understand her, Zahrotul Firdaus,
Sri Fajriyanti, Mei Oktora, Dede Laila Wardah, and Luthfi Hikmawati.
vii
A bunch of thanks and loves for all of you who know almost
everything about her along this four-year.
6. Alpha Squad, who was coloring her days in class and together fighting
in process, you all mean so much for her.
7. Friends, Senior, and Alumnus of FRESH, LDK Syahid, especially six
members of KMB Writing, PSC, Jurnalis Kampus, Rumah Tahfiz Alif,
who has made her grow in the phases and thrive in the life.
8. Azuright members, Khairunnisa Fitri, Putri Indah Oktavia, and
Ibrahim, who more than partners, special thanks for the three of you,
for every memory she‟ll never forget.
9. Any other people who cannot be mentioned one by one, for all of the
contributions, the researcher tirelessly would like to thank all of you.
Jakarta, October 2020
Krisma Nurmaya
viii
TABLE OF CONTENT
APPROVAL SHEET ............................................................................................. i
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................... iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................... vi
TABLE OF CONTENT ..................................................................................... viii
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ x
LIST OF PICTURES ........................................................................................... xi
LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER I ........................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
A. Background of the Study .......................................................................... 1
B. Identification of the Problems .................................................................. 4
C. Limitation of the Problem ........................................................................ 5
D. Research Questions .................................................................................. 5
E. Objective of the Study .................................................................................. 5
F. Significance of the Study ............................................................................. 6
CHAPTER II ......................................................................................................... 7
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...................................................................... 7
A. English Language Learning ...................................................................... 7
1. Language Learning ................................................................................... 7
2. Foreign Language Learning ..................................................................... 8
B. Cooperative Learning ............................................................................... 9
1. Cooperative Learning Concept ................................................................. 9
2. The Principles of Cooperative Learning................................................. 11
3. Types of Cooperative Learning .............................................................. 12
4. The Application of Cooperative Learning .............................................. 13
C. Meta-Analysis Concept .......................................................................... 17
1. Definition of Meta-Analysis ...................................................................... 17
2. Procedures of Meta-Analysis ................................................................. 18
ix
3. Advantages and Disadvantages .............................................................. 19
D. Previous Studies ..................................................................................... 19
E. Conceptual Framework .............................................................................. 23
CHAPTER III ..................................................................................................... 24
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...................................................................... 24
A. Research Method and Design ................................................................. 24
B. Population and Sample ........................................................................... 24
D. Data Collection Technique ..................................................................... 25
E. The Technique of Data Analysis ................................................................ 27
CHAPTER IV ...................................................................................................... 29
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................ 29
A. Data Description ..................................................................................... 29
B. Discussion .............................................................................................. 37
C. Deficiency of the Research ..................................................................... 41
CHAPTER V ....................................................................................................... 43
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION .............................................................. 43
A. Conclusion .............................................................................................. 43
B. Suggestion .............................................................................................. 44
REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 45
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................... 50
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.2 Data of Analysis Unit-Group ................................................................ 29
Table 4.3 Effect-Size of Grouping Data Accumulatively ..................................... 31
Table 4.4 Effect-Size of Grouping Data Based on School Level ......................... 32
Table 4.5 Effect-Size of Grouping Data Based on English Skill .......................... 34
Table 4.6 Effect-Size of Grouping Data Based on Methods of Cooperative
Learning ................................................................................................................ 35
xi
LIST OF PICTURES
Picture 4. 1 Effect-Size of Grouping Data Based on School Level ...................... 33
Picture 4. 2 Effect-Size of Grouping Data Based on English Skill ....................... 34
Picture 4. 3 Effect-Size of Grouping Data Based on Cooperative Learning
Methods ................................................................................................................. 36
xii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Coding Data of Sample .................................................................... 50
Appendix 2 Cooperative Learning Theses in Institutional Repository UIN Syarif
Hidayatullah Jakarta .............................................................................................. 66
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study
Today curriculum, or much known as K-13, aims to prepare Indonesian
people as individuals and citizens who have good characters and social skills so
that they can contribute to community, nation, state, and world civilization life
(Permendikbud No. 69:2013). In other words, the learning process should be
sufficiently able to fulfill students' requirements to have good characters and
better social skills. It could also mean that the lesson, the teachers, and the
strategy have to be ensured that those aspects will appropriate to achieve the
curriculum purpose.
The lessons taught in schools are various, and each of them has an
important role in building up both students‟ characters and social skills. An
English lesson that is mastering English itself is a skill to enrich social skills. This
international language that most Indonesian students use as a foreign language
cannot be mastered easily. Mitchell et al. (2013) stated that language has
traditionally been considered by linguists as a complex communication system.
Generally, English has four main skills: each of them has an important role
in comprehending the language. Those skills are listening, speaking, reading, and
writing. More than that, there are other parts of the language that involves each
other, such as vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar. According to Yusri et al.
(2017), English also has a different culture that makes it more complex to be
learned by the foreign language learner. So, learning a foreign language also
needs a cultural understanding.
The challenges come not only from the language itself but also from the
students who are not all of them interested in learning English. Every student is
individually unique. Mohammed (2018) stated that they have their own ability and
capacity based on which skill they enjoy in their learning process. For instance,
some of them may good at reading but not at speaking, and on the contrary.
2
Consequently, stakeholders lead many ways to make English learning
successful for students. There are many constituents to enforce the education
system, such as the curriculum that has been revised and adjusted several times.
Concurrently, this transformation of curriculum affects other elements of
education, mainly the method of teaching. The development of teaching
methodology also helps the teaching-learning process to be successful.
In the twentieth century, many teachers and applied linguists investigate
for better method concept in teaching (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). So now, many
methods and approaches have been discussed to be applied for a better result in
students‟ learning. Likewise, the methods and approaches in language teaching,
modification, and development have excessively been made if we look back the
history thoroughly.
Recently, Cooperative Learning, which is a part of the instructional
approach, gains much attention from researchers. Much research shows that
Cooperative Learning gave a better result rather than competitive and
individualistic learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1991; Slavin, 1995; Kagan, 1999; in
Zhang, 2010). Yavuz and Arslan (2018) also stated that this learning model assists
students in establishing their learning process by the contribution of other
participants, so then the learning becomes more effective because the learner
actively involves in the learning period.
There is an ample of studies about Cooperative Learning in language
teaching that have been conducted, whether national or international publishing.
These studies were conducted by experts, and also by students teacher that
pursuing a degree in education. Plentiful theses have been published in the
institutional repository of a university. In exemplification of it, there are a lot of
theses of students teachers related to Cooperative Learning that have been
published in Institutional Repository UIN Jakarta.
Nonetheless, no research and study integrate the results of the research to
review and re-examine the thesis based on one theme. A research that is
conducted based on these available data can bring out a new hypothesis. This
hypothesis can reinforce and integrate the previous research based on the related
3
variable. In the framework of this research design, there is a systematic method
called Meta-Analysis.
Normand (1999) defined Meta-Analysis as an integration process to get an
evidence synthesis from the result of many studies (Basu, 2017). Meanwhile,
Kadir (2017) used Meta-Analysis as an alternative analysis design to discover the
intensity of learning instruction intervention that concern to enhance mathematical
thinking skills. Qin et al. (1995) stated that meta-analysis is designed to
summarize a set of related studies to know the effect of the independent variable
on the dependent variable. Accordingly, meta-analysis can be used to measure the
effect-size and sum up many results of relevant studies.
Johnson et al. (1981) reviewed 122 studies about the effectiveness of
cooperation and gained 286 findings. They found three results points, that a)
cooperative works are highly more effective rather than interpersonal competition
and individualistic efforts, b) likewise cooperation with intergroup competition,
and c) the distinction between interpersonal competition and individualistic efforts
is not really significant.
Johnson et al. (2000) conducted another meta-analysis with other
researchers in Cooperative Learning research that affected achievement in
academics. This research was purposed to examine the dissemination of
Cooperative Learning in many subjects, through school degrees, in lots of
instructional and learning aspects, traditional or non-traditional situations of
learning, and even after-school and non-school educational programs. Yet, there is
no comprehensive review in all of those related research.
The researchers investigated of which methods from Cooperative Learning
that will be most effective for educators or teachers. The result of this meta-
analysis showed that Cooperative Learning with Learning Together (LT) as the
method had the biggest impact rather than competitive learning and individualistic
learning. Afterward, LT is followed by other methods.
In language teaching and learning, there are many previous studies using
meta-analysis to review certain methods or approaches based on one theme. Stahl
and Fairbanks (2016) focused on the effect of vocabulary instruction on children‟s
4
comprehension of text and on finding which instruction that has the greatest
effect. Fifty-two studies were investigated. The result showed mnemonic keyword
method had a dependable effect on definition remembrance and sentence
comprehension.
The previous and recent meta-analysis in Cooperative Learning is
conducted by Cole (2018), but this study is in a wider range. It is peer-mediated
learning in which Cooperative Learning, Collaborative Learning, and Peer-
Tutoring are included in it. The participants are also more varied, including ages
between 3 and 18, ELLs and also ESL and EFL learners, and from various
language backgrounds. One of the results shows that peer-mediated learning is
effective in promoting many outcomes of learning.
Extensively CLL has been researched, but still lack in the second language
classroom (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Also, there is no previous study that
integrates research about Cooperative Learning methods in English as Foreign
Language (EFL) learners. Meanwhile, there is a lot of research about CLL that
have been conducted by students of the English Education Department, and
definitely in Indonesian students that use English as a foreign language.
Based on the explanation above, the researcher feels much interest in
conducting meta-analysis research about Cooperative Learning in language
teaching and learning. Specifically, it will be conducted by measuring the effect-
size, finding the average of it, and reviewing all the related theses of English
Education Department students in the 2015-2019 periods that are published in
Institutional Repository UIN Jakarta. This research is entitled “Cooperative
Learning Application in English Language Learning: A Meta-Analysis (A
Statistical Synthesis of Students‟ Theses in English Education Department of UIN
Jakarta at 2015-2019 Period)”
B. Identification of the Problems
Based on the background of the study, the problems in this research have
been identified in several aspects. Teaching English as a foreign language in
Indonesia has many challenges. The first challenge came from the language itself
5
and followed by the other factors from the education system. So then researchers
and educators, basically all the stakeholders, try to find the best way for students
to learn English.
Recently, there are many research about approaches and methods that can
be applied in English learning. An approach that gets to be famous is the approach
that focuses on students rather than teachers, or it is also called a student-centered
learning model. One of the approaches that focus on students is Cooperative
Learning. Research in Cooperative Learning considerably disseminate in language
teaching, whether it is national or international publishing. As well, theses that are
written by student teacher gradually grow every year. But there is no
comprehensive review of all those research.
C. Limitation of the Problem
This research is focused on theses that have been written by students in the
English Education Department at 2015-2019 periods and were conducted in junior
or senior high school. The theses were published in Institutional Repository UIN
Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta. It was limited by the Cooperative Learning theme and
experimental design research only.
D. Research Questions
The research problem is formulated into the following questions:
1. How is the effect-size of Cooperative Learning in English language learning
accumulatively?
2. How is the effect-size of Cooperative Learning based on the school level?
3. How is the effect-size of Cooperative Learning based on English skills?
4. How is the effect-size of Cooperative Learning based on the type of methods?
E. Objective of the Study
The objective of the research is to analyze the effect-size of Cooperative
Learning application in English language learning, specifically in junior and
senior high school.
6
F. Significance of the Study
1. Theoretically
Theoretically, the significance of the research is expected to enrich the source
in Cooperative Learning research.
2. Practically
a. For the English Teachers, hopefully, this research will be useful to help them
determine appropriate alternative strategies to teach English.
b. For the other researchers, this research is expected that it will be developed
more in the next research.
