Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business

Department of management, University Pgri Adi Buana, Indonesia

- *Corresponding Author:
- Priyono IP

Department of management

University Pgri Adi Buana

Surabaya, Jawa Timur, Indonesia

**Tel:**06281216973515

**E-mail:**[email protected]

**Received Date:** February 07, 2017; **Accepted Date:** February 22, 2017; **Published Date:** February 28, 2017

**Citation: **Priyono IP (2017) Usage Model Cooperative Learning and Learning Model Jump in Increased Motivation and Learning Outcomes. J
Glob Econ 5:238. doi:10.4172/2375-4389.1000238

**Copyright:** © 2017 Priyono IP. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

**Visit for more related articles at** Journal of Global Economics

The goal of this study is to know different study result and significant interaction among study result of student who use cooperative learning and directed learning along with who have high motivation and low motivation. By using random sampling that gets data 160 samples. While data analysis technique is variance two way analysis by questionnaire and test method. Based on the calculation and test result which be carried out to each class may be explained that there are different of study result among both learning model and motivation degree for VII grade to Indonesia Language lesson. But there are not interaction among learning method and study motivation to study result in public junior high school 4 and public junior high school 5 Trenggalek in 2009/ 2010. Based on the explanation above may be suggested that teacher to use cooperative learning model because it is proved effective to increase study result of students.

Cooperative learning; Learning direct; Motivation to learn; Study findings

Cooperative learning is a form of learning approaches in which there is a process of togetherness. Kagan [1] placed the cooperative learning among "the strongest of all methods to improve student achievement .He confirmed" students learn best when it can encourage and teach each other. "(P31)

Kagan [2] defines cooperative learning as "teaching setting that refers to, small heterogeneous groups of students work together to reach a common goal of students work together to learn and be responsible for the team 's learning as well as their own" (p 0.85) . Kagan cooperative learning models, based on the concept and use of "structure" is an innovative approach to instructions. This class structures such as "numbered heads together"

Slavin [3] recorded more than 90 experimental studies. He concluded that the reason for successful cooperative learning as an educational methodology is the use of convergent task: the group's goals by individual responsibility of all group members leads to increased learning achievement, regardless of the subject or skill level of the students involved

Some characteristics of cooperative learning is;

• Each member has a role,

• There is connection direct interaction between students,

• Each member of the group responsible for learning and also friends group of their,

• The teacher helps develop interpersonal skills group,

• Interacting with a group of teachers only when needed [4]. Although the basic principles of cooperative learning has not changed, there are several variations of the model. There are four cooperative learning approach [5].

Selection of the learning model used by teachers strongly influenced by the nature of the material to be taught, is also influenced by the goals to be achieved in the teaching and the level of ability of learners. At the same each learning model always has stages (syntax) conducted by students with the guidance of teachers. Between syntax with each other have different syntax.

Therefore, teachers need to master and can apply a variety of learning models, in order to achieve the learning objectives to be achieved after the learning process so that it can be completed as specified. The experts found no teaching model is better than other teaching models [6]. Direct Model instruction is an approach to teaching that helps students to learn the basic skills and obtain information that can be taught step by step. This teaching approach is often called Direct Teaching Model [6]. Arends [5] also says the same thing, namely: "A model of teaching that is aimed at helping the student learn basic skills and knowledge that can be taught in a stepby- step fashion. For our purposes here, the models is labeled the direct instruction model ". If the teacher uses a model of direct teaching this, teachers have a responsibility to identify learning objectives and a great responsibility towards the structuring of the content / materials or skills, explain to students, modeling / demonstrating combined with exercise, providing the opportunity for students to practice applying the concepts or skills that have been learned and provide feedback.

Pasaribu et al. [7] argues that every activity undertaken by a person driven by something force, the driving force is called the motive. Furthermore, based on this expression can be stated that a person's activities or certain activities because there is a power boost that pushed him.