7
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
A. English Language Learning
English is common to know that it has four main skills to comprehend the
language. Nunan (2015) distinguished “four skills” in learning a language by
receptive and productive skills. Receptive skills consist of listening and reading,
while productive skills consist of speaking and writing. While Richards and
Rodgers (2001) found that Cooperative Language Learning has been used in
teaching content classes, ESP, the main English skill ( reading, writing, listening,
and speaking), and also the individual skills (grammar, pronunciation, and
vocabulary). There are three other skills that are involved in learning English.
Although the skills seem to be separated, Littlewood (1981), in his book
about the communicative approach, stated that language is not only its structures
but also how it performs as communicative functions. Therefore, developing
communicative competence by a conversation in situations that are socially or
pedagogically structured is a central premise of Cooperative Language Learning
(Richard and Rogers, 2006). Besides, there are a lot of theories discussing
language, learning, and language learning.
1. Language Learning
Theories of learning from many psychologists and scientists had a big
impact on education, in the system, the teaching and learning activities, also the
teacher and learner‟s role. Likewise, psychologists such as Piaget, Vygotsky, and
Bruner have contributed their ideas and have given implications for language
learning. Piaget assumed the child as an active learner, while Vygotsky put his
central focus on social. For Bruner, he gave the further concept of formats and
routines for language learning (Cameron, 2005).
Piagetian psychology that puts a child as an active learner and thinker, who
can construct his or her own knowledge from working with objects or ideas, is
one of the implications of the theory. Piagetian thought that the world offers
8
opportunities for learning. There are also many implications of Vygotskyan theory
for language learning are contributed to second language learning, such as his
theory about language as internalization. Besides, Bruner said that the most
important tool for cognitive growth is language. The activities of scaffolding and
routines seem to be the center of his focus.
Behaviorist psychologist B.F. Skinner considered that young children could
be taught about language and all its essentials by the same mechanism. While
Linguist Noam Chomsky argued that language is too complex to be learned, he
doubted children could discover world classes from scratch (Mitchell et al., 2013).
All these learning and language learning theories have many impacts on the
second and foreign language learning process.
2. Foreign Language Learning
Learning a foreign language must have many challenges that will come not
only from the foreign language itself but also from interference with the first
language. In Indonesia, English is a foreign language that has different rules and
cultures from the Indonesian language. In today‟s world, for foreign language
educators, choosing suitable methods to enhance classroom efficiency have to be
discussed (Song, 2020).
Unal and Ilhan (2017), in their case study about foreign language teaching
and learning, considered the barriers to language learning are examination
systems, instructional programs, language teachers‟ qualifications, and learning
environments. Many scholars have done studies on second or foreign language
learning; some have agreed that in the language learning process, the environment
plays an important role, such as teacher management plans for classroom
management (Mohammed, 2018). Therefore, applying a method that able to create
a decent learning environment has to be considered gently.
There are lots of methods and strategies that have been applied and
researched to increase students‟ English skills as their foreign language. All the
old and new methods that are rooted in the masterpieces theories each have their
strengths and weakness. Meanwhile, there is evidence when peers engage in
9
interactions, cooperatively negotiate meaning, and shared understanding,
proficient literacy in a second language can be achieved (Adesope et al., 2011)
B. Cooperative Learning
1. Cooperative Learning Concept
Slavin (1980) said that in education, Cooperative Learning is an old idea. In
the 1920s, laboratory research about Cooperative Learning and its effects on many
variables such as performance was already ongoing (Maller, 1929, in Slavin,
1980). Richards and Rodgers (2001) appended that the antecedents of Cooperative
Learning are peer-tutoring and peer-monitoring from hundreds of years ago.
Hence, Cooperative Learning is not a new thing in the education sphere.
Previous research or old research in Cooperative Learning had several
controversies that were generalized into three, those are whether cooperation can
promote higher education rather than competition or instead, also rather than
individualistic efforts or instead, and the last is whether competition would be
necessary for cooperation or not (Johnson et al., 1981). But newer research that is
also conducted by Johnson stated that cooperative efforts which more effective
rather than competitive efforts already had been a general agreement (Qin et al.,
1995).
Recently, Cole (2018), in his meta-analysis research of Peer-Mediated
Learning that included Cooperative Learning in it, suggested that it was
insignificant for oral and written language outcomes but significant for attitudinal
outcomes. Meantime, many experimental research have proved that Cooperative
Learning is effective for students‟ language learning. Yavuz and Arslan (2018)
conducted experimental research in senior high school in Turkey and found that
Cooperative Learning had a greater effect rather than the traditional method on
vocabulary knowledge, grammar, listening, and reading skills.
Whilst there are some controversial results, the definition of Cooperative
Learning in this research seems will be a must. Many experts have defined what
Cooperative Learning is. Slavin (1980) referred to the term of Cooperative
Learning to classroom techniques in which students cooperate on learning
10
activities in small groups and get rewards upon the group‟s performance. Then,
Richards and Rodgers (2001) said it is an approach that maximizes the classroom
activities to be cooperative in pairs and small groups of students.
In this last decade, Zhang (2010) defined Cooperative Learning as a
systematic instructional method; students in small groups work together to share
their learning goals. Essentially, work together in small groups is always included
when Cooperative Learning is discussed. Thus, Cooperative Learning has many
techniques in which cooperation is the main core of its activity.
Activities in traditional teaching models promote teacher-centered and
competition, while Richards and Rodgers (2001) stated Cooperative Learning
environment is viewed as a learner-centered approach. Wherefore, the activities in
Cooperative Learning involve students to be more active in class. Further
discussion about the teacher and students‟ role will be discussed next.
In Cooperative Learning, there are many benefits of cooperation activities.
Besides improving students‟ social skills, it also can increase the cognitive skills
of students. The cognitive of individuals‟ development evolves when cooperation
between individual and adults, or individual and other kids happen (Yavuz &
Arslan, 2018). Cooperative Learning had positive effects on problem-solving
skills (Qin et al., 1995), academic achievement (Slavin, 1980; Johnson et al.,
2000), and other attitudinal aspects (Cole, 2018; Celik et al., 2013).
Zhang (2010) describes the benefits of Cooperative Learning as the
following:
a. Providing the chance of input and output means that students have
opportunities to comprehend input and output language. It makes Cooperative
language useful for oral practice and listening comprehension.
b. Creating an effective climate, the circumstances in the class of Cooperative
Learning can increase the self-confidence and self-esteem of students, so they
become motivated to reach larger academic success.
c. Increasing a variety of language functions, students can get opportunities to
involve in various types of communications.
11
d. Fostering learner responsibility and independence, because cooperative
work emphasizes individual accountability and responsibility
Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec (1994, in Richards & Rodgers, 2001)
obliged Cooperative Learning in this context have to increase students‟
achievement and construct a positive relationship among students. Cooperative
Learning also has to make students encounter their requirements for a healthy
relationship, psychological, and cognitive construction. The last, it sought to
replace the competitive organizational structure.
Characteristics in Cooperative Learning, some of them, are identically same
as communicative language teaching because they focus on interaction and
communication (Zhang, 2010). Meanwhile, Cooperative Learning in language
teaching has several goals (Richards & Rodgers, 2001):
a. To provide opportunities for naturalistic second language acquisition.
b. To help teachers reach this goal and apply it in various curriculum setting.
c. To sustain limelight to lexical items, language structures, and communicative
function.
d. To give opportunities for students to establish successful learning and
communication strategies.
e. To increase motivation and decrease the stress of students, also create a
positive effective classroom environment.
2. The Principles of Cooperative Learning
According to Johnson et al. (2008), there are five principles for
Cooperative Learning. Those are Positive Interdependence, Individual and Group
Accountability, Promotive Interaction, Interpersonal and Small Group Skills, and
Group Processing. Pablo and Vargas (2014) briefly described those five principles
as the following:
12
a. Positive Interdependence
Briefly, this concept refers to the idea that the students in a group have to
understand about what they have to do in activities that was given. They also
have to rely on each other when doing it.
b. Individual and Group Accountability
The groups in cooperative class must have a clear idea in what they are
going to reach individually and as a group. There are individual
responsibilities, as well as group or collective responsibilities. Every member
in a group has to know that their performance will be assessed by other
member in that group.
c. Promotive Interaction
Students have to know that their working is cooperative, not collaborative,
that is why each of them must know that they need to encourage and help each
other.
d. Interpersonal and Small Group Skills
What matter in this principle is that students have to learn social skills,
they need to know how to work with group, deal with diversity of opinion, and
negotiate with the members to make right decisions.
e. Group Processing.
The group processing needs the teacher‟s assessment at the end of the
Cooperative Learning activities. Allow the students to know how they did their
work, and what problems they had while working. So then, they will come up
with solutions to solve the problems and minimize the probability to redo it in
the future.
3. Types of Cooperative Learning
In one of the masterpieces book entitled “Learning to Cooperate,
Cooperating to Learn,” (Slavin et al., 1985) stated that Cooperative Learning
methods are structured, the instructional strategies systematically capable at every
level and in many subjects of school. Here are Cooperative Learning methods that
widely have researched and used: Student Team Learning (consist of Student
13
Team-Achievement Division, Teams Games-Tournament, and Jigsaw II), Jigsaw,
Learning Together, and Group-Investigation. Slavin et al. (1985) also included
TAI (Team Accelerated Instruction) and CIRC (Cooperative Integrated Reading
and Composition) to Student Team Learning.
Johnson et al. (1994, in Richards & Rodgers, 2001) mentioned three types
of Cooperative Learning that comprise formal Cooperative Learning groups,
informal Cooperative Learning groups, and cooperative-based groups. Then
Coelho explained three main kinds of Cooperative Learning tasks. Those are
Team Practice, Jigsaw, and Cooperative Project. While Olsen and Kagan
represented the examples of CLL activities, are Three-Step Interview, Roundtable,
Think-Pair-Share, Solve-Pair-Share, and Numbered Heads (Richards & Rodgers,
2001).
4. The Application of Cooperative Learning
In the application of Cooperative Learning, students involve more in their
learning. Richards & Rodgers (2001) explain the teacher and student roles. A
student is a director of their own learning, and the teacher is a facilitator. Students
control their own learning while the teacher facilitates them.
There are some techniques of Cooperative Learning that are mostly used in
English language learning. Cooperative Learning methods that widely have
researched and used: Student Team Learning (consist of Student Team-
Achievement Division, Teams Games-Tournament, and Jigsaw II), Jigsaw,
Learning Together, and Group-Investigation (Slavin et al., 1985).
In Student Team Learning, STAD is the simplest method, and TGT is
similar to STAD, but in the end, they play educational games (Slavin, 1991).
Meanwhile, Jigsaw II, that is meant here is the development of Jigsaw by Aronson
(1978) as one of the earliest Cooperative Learning methods (Slavin et al., 1985).
The learning stage in STAD requires students to discuss and work together
with their teammate (Rachmawati et al., 2019). In STAD, students are made up
usually less than four people per group (Jamaludin & Mokhtar, 2018). The group
should represent the entire class; there should be made up of various students‟
14
backgrounds. Team members study the material that was given by the teacher
each week, whether it a lecture or a discussion. The study is finished when all the
members surely understand the material. After that, each member fills out the
worksheet individually, but the scores are formed into team score by the teacher.
Steps in TGT are more likely the STAD. But to show their mastery of the
material, students play educational games. Such in Kamaruddin et al. (2019), the
member of a group has to answer provided questions related to their topic. Each
member of the opposing group also has to ask questions. If the challenger group
can‟t answer the questions from the opposing group, the second member can help.
If the challenger group can answer, they get the score. But if they still can‟t
answer it, the score is given to the opposing group. After the game ends, the
winner is rewarded.
Another method to implement student team learning is Jigsaw II. Jigsaw is
a kind of technique that has been applied in various areas, such as language
teaching, foreign language teaching, social sciences, and medical sciences. There
are six types of Jigsaw, along with the original one. Those are Jigsaw, Jigsaw II-
III-IV, reverse Jigsaw, and subject Jigsaw (Karacop, 2017). However, Jigsaw II
that is designed by Slavin et al. (1985), is purposed to integrate the original Jigsaw
with other Student Team Learning methods.