The driving force or power that is active is called motivation. Motivation can be divided into two: the motivation can come from within the individual (intrinsic motivation) and can also arise from outside himself (extrinsic motivation) [8]. Intrinsic motivation is the driving force or power that comes from within the individual himself, while extrinsic motivation is the driving force or the driving force that comes from outside oneself. The same opinion was stated the Ministry of Education and Culture, according to its ranks motive.

**Research design**

This research uses experimental design methods to provide different treatment on two groups of samples, its homogeneous condition. One sample group was treated in the form of cooperative learning model. Another group was treated direct instructional model. Then each group was divided into two, namely a control group and an experimental group with high motivation and the control group and experiment with low motivation.

**Population and sample research**

Winarsunu says that the population is all individuals are intended to be studied, and which will be subject to generalization. Hadi provide limits on the study population is a population or an individual who at least has the same properties [9] (**Table 1**).

No | School name | Amount |
---|---|---|

1 | Public junior high school 4 Trenggalek | 240 |

2 | Public junior high school5 Trenggalek | 242 |

3 | The total population | 482 |

Source: School Profile.

**Table 1:** Total population research.

**Research samples**

The sample is a population that's less than the population [9]. Noting in this study that the research sample was all students of class VII, then a sample of this population is as follows (**Table 2**).

No | School name | Amount |
---|---|---|

1 | public junior high school4 Trenggalek | 80 |

2 | public junior high school5 Trenggalek | 80 |

3 | the total population | 160 |

Source: School Profile

**Table 2:** Total Sample Research.

Data Collection Methods, In this research, data collection methods used are

• The questionnaire method

• Test Method

In the report the results of this study will be explained about the findings in the field at the time the researchers conducting the study. This study was conducted at two different locations, public junior high school 4 and public junior high school 5 academic year 2009/2010 (**Table 3**).

Learning Cooperative | ||
---|---|---|

N | 80 | |

Normal parametersa,b | Mean | 80.6625 |

Std.Deviation | 9.45468 | |

Most extreme differences | Absolute | .115 |

Positive | .115 | |

Negative | -.110 | |

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z | 1.032 | |

Asymp.sig. (2-tailed) | .237 |

a. Test distribution is Normal.

b. Calculated from data.

**Table 3:** Normality Test Results cooperative learning model.

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

Grades K-S for cooperative learning data values obtained 1,031 with significance probability value is above 0237 and α=0:05 this means that the null hypothesis is accepted or learning outcomes data using cooperative learning model class is normally distributed (**Table 4**).

Learning directly | ||

N | 80 | |

Normal parameters a,b | Mean | 73.5250 |

Std.Deviation | 9.18994 | |

Most extreme differences | Absolute | .148 |

Positive | .148 | |

Negative | -.139 | |

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z | 1.326 | |

Asymp.sig. (2-tailed) | .060 |

a. Test distribution is Normal.

b. Calculated from data.

**Table 4:** Normality test results direct instructional model.

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

Grades K-S for demonstration learning data values obtained 1,326 with significance probability value is above 0.060 and α=0:05 this means that the null hypothesis is accepted or learning outcomes data using direct learning model for the class are normally distributed (**Table 5**).

F | df1 | df2 | Sig. |
---|---|---|---|

0.868 | 3 | 156 | .459 |

Design: Intercept+Factor_A+Factor_ B+Factor_A * Factor_B.

**Table 5:** Homogeneity calculation.

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances

Dependent Variable Indonesian Learning Outcomes:

Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of

The dependent variable is equal across groups

Based on the above table it can be seen that the probability of the above data is 0459, meaning that the probability of> 0.05, it gives the sense that the data class for cooperative learning and direct learning model is homogeneous.

From the foregoing it can be seen that from both a research site has the ability to learn Indonesian same, which both samples have the same properties or homogeneous.

After learning in each class, where a class is treated with cooperative learning model, one class given direct instructional model. Of the learning process on 160 samples of this will be seen some students who like cooperative learning called with highly motivated, and less like the cooperative learning or have low motivation, as well as on direct instructional model would seem that excited or motivated to keep learning is said to be high motivation group, and the remaining low motivation. After the implementation of learning at their respective predetermined learning, where one class is given a cooperative learning model, while another class with direct instructional model.

Descriptive Statistics

Dependent Variable:Indonesian Learning Outcomes

From the table above it can be seen that there are differences in the average Indonesian learning outcomes for each class of cooperative and direct learning in students with high motivation and low motivation (**Table 6**).

Factor A | Factor B | Mean | Std.Deviation | N |

Cooperative learning | High motivation | 83.0750 | 9.49868 | 40 |

Low motivation | 78.2500 | 8.88314 | 40 | |

General | 80.6625 | 9.45468 | 80 | |

Direct learning | High motivation | 75.7500 | 9.84170 | 40 |

Low motivation | 71.3000 | 8.00385 | 40 | |

General | 73.5250 | 9.18994 | 80 | |

General | High motivation | 79.4125 | 10.29279 | 80 |

Low motivation | 74.7750 | 9.09997 | 80 | |

General | 77.0938 | 9.95954 | 160 |

**Table 6:** Descriptive results achievement Indonesian.

Based on the above table it can be seen that the model of cooperative learning with highly motivated, have a greater learning outcomes when compared with the model of cooperative learning in students with low motivation. Similarly, in direct instructional model with high motivation have better learning results than the direct learning model with low motivation. As well as cooperative learning model has better learning outcomes or higher than the direct learning model (**Table 7**).

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances |
t-test for Equality of Means | |||||||||

F | Sig | t | df | Sig.(2-tailed) | Mean Difference | Std.Error Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | |||

Lower | Upper | |||||||||

Learning outcomes | Equal variances assumed |
.015 | .902 | 4.842 | 15 | .000 | 7.13750 | 1.47414 | 4.22595 | 10.04905 |

Indonesian | Equal variances not assumed |
4.842 | 157.873 | .000 | 7.13750 | 1.47414 | 4.22593 | 10.04907 |

**Table 7:** Different Test average of cooperative learning model and direct instructional model.

Independent Samples Test

From the table above obtained significant value under 0:05 (α<0.05), so it can be explained that there are differences in learning outcomes Indonesian students of class VII in public junior high school 4 and public junior high school 5 academic year 2009/2010 using cooperative learning model and direct instructional model (**Table 8**).

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances |
t-test for Equality of Means | |||||||||

F | Sig | t | df | Sig.(2-tailed) | Mean Difference | Std.Error Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | |||

Lower | Upper | |||||||||

Learning outcomes | Equal variances assumed |
.176 | .676 | 2.346 | 78 | .021 | 4.82500 | 2.05630 | .73122 | 8.91878 |

Indonesian | Equal variances not assumed |
2.346 | 77.652 | .022 | 4.82500 | 2.05630 | .73093 | 8.91907 |

**Table 8:** Different test average student with high motivation and low motivation in cooperative learning model.

Independent Samples Test

From the table above obtained significant value under 0:05 (α<0.05), so it can be explained that there are differences in student learning outcomes in subjects Indonesian students of class VII in public junior high school 4 and public junior high school 5 academic year 2009/2010 which have a high motivation to learn with those having low learning motivation in cooperative learning model (**Table 9**).

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances |
t-test for Equality of Means | |||||||||

F | Sig | t | df | Sig.(2-tailed) | Mean Difference | Std.Error Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | |||

Lower | Upper | |||||||||

Learning outcomes | Equal variances assumed |
2.341 | .130 | 2.219 | 78 | .029 | 4.45000 | 2.00574 | .45687 | 8.44313 |

Indonesian | Equal variances not assumed |
2.219 | 74.889 | .030 | 4.45000 | 2.00574 | .45425 | 8.44575 |

**Table 9:** Different test average student with high motivation and low motivation on direct instructional model.

Independent Samples Test

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent VariableIndonesian Learning Outcomes

From the **table 9** obtained significant value over 0:05 (α <0.05), so it can be explained that there are differences in learning outcomes Indonesian students of class VII in public junior high school 4 and public junior high school 5 academic year 2009/2010 who have learning motivation high with those having low learning motivation in direct instructional model (**Table 10**).