Learning Together (LT) method, as simple as the name, is applied for
students learning together in a group. For example, Zorlu and Sezek (2019)
applied the LT method in his research by grouping the students with the
determinant of Cooperative Learning. After that, every team learns together, and
the indicated group should present the topic. While in Group Investigation (GI),
Zorlu and Sezek (2019) applied this method almost the same as LT, but in the
end, two groups performed together. One group presents the topic, while the other
investigates the group which is presenting.
In his previous book, Slavin et al. (1985) included TAI and CIRC to
Student Team Learning. Team Accelerated Instruction (TAI) method combines
individualized instruction and team learning for mathematics classes in
elementary and middle school. While Cooperative Integrated Reading and
15
Composition (CIRC) is comprehensively programmed for teaching reading and
writing (Slavin, 1987 in Slavin, 1991)
In Richards and Rodgers (2001), there are three main kinds of Cooperative
Learning tasks that are explained by Coelho. Those are Team Practice, Jigsaw,
and Cooperative Project. Besides those, there are Cooperative Language Learning
(CLL) activities that are represented by Olsen and Kagan. Those are Three-Step
Interview, Roundtable, Think-Pair-Share, Solve-Pair-Share, and Numbered
Heads.
Team Practice is effective for classes with an unstable composition of the
groups, so everyday students can make a different group. The material that is used
in this technique same for all students. The practice test is worked together, but
students take the assignment test individually. Meanwhile, each group in the
Cooperative Projects technique topic may be different. It was selected by students,
and each member identifies the subtopic, and it was synthesized for presentation.
Cooperative Language Learning activities are mostly used in a language
class. Aristy et al. (2019)used the Three-Step Interview to enhance students
speaking ability. The procedures researcher used is based on Kagan 1994, where
students are formed into groups consisting of three members. Each member plays
a role as interviewer, interviewee, or note-taker, and then they turn to play. Each
of them sharing what they have learned in the interview.
The next is the Roundtable technique, a circular form of academic
discussion (Stenlev & Siemund, 2011). In this kind of technique, a copy of
questions is given to each student in groups. There will be a master sheet for
individual input responses. It should pass every member, so all of them get the
chance to respond or give an answer. After that, the answers are discussed. If the
answer is different from the first answer, students can write a group answer in the
group response section.
According to Sugiarto and Sumarsono (2014), Think-Pair-Share was
proposed firstly by Frank Lyman in 1981 and recently has been developed by
many researchers. Meanwhile, the steps are arranged by Kagan. There are five
steps used in TPS. Firstly, students are formed into pairs, teacher pose a topic or a
16
question, and then students get the time to think about the topic or the question,
after that they discuss their thinking with their pair, and the last, some students are
called to share the idea with the class.
In Solve-Pair-Share, students have to solve a given problem. Each of them
has to work individually to solve the problem. After that, they should explain the
way they solve the problem in Interview or Round Robin structures.
The last is Numbered Head Together. According to Lie (in Ratnawati et
al., 2018), it also had several steps. After grouping the students into four
members, each member gets a number from one to four. After that, the teacher can
pose a question or a problem. After all the group members understand the
question or the problem, the teacher can call a number, and the number called
should answer the question from the teacher for their team.
Olsen and Kagan (1992, in Richards & Rodgers, 2001) indicate five key
elements of successful group-based learning in applying Cooperative Learning:
a. Positive interdependence among students in a group occurs when they rely on
each other.
b. Group formation that will influence interdependence, such as group size,
member selection, and student roles.
c. Individual accountability involving performance as a group or as an individual.
d. Social skills have to be successful through explicit instruction.
e. Structuring and structures where the teacher should organize many ways to
make students interact with each other.
McGroarty (1989, in Richards & Rodgers, 2001) mentioned that there are
six advantages for English as Second Language (ESL) students when using CLL:
a. Through a different kind of interaction, second language practices become
more various and frequent.
b. Possibility for language establishment that promotes cognitive development
and enhanced language teaching.
c. Integrating language with content-based instruction has many opportunities to
be applied.
17
d. Including various curricular materials to stimulate language also has many
opportunities to be applied.
e. The teacher can freely master new professional skills,
f. Students have a more active role and can become resources for each other.
C. Meta-Analysis Concept
Based on history (Light RJ, 1971, in Gogtay & Thatte, 2017), they who
began and developed methods that are bound to massive data and then
quantitatively integrate them are scientists and statisticians in America. It became
popular since Gene Glass introduced this term in 1976 at the annual convention of
the American Education Research Association (Shelby & Vaske, 2008).
1. Definition of Meta-Analysis
The first definition was given by Gene Glass (Glass, 1976, in Gogtay &
Thatte, 2017), which meta-analysis is the statistical analysis of a massive
collection to integrate findings that are resulted from individual studies, and he
also called it an „analysis of analyses‟. Lyons (2003, in Kadir, 2017) suggested
meta-analysis as a set of statistical procedures that are designed to integrate and
correlate results of experimental research, in which independent studies are linked
to a set of research problems that are relative.
Shelby and Vaske (2008) also stated that Meta-Analysis is a quantitative
technique measured by specific measurements like effect-size, so the strength of
relationships in variables of included studies is indicated. In short, meta-analysis
is a statistical analysis, statistical procedures, or quantitative technique to integrate
many related studies.
The integrated studies are usually measured by a certain statistical method
called effect-size, used as the summary statistic to know the strength of the
relationship between variables. Shelby and Vaske (2008) stated that each variable
relationship of concern for each study could be calculated by effect-size. Even so,
they also argued that effect-size is not a requirement for research to be said as a
meta-analysis. It was only an example of a common statistic used (Shelby &
Vaske, 2008).
18
Sometimes, Meta-Analysis is confused by the „systematical review‟ term,
which is also had by traditional narrative review, because traditional narrative
review also combines all studies on a certain topic. It is also conducted by experts
in that field and combines many studies in a chronological discourse. This term is
often used interchangeably with research synthesis.
However, Meta-analysis is a synonym of research synthesis in which the
primary focus and goal strive to integrate empirical research to create
generalizations (Cooper et al., 2019). Therefore, the researcher uses the term
statistical synthesis to describe meta-analysis.
2. Procedures of Meta-Analysis
Basically, there is no single correct approach in conducting a meta-
analysis. However, there is always an organizational framework to conduct
research, especially meta-analysis. The steps are comparable to primary research
(Shelby & Vaske, 2008). Those steps are shortly explained below:
a. Problem Conceptualization and Operationalization
In the first step, the researcher conceptualizes the problem, operate the variables,
and then create the hypothesis. In a meta-analysis, the most important component
is planning for inclusion and exclusion. The researcher should consider some
factors such as sampling method, research methodology, time frames, publication
types, cultural/language differences of studies.
b. Data Collection and Processing
The second step is to identify article collection and organizing citation
information. In a meta-analysis, there are coding studies that analogous to survey
research. Type(s) of software used and the structure of meta-analytic files are
important decisions in the data collecting step.
c. Analysis
The third step is to compute the summary effect size. Three variables are
needed, a statistic of effect size, standard error of effect size, and the inverse
variance of the standard error. Each effect size of each study is measured for
sample size differences. Once the studies have been coded, the necessary
19
adjustment to the effect size statistics have been created, and the effect sizes can
be analyzed.
d. Reporting
The last step is to report the result. The researcher interprets the result based on
meta-analysis personal judgments, research understanding, and work purpose.
3. Advantages and Disadvantages
The advantages of Meta-analysis shorten into two (Shelby & Vaske, 2008).
First, this design provides evidence for or against the significance of practical
research. Through the use of summary statistics, it encourages researchers to
examine overall illustration and give confidence to repeatable results. Second, this
meta-analysis uses a rigorous methodology or quantitative research synthesis. It
will encourage researchers to get profound data, focus on the research hypothesis,
and identify moderator variables.
Besides, there are also the disadvantages of this research that some may argue
about this, most of it because of the potential error and bias in meta-analysis. The
critics have shown this design may be flawed. Borenstein (2017, in Gogtay &
Thatte, 2017) summarized and eloquently answered the critics. Here are the
critics, while the responses can be found out in the source article.
a. Each study is different from the other, so a single number cannot summarize
an entire research area.
b. There is publication bias, where negative results of studies are less like to be
published.
c. The quality of what to be put into meta-analysis will determine the findings.
d. Meta-analysis may show a completely different result than a large
Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT).
e. The researcher may amateurish and conduct the meta-analysis deficiently.
D. Previous Studies
The previous studies in a meta-analysis, specifically about the effectiveness
of Cooperative Learning, had been conducted by researchers (Johnson et al.,
1981; Johnson et al., 2000; Lou et al., 2001; Huddy, 2012; Kadir, 2017; Turgut &
20
Turgut, 2018; Cole, 2018). Many of it showed positive results, although some
may argue the use of Cooperative Learning for language skills.
Johnson et al. (1981) reviewed 122 studies of cooperative effects compared
to competitive and individualistic efforts in North American samples to support
achievement and productivity. They conducted meta-analysis research on all these
studies and gained 286 findings. Some of the studies included intergroup
competition when operating the cooperation, so then there are four conditions they
determined to analyze. Those conditions that were compared are cooperation,
cooperation with intergroup competition, interpersonal competition, and
individualistic effort.
After measuring by effect-size as statistical analysis, the result showed that
a) cooperative works are highly more effective rather than interpersonal
competition and individualistic efforts, b) likewise cooperation with intergroup
competition, and c) the distinction between interpersonal competition and
individualistic efforts is not really significant. Although competition is included
when operating the cooperative, it has no significant differences with cooperation
without competition.
Johnson et al. (2000) conducted another meta-analysis. This research
examined many studies related to the effect of Cooperative Learning on academic
achievement. Studies about Cooperative Learning in many subjects are included,
through school degrees, in lots of instructional and learning aspects, traditional or
non-traditional situations of learning, and even after-school and non-school
educational programs. The researchers investigated of which methods from
Cooperative Learning that will be most effective for educators or teachers.
The statistical analysis used in this research is also effect-size. There are 158
studies that meet the criteria included. All the studies were conducted since 1970
with 28 percent since 1990, and all related characteristics were presented in an
arranged table. The result of this meta-analysis showed that Cooperative Learning
with Learning Together (LT) as the method had the biggest impact rather than
competitive learning and individualistic learning. Afterward, LT is followed by
other methods.
21
Lou et al. (2001) conducted research entitled Small Group and Individual
Learning with Technology: A Meta-Analysis. This study has synthesized the
effects of social context. In this scope, a small group is used as specific
Cooperative Learning strategies to certify positive interdependence and individual
accountability. This small group that is combined with computer technology was
investigated if there is a significant result in enhancing students‟ achievement and
other outcomes.
From 122 included studies, 486 independent findings were found. Using
standardized residual procedures, the effect-sizes were extracted. Outlier analyses
were performed and from the studies. The result showed that small group learning
had positive effects on students‟ individual achievement. It is more significant
than individual learning.
Huddy (2012) reviewed Cooperative Learning studies in higher education
from a human communication perspective. After selecting more than 14-hundred
published articles, this meta-analysis included 19 published articles that
experimentally investigate the effectiveness of Cooperative Learning at college
and university level. This research found that there isn‟t a statistical difference
between the Cooperative Learning format and traditional lecture/discussion
format in learning outcomes of higher education. Still, he also concluded that
Cooperative learning provides socialization and related benefits. The last,
interpersonal benefit in classes involving speaking can promise this Cooperative
Learning format for public speaking class.
Recently, Kadir (2017) analyzed the effectiveness of learning intervention in
mathematical learning. This meta-analysis research purposed to discover the
intensity of learning instruction intervention that concerns enhancing
mathematical thinking skills. Aspects of mathematical thinking skills are
connection ability, communication, representation, problem-solving, logical,
critical, creative, analytical, generalization, quantitative, and adaptive thinking.
The population of this research is 200 theses of all mathematic education students
in the class of 2006-2012, in Faculty of Sciences UIN Jakarta. The result showed
a positive effect on improving the student‟s mathematical thinking ability.
22
Another research in the mathematic field, Turgut and Turgut (2018), also
conducted meta-analysis research. He analyzed the effect of Cooperative Learning
on mathematic achievement. By calculating 59 effect size values from 47 studies,
he found a positive result in the effectiveness of Cooperative Learning for
mathematic students.
The most recent meta-analysis in Cooperative Learning is conducted by
Cole (2018), but this study is in a wider range. It is peer-mediated learning in
which Cooperative Learning, Collaborative Learning, and Peer-Tutoring are
included in it. The participants are also various, including ages between 3 and 18,
ELLs and ESL and EFL learners, and various language backgrounds.
The results showed that peer-mediated learning effectively promotes many
learning outcomes, but for oral and written language outcomes, the construct was
insignificant as a predictor. However, it was significant for attitudinal outcomes.
23
Based on
E. Conceptual Framework
This meta-analysis is conducted to measure the result of previous research
about Cooperative Learning Methods. Quantitatively, it is measured by effect-size
formulas. Therefore, the average and variant score or deviation standard is known.
From the collected data, the result is interpreted. The interpretation based on each
research question is answered.
There is no systematic
review to analyze the
effectiveness of the
research
Previous research about
Cooperative Learning
Methods in English
Language Learning
Data Coding Data Filtering
Measuring Effect Sizes
Calculating the Average of Effect
Sizes
Interpreting the Results
Conducting Meta-Analysis Research
School Level
English Skill
Cooperative
Learning
Methods
24
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A. Research Method and Design
The research design that the researcher used is Meta-Analysis. This research
method summarizes the results of previous research that has one theme and also
under certain criteria. This research used books and journals as the primary
source. The statistical procedure used in this research is effect-size to know the
strength of the relationship between variables.
B. Population and Sample
This research's population is theses that have been written by students
English Education Department UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta. Sample in this
meta-analysis research is the theses that meet five criteria, 1) written by students
in English Education Department of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, 2)
published in Institutional Repository UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, 3) the
research of the theses is conducted between 2015-2019, 4) the research is
conducted in senior and junior high school in Indonesia, and 5) the subject of the
research is Cooperative Learning application in English learning with
experimental design.
C. Research Instrument
The Instrument that is used in this meta-analysis research is documents that
consist of 21 theses with Cooperative Learning. Those theses are used as the unit
of analysis for this meta-analysis research. Research design of the theses that will
be analyzed by the researcher is quasi-experimental design that was conducted in
Junior and Senior High school at English Lesson from 2015 to 2019 period.
25
D. Data Collection Technique
The data is collected by following the steps that are comparable to primary
research (Shelby & Vaske, 2008). Those steps are explained below:
1. Problem Conceptualization and Operationalization
Conceptualization of a research problem comes from ideas that may be
captured from personal experience, from pressing practical issues, reading
scholarly research, or sometimes from a researcher wishes to test a theory (Cooper
et al., 2019). Likewise, the researcher tried to find the best variable to be analyzed
from many things. After experiencing teaching an English course in a school and
reading many references about meta-analysis, the researcher creates some plans
and conceptualizes her concern into a research problem. Besides, she also learned
how to operate the research.
The researcher focused on quantitative frequency to integrate evidence of
studies about the effectiveness of Cooperative Learning. Robert Rosenthal (1991)
calls it aggregate analysis. So then, the researcher proposed one main research
problem to find the aggregate effect size from many analyzed studies with the
Cooperative Learning theme.
Considering statistical procedures is also one of the operational processes in
this research. There are fixed- and random-effects procedures as the effect-size
parameter. To determine statistical procedure should be the nature of the inference
desired, such as the analyst wishes to make inferences only about the effect size
parameters in the set of studies. Hedges called this as a conditional inference
(Cooper et al., 2019).
In this case, fixed-procedures were used. This procedure is used when the
data are assumed to have a homogeneity population. Hedges (2019) stated that
fixed-procedures have to be used when all studies estimate a common effect size
parameter (Cooper et al., 2019). It is also used when the meta-analysis integrates
studies with similar variables. Such as this research that focus on Cooperative
Learning methods and English skills as the variable.
26
2. Data Collection and Processing
In this digital age, finding literature and various studies are quite easy.
However, there are several kinds of literature that have not been published
formally, limited distribution, and not available via a conventional channel.
Cooper et al. (2019) define these kinds of literature as “Grey Literature”. It
represents various document types produced on all level s of government,
academic, business, and industry protected by intellectual and property rights in
print and electronic format, of sufficient quality to be collected and preserved by
libraries and institutional repositories.
The inclusion of grey literature in Meta-analyses is controversial
(Bellefontaine & Lee, 2014). Meanwhile, McAuley et al. (2000) suggested that
the exclusion of grey literature in a meta-analysis may overestimate an
intervention effect. Therefore, to decide the inclusion data when conducting meta-
analyses, research must seek advice from experts or peer-review.
In this research, the data are selected from Institutional Repository UIN
Syarif Hidayatulah Jakarta by computer. From research published in the English
Education Department repository, the researcher searches the theses written by
students with a range of years from 2015 to 2019. Then, the researcher chooses
the theses that meet the determined criteria.
3. Analysis
The variables from inclusion data can give many analysis opportunities. It
can be coded and divided into those representing study results in the form of
effect size (Cooper et al., 2019). Here, the theses that have been collected are
classified by the dependent variable that is affected by English skills. It is also
classified by the grade of whether the research is conducted in junior or senior
high school. Because Cooperative Learning has many methods, it is also classified
by kind of methods.
The studies are coded and analyzed by effect size formulas as statistical
procedures. Statistic of effect size and standard error of effect size is also
calculated.
27
4. Reporting
The last, results are reported. The researcher interpreted the effect of size
results. Describing effect size, using commonly-reported standard effect-size, for
example, by Cohen‟s d is preferable if the scale is likely to be understood (Cooper
et al., 2019).
E. The Technique of Data Analysis
The data analysis technique in this research uses the effect-size formula by
Glass et al. (1981 in Kadir et al., 2013). It is described as the following:
= effect size
= mean of the experimental group
= mean of the control group
= standard deviation of the control group
For experimental research using the one-way ANOVA analysis technique,
the effect size formula is described below:
Meanwhile, for experimental research using the two-way ANOVA
analysis technique, the effect size formula is described below:
x
28
This formula is applied in every group of research subjects based on the
school‟s level, English skill, and Cooperative Learning types. Hereinafter, to
know the effect-size average of Cooperative Learning in English language
learning accumulatively, the mean of effect sizes (interval score) is counted by the
following formula.
= mean of Effect Size
= Standard Deviation from Effect size
= Z score ( =0.05)
= total of research subject
For interpretation of the result, Cohen (1998, in Kadir, 2017:175)
proposed three effect size criteria:
Small effect : 0.01 Ƞ2 0.06
Moderate effect : 0.06 Ƞ2 0.14
Big effect : Ƞ2 0.14
29
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
A. Data Description
There are 31 theses about Cooperative Learning in the English Education
Department that is published in the Institutional Repository of UIN Jakarta and
framed by issue date 2015-2019. However, there are only 21 studies that meet the
criteria. The other ten of the theses are not in experimental design or non-school
research, or even the theses are not completely uploaded in the repository, and it
caused some error that make the theses could not be found. After all the 21 theses
were coded, 63 sub-units of analyses were found. The data is described in table
4.1.
Table 4.1 Data of Analysis Unit-Group
Group of
Analysis Unit of Analysis
Quantity
of
Analysis
Units
School
Level
Junior High School 16
Senior High School 5
English Skill
Reading 14
Speaking 4
Writing 1
Vocabulary 1
Grammar 1
Methods of
Cooperative
Learning
Jigsaw 11
TPS (Think-Pair-Share) 3
CIRC (Cooperative Integrated Reading and
Composition)
2
NHT (Numbered Head Together) 1
30
Group of
Analysis Unit of Analysis
Quantity
of
Analysis
Units
Methods of
Cooperative
Learning
Round Table 1
STAD (Student Team Achievement Division) 1
TGT (Team Games Tournament) 1
TSI (Three-Step Interview) 1
Total Analysis Unit 63
Based on the table above, we can find that the research that is conducted in
junior high school is more than senior high school. There are 16 theses conducted
in junior high school, and in senior high school is only five. The area of English
skill that is reached is also only found in five skills, and those are reading,
speaking, writing, vocabulary, and grammar. The most analyzed skill is reading
and followed by the rest.
Meanwhile, the various methods of Cooperative Learning consist of eight
methods. The most used is Jigsaw; 11 theses use Jigsaw in their experimental
research for the Cooperative Learning method. It is followed by three theses of
TPS (Think-Pair-Share), two of CIRC (Cooperative Integrated Reading and
Composition). Meanwhile, these last methods are only used once. There are NHT
(Numbered Head Together), Round Table, STAD (Student Team Achievement
Division), and TSI (Three-Step Interview).
1. Data Result of Effect-Size Accumulatively
Analysis result of the theses is attached in the appendixes, and the Effect-
Size of every thesis is counted. After that, it formed into groups based on the
scores. By following Cohen's criteria, there will be three effect size scores; big
effect, moderate effect, and small effect. In this result, the data is presented in
table 4.2.
31
Table 4.2 Effect-Size of Grouping Data Accumulatively
N
O
Thesis
Code
Sub-Unit Effect-
Size
Score
Notes School
Level
English
Skill
Method of
Cooperative
Learning
1 A14 Junior Reading Think Pair Share 4.19
Big Effect
2 A12 Senior Reading
Cooperative
Integrated Reading
and Composition
3.13
3 A6 Junior Speaking Think Pair Share 2.40
4 A21 Junior Reading Jigsaw 1.74
5 A3 Junior Vocabulary Jigsaw 1.65
6 A16 Junior Grammar Jigsaw 1.59
7 A18 Junior Speaking Jigsaw 1.39
8 A5 Junior Reading Jigsaw 1.34
9 A4 Senior Speaking
Student Team
Achievement
Division
1.3
10 A2 Senior Writing Roundtable 0.92
11 A7 Junior Reading Jigsaw 0.898
12 A20 Junior Reading Think Pair Share 0.82
13 A1 Junior Reading Jigsaw 0.73
14 A13 Junior Reading Teams-Games-
Tournament 0.47
15 18 Senior Reading Jigsaw 0.465
16 A10 Junior Speaking Three-Step
Interview 0.46
17 A19 Junior Reading Numbered Heads
Together 0.43
18 A11 Senior Reading Jigsaw 0.42
32
N
O
Thesis
Code
Sub-Unit Effect-
Size
Score
Notes School
Level
English
Skill
Method of
Cooperative
Learning
19 A17 Junior Reading Jigsaw 0.38 Big Effect
20 A9 Junior Reading Jigsaw 0.37
21 A15 Junior Reading
Cooperative
Integrated Reading
And Composition
0.21
Average of Effect-Sizes Accumulatively 1.2 Big Effect
The accumulative result shows that the Effect-Sizes average in
Cooperative Learning experimental research from 21 theses reaches 1.2 and
calculated as a big effect. This result gives a clear description that Cooperative
Learning accumulatively has a great effect on English Language Learning. All the
theses showed a positive result that makes the average of effect-size also positive.