Source | Type III Sum of Squares |
df | Mean Square | F | Sig. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Corrected model | 2899.419a | 3 | 966.473 | 11.713 | .000 |

Intercept | 950951.406 | 1 | 950951.406 | 11524.736 | .000 |

Factor_A | 2037.756 | 1 | 2037.756 | 24.696 | .000 |

Factor_B | 860.256 | 1 | 860.256 | 10.426 | .002 |

Factor_A* Factor_B | 1.406 | 1 | 1.406 | .017 | .896 |

Error | 12872.175 | 156 | 82.514 | ||

Total | 966723.000 | 160 | |||

Corrected Total | 15771.594 | 159 |

a=R Squared=0.184 (Adjusted R Squared=0.168).

**Table 10:** Anova 2 line test results.

**Differences learning outcomes students who have learning motivation high and low**

The motivation of the students in the learning process is probably different, where students have high motivation to learn and others have a low learning motivation, differences in the motivation of these students provides its own influence on learning outcomes Indonesian students. This is also shown by the different test average, in which the achievements of both (students with high motivation and students with low motivation) with the learning method is different, the cooperative learning model obtained significantly different results between students who have high motivation and low indicated with the value of t>t table as well as the significance value less than 0.05, as well as on the direct instructional model shows the value t count>t table, so it can be explained there are significant differences of class VII student learning outcomes in subjects Indonesian who has high motivation with students who have low motivation.

In addition, by using analysis of variance 2 lines get value FB (F count to the level of student motivation high and motivation is low) showed that the FB is greater than F table, so it gives the sense that there is influence learning outcomes among students who have learning motivation high and students who have low motivation in class VII in Indonesian subjects in public junior high school 4 and public junior high school 5 academic year 2009/2010.

It gives the sense that the second hypothesis can be accepted, that there are differences in learning outcomes Indonesian students of class VII in public junior high school and public junior high school 5 academic year 2009/2010 among the ones that have a high motivation to learn and who have low learning motivation.

The interaction between the Model of Learning and Student Motivation Levels As for the interaction between factor A (cooperative learning and direct instructional model) by a factor B (students with motivation levels).

Differences in Learning Outcomes Using cooperative learning and direct learning model Based on the calculation and the results of tests conducted on each class can be explained that the learning outcomes Indonesian Seventh Grade Students in public junior high school 4 and public junior high school 5 academic year 2009/2010, at the beginning of learning have the same ability, where the mean average results of the same study. After treatment with the use of cooperative learning and direct instructional model there is a difference in student learning outcomes, which is quite significantly different, it means an increase learning outcomes Indonesian students of class VII in public junior high school 4 and public junior high school 5 academic year 2009/2010.

This suggests that learning by using cooperative learning model to motivate students to learn and improve learning outcomes. Similarly, students who use direct instructional model also has an average significant study results. This can be explained that students receive guidance directly from the teacher so the teacher's attention is focused on the students.

While the cooperative learning model, most of the material can be absorbed by the students, because students are directly involved in a given problem, when students learn, do chores and interpret them, so that more students master the material. The average difference between the class of cooperative learning model with direct instructional model has significant differences, as shown by the average value of learning results obtained by each class, which by using cooperative learning model has an average value higher compared to the value that using direct learning model. Statistically this is indicated by the value of t is greater t table and the value of learning a second significant difference under 0:05.

In addition, the calculation by using analysis of variance 2 lines get value FA (F count to factors cooperative learning and direct instructional model) showed greater than F table, meaning that there is influence learning outcomes between cooperative learning and direct instructional model as applied to student class VII in Indonesian subjects in public junior high school and public junior high school 5 academic year 2009/2010.

Based on the above can be explained that this shows the hypothesis can be accepted, where there are differences in learning outcomes Indonesian seventh grade students at public junior high school 4 and public junior high school 5 academic year 2009/2010 between classes are taught using cooperative learning model and the taught using direct learning model.