2. Data Result of Effect-Size based on School Level
Theses that were written by students of the English Education Department
focus on English courses in junior and senior high school. So then, the research
constricts the limitation of the research that the theses should be conducted in
junior or senior high school. The score of Effect-Sizes that is grouped based on
the school level is presented in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3 Effect-Size of Grouping Data Based on School Level
School Level
Statistic
n Average of
Effect-Size
SD
Junior High School 16 1,19 1,01
Senior High School 5 1,25 0,99
Mean 1,22 1,01
33
Table 4.3 shows that the average effect size based on the school grade is
quite big, 1.22, with the standard deviation score of 1.00. From the calculated
data, the average effect size in senior high school is higher. Even, the standard
deviation in senior high school is more consistent than in junior high school. The
visualization of the effect size‟s average based on the school grade is presented in
picture 4.1
Picture 4. 1 Effect-Size of Grouping Data Based on School Level
From picture 4.1, it can be seen that the differences between both grades
of schools are not really significant. Both mostly reach the same amount. So based
on the sample the researcher got, it was found that Cooperative Learning is good
to be used both in Junior or Senior High School.
3. Data Result of Effect-Size Based on English Skill
In the analyzed theses, methods of Cooperative Learning are applied in
various English skills. The dependent variables of the theses relate to English
skills. Even almost all of it is focused on a certain English skill. Grouping data
based on English skills is presented in table 4.4.
34
Table 4.4 Effect-Size of Grouping Data Based on English Skill
English Skills
Statistic
n Average of
Effect-Size
SD
Vocabulary 1 1,65 0
Grammar 1 1,59 0
Speaking 4 1,39 0,79
Reading 14 1,11 1,17
Writing 1 0,92 0
Mean 1,33 0,98
Table 4.4 shows that the average effect size based on English skills has a
big effect, which is 1.33, with the standard deviation score of 0.98. Vocabulary
places the highest effect rather than any of the skills. From the highest to the
lowest, it is followed by grammar, speaking, reading, and then writing. The
standard deviation is also the most consistent rather than others, and the most
inconsistent standard deviation is reading skill. The visualization of the data can
be seen in picture 4.2.
Picture 4. 2 Effect-Size of Grouping Data Based on English Skill
35
The picture shows that the highest effect and the lowest standard
deviation are placed by vocabulary. After that, it is followed by grammar,
speaking, reading, and writing. However, reading skill has the highest standard
deviation, which means that the spreading sample of theses which use reading as
their dependent variable was not spread evenly.
4. Data Result of Effect-Size based on Methods of Cooperative Learning
There are many kinds of methods, techniques, and strategies to apply
Cooperative Learning in English language classes. To know which one will be
appropriate for students‟ learning, many researchers examine a type of method.
The methods that were used by those researchers are presented below. Also, how
the effect size of every method is showed in table 4.5.
Table 4.5 Effect-Size of Grouping Data Based on Methods of Cooperative
Learning
Cooperative Learning Methods
Statistic
n Average of
Effect-Size
SD
Think Pair Share 3 2,47 1,69
Cooperative Integrated Reading
And Composition 2 1,67 2,06
Student Team Achievement
Division 1 1,3 0
Jigsaw 11 1,0 0,55
Roundtable 1 0,92 0
Teams-Games-Tournament 1 0,47 0
Three-Step Interview 1 0,46 0
Numbered Heads Together 1 0,43 0
Mean 1,09 1,43
36
Table 4.5 shows that the average of effect size based on the Cooperative
Learning methods is quite big, 1.09, but also with the high standard deviation
score, that is 1.43. The highest average effect-score in Cooperative Learning
methods is Think Pair Share methods, which is 2.47 with the standard deviation
score of 1.69. The second highest is CIRC, and it is followed by STAD, Jigsaw,
Roundtable, Peer-Feedback, TGT, TSI, and the last is NHT. The visualization of
the calculated average data is presented in picture 4.3.
Picture 4. 3 Effect-Size of Grouping Data Based on Cooperative Learning
Methods
The highest average score of effect size based on Cooperative Learning
methods is placed by Think Pair Share Method, but the standard deviation is also
high. CIRC's average effect size score is quite high, but it also has the highest
standard deviation score, 1.67. STAD, Jigsaw, Roundtable, TGT, TSI, and NHT
also have a high average, and the standard deviation is quite consistent.
37
B. Discussion
Analyzing and reviewing previous research is important. It is to evaluate
certain research studies that have been conducted and showed many results. This
necessity and the inadequacy of results from a single study have led to
methodologies development that integrates many independent studies (Karadag,
2015). One of them is Meta-Analysis, which allows the researcher to combine
much research conducted by English Education Department students.
One of the research studies that had been much conducted is about
Cooperative Learning. It was started in the early twentieth century and still
conducted in this recent period. In conducting this study, the researcher also takes
the Cooperative Learning theme and limits the date issue by year range start from
2015 to 2019.
All of these Cooperative Learning research have to be theses uploaded in
Institutional repository UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta. The theses were
conducted in various ways and objects. Many kinds of research methodologies
were used, such as experimental research and classroom action research. In this
case, the researcher needs the data that can be calculated its averages. The theses
must in experimental research with the object are students in Junior or Senior
High School.
These previous research in the form of the thesis were analyzed and found
21 theses that meet the criteria. There are 63 sub-units to be analyzed and
categorized into three groups. After calculating the individual effect size, the
researcher subsumed them to find the effect size score based on the school grade,
English skill as their dependent variable, and the last based on the types of
Cooperative Learning methods as their independent variables. But first of all, the
average score of effect size is accumulatively counted. Further discussion will be
explained below.
1. Effect-Size of Cooperative Learning Application Accumulatively
There is a lot of research about Cooperative Learning in local, national,
and even international range. In this focus, the researcher only gathered the
38
sample from Institutional Repository UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta. The
researcher found 38 research studies about Cooperative Learning there. The
researcher got the data by exploring and analyzing the online repository. The
searching is restricted by the Educational Sciences Faculty, English Education
Department, and issue date started 2015-2019.
After conducting a comprehensive analysis of all the theses, only 21
research meet the criteria. Table 4.2 showed that from 21 pieces of research that
have been coded, all results of the research have a big Effect-Size. The average
result showed that the Effect-Size score in Cooperative Learning accumulatively
is 1.2 and is categorized as a big effect.
Those findings signify that accumulatively Cooperative Learning has a
great effect on students‟ English learning. According to recent research, this
finding is in accordance with the Cooperative Learning research that it had a
bigger effect than the traditional method in vocabulary knowledge, grammar,
listening, and reading skills (Yavuz & Arslan, 2018). Liao et al. (2019) also stated
that Cooperative Learning is worth recommending; this technique effectively
enhances students‟ English learning. There was a moderate effect on listening,
reading, and writing competencies. The result of this research also signified that
Cooperative Learning has a great impact on students‟ English learning.
2. Effect-Size Cooperative Learning Based on School Level
Using Cooperative Learning in school is not as easy as how it seems.
Research finding that is found by Ghufron & Ermawati (2018) showed that to
implement Cooperative Learning needs much more time, and both teachers and
students require to be active participants. This approach also difficult to manage
and should to do more preparation.
However, much research has been conducted about Cooperative Learning
and proved the effectiveness of learning in many schools. One of the most
remarkable and fertile areas of theories, research, and practice in education is
Cooperative Learning (Pan & Wu, 2013). That is why there are also several
studies that have shown the effectiveness of methods in Cooperative Learning that
39
is conducted in Junior or Senior schools (Yavuz & Arslan, 2018; Zorlu & Sezek,
2019).
This study involves 16 research that were conducted in Junior high school
and five research in Senior high school. Table 4.2 shows the average effect size
score in each grade of the schools. Research in junior high schools gain 1.19 as
the average of effect size score, and it is categorized as a big effect. While the
research in senior high schools gains 1.24 as the average of effect size score, it is
also categorized as a big effect. This meta-analysis research shows that applying
Cooperative Learning in senior high school has a higher average Effect-Size score
rather than in junior high school.
However, both show a great effect with the mean 1.22 score and standard
deviation 1.01 score. Based on the score, it could be said that Cooperative
Learning is worth recommending to be applied in both junior and senior high
schools.
3. Effect-Size Cooperative Learning Based on English Skill
The dependent variable in all the samples of theses related to English
skills. They focus on English language learning, even in a certain skill. In their
research, Cooperative Learning is examined to improve students‟ skills or know
the effectiveness of certain English skills. In this study, the researcher found five
skills that were analyzed. There are reading, speaking, writing, grammar, and
vocabulary.
The quantity of the theses sample is 21, which 14 theses in analyzing
reading skill, 4 in speaking, 1 in writing, 1 in vocabulary, and 1 in grammar. The
average effect size of each skill is counted and found the biggest average of effect
size in vocabulary, followed by grammar, speaking, reading, and writing. From
table 4.4 and picture 4.2, it can be seen that the highest standard deviation is
placed by reading skills. Meanwhile, vocabulary, grammar, and writing skills
have the most consistent standard variable, 0, but the quantity of the thesis in
those vocabulary, grammar, and writing skills is only one.
40
Therefore, vocabulary has the highest average of effect size, but it cannot
be concluded that Cooperative Learning has the greatest effect on vocabulary
skill. Reading skill which has the most quantity also has a major average of effect
size score, that is 1.11, but also the standard deviation is higher than the average
score, that is 1.17. However, Cooperative Learning has a great impact on all the
analyzed skills. The mean of effect size is 1.33, with a standard deviation score is
0.98.
4. Effect-Size Cooperative Learning Based on Types of Cooperative
Learning Method
Prabhu (1990, in Freeman & Anderson, 2016) said that teaching and
learning are complex. So then, there is no need to convince readers that one
method is actually better than another, or there is even will be one perfect method.
However, Gillies et al. (2008) said that approaches that will be successful and
influential have their connection that is rooted in one of the Grand Theories on
human development, teaching, and learning, not just a technique presenting same-
aged content in different treatment. As well as Cooperative Learning, Webb's
work has been inspired by Piaget and Vygotsky‟s Socio-Cognitive theories. In
contrast, Slavin's work has been inspired by motivational theories rooted in
behaviorism and management theories.
Cooperative Learning has a lot of methods and techniques that can be
applied to various subjects. The strategy of the application also has many
developments as time goes by. From the collected data in this research, the
researcher found eight methods applied in various English skills. Cooperative
Learning methods have a role as independent variables that can affect students'
English skills.
All the eight methods have a great average effect size score. The result
showed that the Think Pair Share method has the biggest effect size on English
Language Learning. It is followed by Cooperative Integrated Reading and
Composition, Student Team Achievement Division, Jigsaw, Roundtable, Teams
41
Games Tournament, Three-Step Interview, and the last is Numbered Heads
Together.
Think Pair Share that places the highest average of effect score rather than
any methods is methods that were proposed by Frank Lyman in 1981. This model
is aimed to make students active by a discussion with their classmates in the
teaching Learning Process (Sugiarto & Sumarsono, 2014). This finding is in
accordance with other research in Think Pair Share model application that this
model greatly impacts students' English Learning (Sugiarto & Sumarsono, 2014).
The most used method based on the analyzed data is the Jigsaw method.
There are 11 theses used Jigsaw as their independent variable. Many researchers
choose Jigsaw because Jigsaw is also an alternative to traditional teaching
methods. The implementation of Jigsaw supports students to work together and
remove competition in the classroom (Karacop, 2017). The average effect size
score of the Jigsaw method is 1.0 with a standard deviation score is 0.55.
Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) method has two
analyzed samples that result in a 1.67 average effect size score. But the standard
deviation score is higher than its average score, and it is 2.06. While the rests of
the methods only have one sample, all the average effect size scores in each
method are classified as a big effect size. After all, the mean of effect size‟s
average score reaches a high score of 1.09, but also with inconsistent standard
deviation score, that is 1.43.
C. Deficiency of the Research
Borenstein (2017 in Gogtay & Thatte, 2017) mentioned several critics
about the disadvantages of Meta-Analysis research, and he had answered them.