- Kagan S (2001) Brain-based learning smart card. kagan publishing, California.
- Kagan S (2010) Cooperative learning. kagan publishing, California.
- Slavin R (1995) Cooperative Learning, Allyn and Bacon Publisher, USA.
- Carin A (1993) Teaching Modern Science. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York.
- Arends RI (2001) Learning to Teach. Mc graw Hill Companies, New York.
- Kardi S, Nur MD (2000a) Pengajaran Langsung. Surabaya University Press, Surabaya.
- Pasaribu, Simanjuntak B (1973) Theory of Personality. Bandung, Tarsito.
- Usman Mohammad U (2016) Menjadi Guru Profesional. Bandung, Remaja Rosdakarya.
- Sutrisno H (1987) Statistik Jilid 2. YPFP, Yogyakarta.

Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language

- Accountancy and Finance
- Accounting Information
- Accounting Review
- Applied Economics
- Assessment Scales
- Avenues of Investment
- Banking Research
- Banking Research Studies
- Bullion Market
- Business
- Business Cycle
- Business Management
- Business Plan
- Business Research
- Business Theory
- CRM
- Capital Marketing
- Capital Markets
- Capital Movements
- Capital Structure
- Chief Marketing Officer
- Classical Economics
- Computable General Equilibrium Model
- Corporate Finance
- Corporate Governance Structure
- Corporate governance system
- Currency
- Deflation
- Demand Theory
- Development Economics
- E-Governance
- E-Retailing Market
- E-banking
- Econometrics
- Economic Capital
- Economic Cycle
- Economic Growth
- Economic Policies
- Economic Policy
- Economic Resources
- Economic Transparency
- Economic indicator
- Economics Studies
- Electronic Business
- Electronic Commerce
- Empirical Analysis
- Entrepreneurial Development
- Entrepreneurial Management
- Entrepreneurship
- Exchange Traded Funds
- Fair Trade
- Finance and accounting
- Finance of Commodity Markets
- Financial Affairs
- Financial Crisis
- Financial Economics
- Financial Management services
- Financial Markets
- Financial Reporting Standard
- Financial Risk
- Financial Services
- Financial accounting
- Financial and Nonfinancial Information
- Financial plan
- Financial valuation
- Fiscal and tax policies
- Foreign Exchange
- Game theory
- General finance
- Global Accounting
- Global Market
- Gross Domestic Product -GDP
- HRM
- Health Management
- Hospitality Management
- Human Capital
- Income Smoothing
- Indexation
- Industrial Business
- Industrial and Management Optimization
- Inflation
- Innovation Policy and the Economy
- Intellectual Capital Disclosures
- Intellectual property
- International Business
- International Relations
- Investment
- Logistics management
- Macro Economics
- Management
- Management Accounting
- Management in Education
- Managerial Finance
- Managerial accounting
- Marginal Utility
- Market Analysis
- Market Equilibrium
- Marketing Analysis
- Marketing Performance
- Marketing management
- Marketing-Accounting-Finance Interface
- Micro Economics
- Microfinance
- Monetary Neutrality
- Monetary Policy
- Multinational finance
- Nasdaq
- New Economy
- New Trade Theory
- Organizational studies
- Panel Data
- Parameter Estimation
- Primary Market
- Profitability
- Resource Management
- Risk management
- Secondary Market
- Small Firms
- Small Scale Business
- Social Economics
- Socio-Economic Planning Sciences
- SocioEconomics Status
- Stock Exchange Business Studies
- Stock Market
- Stock Market Returns
- Stock Return Predictability
- Strategic management
- Time Series
- Total Quality Management (TQM)
- Trading
- Trading forex
- Value based Management
- Wealth Management
- Welfare Economics
- World banking

- Total views:
**456** - [From(publication date):

March-2017 - Feb 23, 2018] - Breakdown by view type
- HTML page views :
**405** - PDF downloads :
**51**

Peer Reviewed Journals

International Conferences
2018-19