Although he had answered all the critics, still and all, there must be a deficiency
of this research. For some possibilities that the researcher cannot control, maybe
there are external variables that can affect the research sample. So the researcher
should be careful to take the sample and interpreting all samples.
The researcher had analyzed all the studies in Institutional Repository UIN
Jakarta and found 31 theses about Cooperative Learning. However, there are only
42
21 theses that can be analyzed. The research conducted by Classroom Action
Research (CAR) design or pre-experimental design cannot be counted by effect
size formula because it lacks statistical data. The previous theses published
beneath the 2015 period cannot be included because of the limitation of the
research. Several theses in Cooperative Learning method cannot be found in the
Institutional repository UIN Jakarta. There is also research that is conducted not in
the school field.
Another deficiency of this research is the sample, because it is theses that
are written by students. In other words, the sample is not published research in a
certain trusted journal platform. Thereby, the quality of the sample cannot be fully
guaranteed. Notwithstanding, the sample is researched that passing the assessment
of English education lectures.
Besides all the deficiency, the result of this meta-Analysis research
showed that Cooperative Learning Methods has a great effect-size in English
Language Learning. Based on the sample that was collected from the students‟
theses, the Cooperative Learning that was applied in a certain skill proved that
Cooperative Learning methods could increase students‟ English skills because it
has a great average score accumulatively.
43
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion
All conclusions were only based on students‟ theses in English Education
Department of UIN Jakarta at 2015-2019 Period. First, it can be concluded that
Cooperative Learning accumulatively has a big effect size score, which is 1.2. It
signifies that Cooperative Learning has a great effect on English Language
Learning. This learning model is worth recommending to be applied in the
English language class. It can be an alternative method rather than the traditional
teaching-learning model.
Second, based on this sample, Cooperative Learning is appropriate to be
adjusted in senior or junior high school based on the school level. The average
effect size score shows that Cooperative Learning that is applied in junior high
school has a higher score than senior high school. The average effect size score in
junior high school is 1.21, and senior high school is 1.01. Both results indicate a
big effect.
Third, Cooperative Learning gives a highest average score in vocabulary
based on English skills and followed by grammar, speaking, reading, and writing.
The average effect size score in vocabulary is 1.65, grammar is 1.59, speaking is
1.39, reading is 1.11, and writing is 0.92. All the average effect size scores based
on English skill signifies a big effect. Aggregately, the effect size score of
Cooperative Learning based on English skills is categorized as a big effect.
The last, based on the type of Cooperative Learning methods, the highest
average of effect size scores is placed by Think Pair Share and followed
Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition, Student Team Achievement
Division, Jigsaw, Roundtable, Teams Games Tournament, Three-Step Interview,
and Numbered Head Together. Each method has a big average of effect size score.
Cooperative Learning based on the methods accumulatively has a great effect size
score is 1.09. It is categorized as a big effect.
44
B. Suggestion
The final result of this meta-analysis research on Cooperative Learning
application in English language learning shows a positive result; even each
grouping data gives a big average of effect size score. However, in conducting this
research, there are a lot of deficiencies. Here, the researcher would like to offer
some suggestions for the next research, so there will be some improvement.
1. Sampling data of the research will be better if it is taken from a trusted
published journal. Also, the range or the limitation of the data can be expanded
so that the result can be more comprehensive. A good sample data selection
can give a good result as well.
2. The cooperative learning model is effective to be applied in English language
learning. However, the teacher or researcher has to be more prudent with the
media and class arrangement, so then the learning goals can be reached. Steps
or techniques in applying the Cooperative Learning model have to be rooted in
its principals.
3. Meta-analysis research should be thoroughly conducted in every detail to
prevent bias of the data. As much as possible, the data have to represent every
aspect. So that the grouping data can spread more evenly.
45
REFERENCES
Adesope, O. O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2011). Pedagogical
Strategies for Teaching Literacy to ESL Immigrant Students : A Meta-
Analysis Pedagogical Strategies for Teaching Literacy to ESL Immigrant
Students : A Meta-Analysis. 81, 629–653.
Aristy, I., Hadiansyah, R., & Apsari, Y. (2019). Using Three Step-Interview to
Improve Students’ Speaking Ability. 2(2), 74–79.
Basu, A. (2017). How to Conduct Meta-Analysis : A Basic Tutorial.
Bellefontaine, S. P., & Lee, C. M. (2014). Between Black and White : Examining
Grey Literature in Meta-analyses of Psychological Research. 23, 1378–
1388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9795-1
Celik, S., Aytin, K., & Bayram, E. (2013). Implementing cooperative learning in
the language classroom : opinions of Turkish teachers of English. 70, 1852–
1859.
Cole, M. W. (2018). Effectiveness of peer-mediated learning for English language
learners : A meta-analysis.
Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (2019). The Handbook of Research
Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. Russel Sage Foundation.
Freeman, D. L., & Anderson, M. (2016). Techniques Principles Language
Teaching. Oxford University Press.
Ghufron, M. A., & Ermawati, S. (2018). The Strengths and Weaknesses of
Cooperative Learning and Problem- based Learning in EFL Writing Class :
Teachers and Students ’ Perspectives. 11(4), 657–672.
Gillies, R. M., Ashman, A., & Terwel, J. (2008). The Teacher’s Role in
Implementing Cooperative Learning in the Classroom. Springer.
Gogtay, N. J., & Thatte, U. M. (2017). An Introduction to Meta-Analysis.
46
65(October), 78–85.
Huddy, W. P. (2012). A Meta-Analytic Review of Cooperative Learning Practices
in Higher Education: A Human Communicartion Perspective.
Jamaludin, M., & Mokhtar, M. F. (2018). Students Team Achievement Division.
8(2), 570–577.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative Learning
Methods : A Meta-Analysis.
Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981).
Effects of cooperative , competitive , and individualistic goal structures on
achievement : A meta-analysis. 89(1), 47–62.
Kadir. (2017). Meta Analysisi of the Effect of Learning Intervention toward
Mathematical Thinking on Research and publication of Students. 4(2), 162–
175.
Kadir, Burhanuddin, M., & Kairunnisa. (2013). Meta-Analisis Pendekatam
Problem Solving Dalam Pembelajaran Sains dan Matematika. Lembaga
Penelitian.
Kamaruddin, S., Mohd, N., & Nik, R. (2019). The Effectiveness of Cooperative
Learning Model Jigsaw and Team Games Tournament ( TGT ) towards
Social Skills. 2529–2539.
Karacop, A. (2017). The Effects of Using Jigsaw Method Based on Cooperative
Learning Model in the Undergraduate Science Laboratory Practices. 5(3),
420–434. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2017.050314
Karadag, Engin, and Cogaltay, Nazim. (2015). Introduction to Meta-Analysis.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14908-0
Liao, H., Li, Y., & Wang, Y. (2019). Optimal Cooperative Learning Grouping to
Improve Medical University Students ’ English Competencies. 1–10.
47
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019861454
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge
University Press.
Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., & Apollonia, S. (2001). Small Group and Individual
Learning with Technology : A Meta-Analysis. 71(3), 449–521.
McAuley, L., Pham, B., Tugwell, P., & Moher, D. (2000). Does the inclusion of
grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in
meta-analyses ? 356, 1228–1231.
Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2013). Second Language Learning
Theories. Routledge.
Mohammed, M. H. (2018). Challenges of Learning English as a Foreign
Language (EFL) by Non Native Learners. 03(04), 1382.
Nunan, D. (2015). Teaching English to Speaker of Other Languages: An
Introcuction. Routledge.
Pablo, J., & Vargas, Z. (2014). The Principles of Cooperative Learning English :
A Descriptive Analysis. IX(2), 149–168.
Pan, C., & Wu, H. (2013). The Cooperative Learning Effects on English Reading
Comprehension and Learning Motivation of EFL Freshmen. 6(5), 13–27.
Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative Versus
Competitive Efforts and Problem Solving. 65(2), 129–143.
Rachmawati, L. A., Supriyanto, T., & Doyin, M. (2019). The Effectiveness of
Learning to Write Poetry with The Student Team Achievement Division (
STAD ) Model. 8(3), 248–253.
Ratnawati, S. R., Yuliasri, I., & Hartono, R. (2018). Enhancing the Students ’
Speaking Skill Using Three Ste p Interview and Numbered Heads Together.
12(2), 173–181.
48
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language
Teaching: Second Edition. Cambridge University Press.
Shelby, L. B., & Vaske, J. J. (2008). Understanding Meta-Analysis : A Review of
the Methodological Literature. Routledge, 96–110.
Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative Learning. 50(2), 315–342.
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Student Team Learning: A Practical Guide to Cooperative
Learning Third Edition. National Education Association.
Slavin, R. E., Sharan, S., Kagan, S., Azarowitz, R. H., Webb, C., & Schmuck, R.
(1985). Learning to Cooperate, Cooperating to Learn. Springer.
Song, B. (2020). The Theory and Practice Analysis of Foreign Language
Teaching Method Schools. 416, 1204–1208.
Stahl, S. A., & Fairbanks, M. M. (2016). The Effects of Vocabulary Instruction :
56(1), 72–110.
Stenlev, J., & Siemund, P. (2011). Roundtable As Cooperative Learning
Technique. 18(01), 40–45.
Sugiarto, D., & Sumarsono, P. (2014). International Journal of English and
Education The Implementation of Think-Pair-Share Model to Improve
Students ’ Ability in Reading Narrative Texts. 3(3), 206–2015.
Turgut, S., & Turgut, I. G. (2018). The Effects of Cooperative Learning on
Mathematics Achievement in Turkey: A Meta-Analysis Study. 11(3), 663–
680.
Unal, M., & Ilhan, E. (2017). A Case Study on the Problems and Suggestions in
Foreign Language Teaching and Learning at Higher Education. 5(6), 64–72.
https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v5i6.2302
Yavuz, O., & Arslan, A. (2018). Cooperative Learning in Acquistion of the
English Language Skills. 7(3), 591–600.
49
Yusri, Romadloni, A., & Mantasiah. (2017). Intercultural Approach in Foreign
Language Learning to Improve Students’ Motivation. 64.
Zhang, Y. (2010). Cooperative Language Learning and Foreign Language
Learning and Teaching. 1(1), 81–83.
Zorlu, F., & Sezek, F. (2019). Students’ Opinions about the Effect of the
Application of Learning Together and Group Investigation Methods at
Different Intervals on the Features of Cooperative Learning Model.
Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(2), 10–24.
50
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Coding Data of Sample
No Theses Identity Sample
Characteristic
Variable, Design,
Instrument
Learning Intervention
Effect-Size Notes Experimental
Class Control Class
1 1. Researcher
Name: Asteti
Hilda
2. Research Title:
The Effectiveness
of Jigsaw
Technique in
Teaching
Reading of
Recount Text
3. Year Published:
2017
4. Journal Code: A1
1. Research Place:
SMP Dharma
Karya UT
2. Research
Subject: 8th
Grade Students
3. Research
Sample: VIII.2
Class (30
Students) VIII.1
class (30
Students)
1. Independent
Variable:
Jigsaw
Technique
2. Dependent
Variable:
Reading Skill
of Recount
Tect
3. Design:
Pre-Test Post-
Test
Control Group
4. Hypothesis
Test: T-Test
Using Jigsaw
Technique
Using GTM
(Grammar
Translation
Method)
Big Effect
51
2 1. Researcher
Name: Cici
Puspasari
2. Research Title:
The Effect of
Roundtable
Technique on
Students‟ Writing
of Descriptive
Text
3. Year Published:
2018
4. Journal Code: A2
1. Research Place:
MA
Pembangunan
2. Research
Subject: 10th
Grade Students
3. Research
Sample: 54
Students
1. Independent
Variable:
Roundtable
Technique
2. Dependent
Variable:
Writing Skill
in Descriptive
Text
3. Design: Quasi
Experimental
4. Hypothesis
Test: T-Test
Roundtable
Technique
Big Effect
3 1. Researcher
Name: Erni Nur
Fatahhela Dewi
2. Research Title:
The Effectiveness
of Word Jigsaw
Strategy on
Students'
1. Research Place:
SMP PGRI 1
Ciputat
2. Research
Subject: 8th
Grade Students
3. Research
Sample: VIII-3
1. Independent
Variable:
Word Jigsaw
Strategy
2. Dependent
Variable:
Vocabulary
Achievement
Word Jigsaw
Strategy
Big Effect
52
Vocabulary
achievement of
Descriptive Text
3. Year Published:
2018
4. Journal Code:A3
Class (25
Students) VIII-$
Class (25
Students)
in Descriptive
Text
3. Design: Quasi-
Experimental
4. Hypothesis
Test: T-Test
4 1. Researcher
Name: Ervi
Nurazizah
2. Research Title:
The Effectiveness
of Student Team
Achievement
Division (STAD)
towards Students'
Speaking Ability
3. Year Published:
2016
4. Journal Code: A4
1. Research Place:
SMK Puspita
Bangsa
2. Research
Subject: 11th
Grade Students
3. Research
Sample: XI-1
Class (35
Students)
XI-3 (37
Students)
1. Independent
Variable:
Student Team
Achievement
Division
(STAD)
2. Dependent
Variable:
Speaking
Ability
3. Design: Quasi
Experimental
4. Hypothesis
Test: T-Test
Student Team
Achievement
Division
(STAD)
Technique
Ususal-
memorizing
texts
Big Effect
53
5 1. Researcher
Name: Fiqi
Azizah Budiarti
2. Research Title:
The Effectiveness
of Using Jigsaw
Teaching
Technique on
Students‟
Reading Skill
3. Year Published:
2015
4. Journal Code: A5
1. Research Place:
MTs Mambaul
Hakim, Patrol
2. Research
Subject: 8th
Grade Students
3. Research
Sample: VIII A
Class (34
Students)
VIIIB (34
Students)
1. Independent
Variable:
Jigsaw
Teaching
Technique
2. Dependent
Variable:Read
ing Skill
3. Design: Quasi
Experimental
4. Hypothesis
Test: T-Test
Jigsaw
Technique
Big Effect
6 1. Researcher
Name: Hidayana
Putri
2. Research Title:
The Effect of
Think-Pair-Share
on Students'
Speaking Ability
of Short Monolog
1. Research Place:
MTs Khazanah
Kebajikan
2. Research
Subject: 8th
Grade Students
3. Research
Sample: VIIA
Class (25
1. Independent
Variable:
Think-Pair-
Share
2. Dependent
Variable:
Students‟
Speaking
Ability of
Think-Pair-
Share
Big Effect
54
3. Year Published:
2017
4. Journal Code: A6
Students) VIII
BClass
(25Students)
Short
Monolog
3. Design: Quasi-
Experimental
4. Hypothesis
Test: T-Test
7 1. Researcher
Name: Imda
Nurul Huda
Makmur
2. Research Title:
The Effectiveness
of Using Jigsaw
Technique on
Student's Reading
Comprehensive
of Recount Text
3. Year Published:
2015
4. Journal Code: A7
1. Research
Place:Mathla‟ul
Huda Bogor
2. Research
Subject: 8th
Grade Students
3. Research
Sample: VIIA
Class (50
Students) VIII
BClass
(50Students)
1. Independent
Variable:
Jigsaw
Technique
2. Dependent
Variable:
Student's
Reading
Comprehensiv
e of Recount
Text
3. Design: Quasi-
Experimental
4. Hypothesis
Test: T-Test
Jigsaw
Technique
Big Effect
55
8 1. Researcher
Name: Kharisma
Ragabuana
2. Research Title:
The Effectiveness
of Jigsaw
Technique in
Learning Reading
of Exposition
Text
3. Year Published:
2015
4. Journal Code: A8
1. Research Place:
SMAN 34
Jakarta
2. Research
Subject: 11th
Grade Students
3. Research
Sample: XI IPA
1 (40 Students)
XI IPA 3 (40
Students)
1. Independent
Variable:
Jigsaw
Technique
2. Dependent
Variable:
Learning
Reading of
Exposition
Text
3. Design: Quasi-
Experimental
4. Hypothesis
Test: T-Test
Jigsaw
Technique
Big Effect
9 1. Researcher
Name: Nurul
Azizah
2. Research Title:
The Effectiveness
of Jigsaw
1. Research Place:
MTs jabal Nur
Cipondoh
2. Research
Subject: 8th
Grade Students
1. Independent
Variable:
Jigsaw
Technique
2. Dependent
Variable:
Jigsaw
Technique
GTM
(Grammar
Translation
Method)
Big Effect
56
Technique
toward Students'
Reading
Comprehension
of Recount Text
3. Year Published:
2015
4. Journal Code: A9
3. Research
Sample: VIII
AClass (30
Students) VIIIB
Class
(30Students)
Students'
Reading
Comprehensio
n of Recount
Text
3. Design: Quasi
Experimental
4. Hypothesis
Test: T-Test
10 1. Researcher
Name: Rahma
Deni
2. Research Title:
The Effect of
Three-step
Interview
Technique on
Students'
Speaking Skill
3. Year Published:
2018
4. Journal Code:
1. Research Place:
SMPN 3
Tangerang
Selatan
2. Research
Subject: 8th
Grade Students
3. Research
Sample: 78
Students
1. Independent
Variable:
Three-step
Interview
Technique
5. Dependent
Variable:
Students'
Speaking Skill
2. Design: Quasi
Experimental
3. Hypothesis
Three-step
Interview
Big Effect
57
A10 Test: T-Test
11 1. Researcher
Name: Ratu
Erlinda
Kurniatillah
2. Research Title:
The Effect of
Jigsaw Strategy
on Students‟
Reading
Comprehension
of Descriptive
Text
3. Year Published:
2019
4. Journal Code:
A11
1. Research
Place:
MAN 12
Jakarta
2. Research
Subject: 10th
Grade students
3. Research
Sample: X
MIPA 1 (30
Students) X
MIPA 2 (30
Students)
1. Independe
nt
Variable:
Jigsaw
Strategy
2. Dependent
Variable:
Students‟
Reading
Comprehensio
n of
Descriptive
Text
3. Design: Quasi-
Experimental
4. Hypothesis
Test: T-Test
Jigsaw
Strategy
Big Effect
12 1. Researcher 1. Research Place: 1. Independent Cooperative Big Effect
58
Name:
Rismaliani Nur
Febriani
2. Research Title:
The Effectiveness
of Cooperative
Integrated
Reading and
Composition
(CIRC)
Technique on
Students‟
Reading
Comprehension
in Descriptive
Text
3. Year Published:
2015
4. Journal Code:
A12
SMPN 10 Kota
Tangerang
Selatan
2. Research
Subject: 11th
Grade Students
3. Research
Sample: VIII-8
(38 Students)
VIII-10 (38
Students)
Variable:
Cooperative
Integrated
Reading and
Composition
(CIRC)
Technique
2. Dependent
Variable:
Students‟
Reading
Comprehensio
n in
Descriptive
Text
3. Design: Quasi-
Experimental
4. Hypothesis
Test: T-Test
Integrated
Reading and
Composition
(CIRC)
Technique
59
13 1. Researcher
Name: Rizxi
Amaliyah
2. Research Title:
The Effectiveness
of Using Teams-
Games-
Tournament
(TGT) on
Students' Reading
Comprehension
on Descriptive
Text
3. Year Published:
2017
4. Journal Code:
A13
1. Research Place:
SMPN 166
Jakarta
2. Research
Subject: 8th
Grade Students
3. Research
Sample: VIII-4
(35 Students)
VIII-5 (35
Students)
1. Independent
Variable:
Teams-
Games-
Tournament
(TGT)
2. Dependent
Variable:
Students'
Reading
Comprehensio
n on
Descriptive
Text
3. Design: Quasi-
Experimental
4. Hypothesis
Test: T-Test
Teams-Games-
Tournament
(TGT)
Technique
Big Effect
60
14 1. Researcher
Name: Rully
Amalia
2. Research Title:
The effectiveness
of using Think
Pair Share (TPS)
toward students‟
reading
comprehension of
descriptive text
3. Year Published:
2016
4. Journal Code:
A14
1. Research Place:
SMPI Al-Fajar
2. Research
Subject: 8th
Grade Students
3. Research
Sample: VIII-A
(32 Students)
VIII-B (32
Students)
1. Independent
Variable:
Think Pair
Share (TPS)
2. Dependent
Variable:
students‟
reading
comprehensio
n of
descriptive
text
3. Design: Quasi-
Experimental
4. Hypothesis
Test: T-Test
Think Pair
Share (TPS)
Technique
Big Effect
15 1. Researcher
Name: Sanidaya
Febrianto
2. Research Title:
The Effect Of
1. Research Place:
SMPN 3
Ciputat Timur
2. Research
Subject: 7th
1. Independent
Variable:
Cooperative
Integrated
Reading and
Using
Cooperative
Integrated
Reading and
Composition
Conventional
Model
x
Big Effect
61
Cooperative
Integrated
Reading and
Composition
(CIRC) and Self-
Esteem on
Students‟
Reading
Comprehension
3. Year Published:
2019
4. Journal Code:
A15
Grade Students
3. Research
Sample: VII 2
Class (40
Students) VII 3
Class (40
Students)
Composition
(CIRC) and
Self-Esteem
2. Dependent
Variable:
Students‟
Reading
Comprehensio
n
3. Design: Quasi-
Experimental
4. Hypothesis
Test: ANOVA
Two Way
(CIRC)
x
Notes:
A= Method
B= Self-Esteem
16 1. Researcher
Name: Siti Farida
Ridwan
2. Research Title:
1. Research Place:
MTS AL-
Ikhwan
2. Research
1. Independent
Variable:
jigsaw
technique
jigsaw
technique
Big Effect
62
The effectiveness
of jigsaw
technique in
teaching simple
past tense
3. Year Published:
2016
4. Journal Code:
A16
Subject: 8th
Grade Studehts
3. Research
Sample: VIII-A
(25 Students)
VIII-B (25
Students)
2. Dependent
Variable:
teaching
simple past
tense
3. Design:
Experimental
4. Hypothesis
Test: T-Test
17 1. Researcher
Name: Siti
Hadijah
2. Research Title:
The Effectiveness
Of Know Want
Learn Plus And
Jigsaw
Techniques In
The Teaching Of
Expository
Reading Texts
1. Research Place:
SMAN 8
Tangerang
Selatan
2. Research
Subject: 11th
Grade Students
3. Research
Sample: X.MIA
2 (35 Students)
X MIA 3 (35
Students)
1. Independent
Variable:
Know Want
Learn Plus
And Jigsaw
Techniques
2. Dependent
Variable:
Teaching Of
Expository
Reading Texts
3. Design: Quasi-
Know Want
Learn Plus
And Jigsaw
Big Effect
63
3. Year Published:
2016
4. Journal Code:
A17
Experimental
4. Hypothesis
Test: T-Test
18 1. Researcher
Name: Taufik
Rusandi
2. Research Title:
The Effect of
Using Jigsaw
Technique in
Teaching
Speaking
3. Year Published:
2015
4. Journal Code:
A18
1. Research Place:
SMPN 3
Tangerang
Selatan
2. Research
Subject: 8th
Grade Students
3. Research
Sample: VIII-8
(30 Students)
VIII-9 (30
Students)
1. Independent
Variable:
Jigsaw
Technique
2. Dependent
Variable:
Teaching
Speaking
3. Design:
Experimental
4. Hypothesis
Test: T-Test
Jigsaw
Technique
Big Effect
19 1. Researcher
Name: Ummi
Nurul Hasanah
2. Research Title:
1. Research Place:
MTs Nur Asy-
Syafi‟iyah
2. Research
1. Independent
Variable:
Numbered
Heads
Numbered
Heads
Together
Big Effect
64
The Effect of
Numbered Heads
Together on
Students‟
Reading
Comprehension
of Narrative Text
3. Year Published:
2017
4. Journal Code:
A19
Subject: 8th
Grade Students
3. Research
Sample: 60
Students
Together
5. Dependent
Variable:
Students‟
Reading
Comprehensio
n of Narrative
Text
2. Design: Quasi-
Experimental
3. Hypothesis
Test: T-Test
20 1. Researcher
Name: Yudhistira
Adi
2. Research Title:
The Influence of
Think Pair Share
on Students'
Reading
Narrative Text
1. Research Place:
SMPN 3 Kota
Tangerang
Selatan
2. Research
Subject: 8th
Grade Students
3. Research
Sample: VIII-3
1. Independent
Variable:
Think Pair
Share
2. Dependent
Variable:
Students'
Reading
Narrative Text
Think Pair
Share
Big Effect
65
Year
Published2018
3. Journal Code:
A20
(30 Students)
VIII-5 (30
Students)
3. Design: Quasi-
Experimental
4. Hypothesis
Test: T-Test
21 1. Researcher
Name: Zakiyah
Tul Fahiroh
2. Research Title:
The Effectiveness
of Using Jigsaw
Technique
Towards
Students' Reading
Comprehension
of Narrative Text
3. Year Published:
2016
4. Journal Code:
A21
1. Research Place:
SMPN 2
Tarumajaya
2. Research
Subject: 8th
Grade Students
3. Research
Sample: VIII-6
(40 Students)
VIII-7 (40
Students)
1. Independent
Variable:
Jigsaw
Technique
2. Dependent
Variable:
Students'
Reading
Comprehensio
n of Narrative
Text
3. Design: Quasi-
Experimental
4. Hypothesis
Test: T-Test
Big Effect
66
Appendix 2 Cooperative Learning Theses in Institutional Repository UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta
No The Title Of Skripsi Author Year-Published Research Object Research Design Link
1 Applying Student Teams
Achievement Division
(STAD) Technique to
Improve Students‟
Reading Comprehension
in Discussion Text
Iin Afriyanti 2015/1/15 12th
SMA
Fatahillah Jakarta
Classroom Action
Research (CAR)
http://repository.uinjkt.a
c.id/dspace/handle/1234
56789/26754
2 The Effect of Using
Jigsaw Technique in
Teaching Speaking
Taufik
Rusandi
2015/2/3 8th
grade SMPN 3
Tangerang
Selatan
Experimental http://repository.uinjkt.a
c.id/dspace/handle/1234
56789/30022
3 The Effectiveness of
Using Jigsaw Teaching
Technique on Students‟
Reading Skill
Fiqi Azizah
Budiarti
2015/1/12 8th
Grade MTs
Mambaul Hakim,
Patrol
Quasi-Experimental http://repository.uinjkt.a
c.id/dspace/handle/1234
56789/44397
4 The Effectiveness of
Using Student Teams
achievement Divisions
(STAD) Techniques in
Teaching Reading
Bayu
Kurniawan
2015/6/26 8th
Grade SMPN
1 Pakuhaji
Pre-Experimental http://repository.uinjkt.a
c.id/dspace/handle/1234
56789/26953
5 The Effectiveness of
Using Jigsaw Technique
Imda Nurul
Huda Makmur
2015/7/31 8th
Grade MTs
Mathla‟ul Huda
Quasi Experimental http://repository.uinjkt.a
c.id/dspace/handle/1234
67
on Student's Reading
Comprehensive of
Recount Text
Bogor 56789/41628
6 The Effectiveness of
Jigsaw Technique toward
Students' Reading
Comprehension of
Recount Text
Nurul Azizah 2015/9/15 8th
Grade Mts
Jabal Nur
Cipondoh
Tangerang
Quasi-Experimental http://repository.uinjkt.a
c.id/dspace/handle/1234
56789/28423
7 The Effectiveness of
Cooperative Integrated
Reading and Composition
(CIRC) Technique on
Students‟ Reading
Comprehension in
Descriptive Text
Rismaliani Nur
Febriani
2015/10/1 8th Grade at
SMPN 10 Kota
Tangerang
Selatan
quasi-experimental http://repository.uinjkt.a
c.id/dspace/handle/1234
56789/44645
8 The effectiveness of
jigsaw technique in
learning reading of
exposition text: a quasi-
experimental study at the
second year students of
SMAN 34 Jakarta
Kharisma
Ragabuana
2015/10/28 11th
Grade SMAN
34 Jakarta
Quasi Experimental http://repository.uinjkt.a
c.id/dspace/handle/1234
56789/
68
9 The Effectiveness Of
Know Want Learn Plus
And Jigsaw Techniques In
The Teaching Of
Expository Reading Texts
Siti Hadijah 2016/1/25 11th
grade of
SMAN 8
tangerang selatan
Quasi-Experimental http://repository.uinjkt.a
c.id/dspace/handle/1234
56789/29970
10 The effectiveness of
jigsaw technique in
teaching simple past tense
Siti Farida
Ridwan
2016/1/28 8th
Grade MTS
AL-Ikhwan
Experimental http://repository.uinjkt.a
c.id/dspace/handle/1234
56789/30106
11 The effectiveness of using
Think Pair Share (TPS)
toward students‟ reading
comprehension of
descriptive text
Rully Amalia 2016/3/22 8th
Grade SMPI
Al-Fajar
Quasi-Experimental http://repository.uinjkt.a
c.id/dspace/handle/1234
56789/44459
12
The Effectiveness of
Using Jigsaw Technique
Towards Students'
Reading Comprehension
of Narrative Text
Zakiyah Tul
Fahiroh
2016/6/16 8th
Grade of
SMPN 2
Tarumajaya
Quasi-Experimental http://repository.uinjkt.a
c.id/dspace/handle/1234
56789/31674
13 The Effectiveness of
Student Team
Ervi Nur
Azizah
22-Jun-2016 11th
SMK Puspita
Bangsa
Quasi-Experimental http://repository.uinjkt.a
c.id/dspace/handle/1234
69
Achievement Division
(STAD) towards Students'
Speaking Ability
56789/31764
14 Improving Students'
Reading Comprehension
of Narrative Text By
Using Jigsaw
Ikrima
Hikmawati
2016/7/25 8th
Grade of SMP
YMJ Ciputat
Classroom Action
Research (CAR)
http://repository.uinjkt.a
c.id/dspace/handle/1234
56789/31988
15 The Effectiveness of
Using Students Teams-
Achievement Division in
Teaching Simple Past
Tense
Cipto 2016/7/3 8th
Grade
Students' of SMP
Ad da‟wah Duri
Kosambi-Ciputat
Quasi-Experimental http://repository.uinjkt.
ac.id/dspace/handle/123
456789/32109
16 The Comparison of Using
Peer Response Groups and
Mind Mapping toward
Students' Ability in
Writing Hortatory
Exposition Text
Aditya Salman
Farissi
2016/7/3 11th
Grade
Students of SMA
Negeri 10 Kota
Tangerang
Selatan
Pre-experimental http://repository.uinjkt.a
c.id/dspace/handle/1234
56789/32493
17 The Effectiveness of
Using Teams-Games-
Tournament (TGT) on
Students' Reading
Rizxi
Amaliyah
2017/1/17 Eighth Grade of
SMPN 166
Jakarta
Quasi-experimental http://repository.uinjkt.a
c.id/dspace/handle/1234
56789/33874
70
Comprehension on
Descriptive Text
18 The Effectiveness of
Jigsaw Technique in
Teaching Reading of
Recount Text
Asteti Hilda 2017/7/5 8th
Grade of SMP
Dharma Karya
UT
Quasi-Experimental http://repository.uinjkt.a
c.id/dspace/handle/1234
56789/36144
19 The Effect of Numbered
Heads Together on
Students‟ Reading
Comprehension of
Narrative Text
Ummi Nurul
Hasanah
2017/7/21 8th
Grade of MTs
Nur Asy-
Syafi‟iyah
Quasi-experimental http://repository.uinjkt.a
c.id/dspace/handle/1234
56789/35273
20 he Effect of Think-Pair-
Share on Students'
Speaking Ability of Short
Monolog
Hidayana Putri 2017/10/17 8th
Grade of MTs
Khazanah
Kebajikan
Quasi-experimental http://repository.uinjkt.a
c.id/dspace/handle/1234
56789/36373
21 The Effectiveness of
Student Team
Achievement Division
(STAD) Technique toward
Students' Reading
Comprehension on
Descriptive Text
Dede Umami 2017/10/17 10th
Grade SMAN
10 Kota
Tangerang
Selatan
Quasi-Experimental http://repository.uinjkt.a
c.id/dspace/handle/1234
56789/36353
71
22 Self and Peer Assessment
in an Oral Presentation
Abdul Rauf 2017/10/20 2nd
Semester of
English Language
Education of
Muhammadiyah
Jakarta University
Case Study http://repository.uinjkt.a
c.id/dspace/handle/1234
56789/36469
23 The Effect of Three-step
Interview Technique on
Students' Speaking Skill
Rahma Deni 2018/6/7 8th
of SMPN 3
Tangerang
Selatan
Quasi-experimental http://repository.uinjkt.a
c.id/dspace/handle/1234
56789/39931
24 The Effect of Peer
Feedback on Facebook
Group on Students'
Writing Recount Text
Novika
Rahayu
Ningtyas
2018/6/8 10th
Grade
Students of SMA
Mawaddah Depok
Quasi-experimental http://repository.uinjkt.a
c.id/dspace/handle/1234
56789/39964
25 The Effect of Roundtable
Technique on Students‟
Writing of Descriptive
Text
Cici Puspasari 2018//6/8 10th
Grade
Students of MA
Pembangunan
Quasi-experimental http://repository.uinjkt.a
c.id/dspace/handle/1234
56789/39957
26 The Effectiveness of Word
Jigsaw Strategy on
Students' Vocabulary
achievement of
Descriptive Text
Erniyanti Nur
Fatahhela
Dewi
2018/6/29 8th
SMP PGRI 1
Ciputat
Quasi Experimental http://repository.uinjkt.a
c.id/dspace/handle/1234
56789/39918
27 The Influence of Think Yudhistira Adi 2018/6/29 8th
Grade of SMP Quasi-Experimental http://repository.uinjkt.a
72
Pair Share on Students'
Reading Narrative Text
Nugraha N 3 Kota
Tangerang
c.id/dspace/handle/1234
56789/40389
28 Enriching Students
Vocabulary through
Jigsaw Learning
Technique
Rivki Surya
Maulana
2018/7/7 10th
Grade
Students of SMA
Budi Mulia
Ciledug
Classroom Action
Research
http://repository.uinjkt.a
c.id/dspace/handle/1234
56789/40066
29 The Effectiveness of
Numbered Heads Together
Towards Students‟
Reading Comprehension
of Report Text
Nisrina
Qurratul Aini
2019/1/29 9th
Grade of SMP
At-Taqwa Putri
Pusat Bekasi
Quasi-Experimental http://repository.uinjkt.a
c.id/dspace/handle/1234
56789/43637
30 The Effect Of Cooperative
Integrated Reading and
Composition (CIRC) and
Self-Esteem on Students‟
Reading Comprehension
Sanidaya
Febrianto
2019/7/30 7th
Grade
Students of SMP
N 3 Ciputat
Timur
Quasi Experimental http://repository.uinjkt.
ac.id/dspace/handle/123
456789/46649
31 The Effect of Jigsaw
Strategy on Students‟
Reading Comprehension
of Descriptive Text
Ratu Erlinda
Kurniatillah
2019/10/3 10th
Grade
Students of MAN
12 Jakarta
Quasi-Experimental http://repository.uinjkt.a
c.id/dspace/handle/1234
56789/47606
73
74
75
76
77
78