THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING BY USING WORKING GROUPS STRATEGY TO IMPROVE STUDENTS’ ENGLISH ACHIEVEMENT IN SMPN 15 MALANG
| Main Author: | ARISTA, RIA |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis NonPeerReviewed Book |
| Bahasa: | eng |
| Terbitan: |
, 2012
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: |
http://eprints.umm.ac.id/30917/1/jiptummb--riaarista0-27329-1-pendahul-n.pdf http://eprints.umm.ac.id/30917/2/jiptummb--riaarista0-27329-2-babi.pdf http://eprints.umm.ac.id/30917/ |
Daftar Isi:
- In teaching English in Indonesia, junior high school teachers have often faced difficulties dealing with big classes. Teachers are responsible to make each students be involved in the process, which has become such daunting issue in regards to the successive of language learning. Due to this problem, the researcher implemented working group strategy to facilitate studentsÂ’ cooperation, which was believed to be potential in boosting studentsÂ’ English achievement as well. In this classroom-action research, the researcher limited the implementation of the strategy into two cycles. The two cycles differed in the working group formats; where Cycle I allowed students to choose the group members themselves, and Cycle II urged the teacher to design the group members based on studentsÂ’ cooperative behavior and scores on the Cycle I. Both cycles underwent the same procedures in working group setting. Teacher had to briefly present a topic to the large group; divide all students into small effective group consisted of 3-5 members each; announce directions, goals, and time alloted for each group to finish the task; walk around and listen to each groupÂ’s problems; keep the groups focused; and make sure that the intended message was conveyed. Teacher also generated assessment to monitor studentsÂ’ English achievement individually after each cycle. As a result, studentsÂ’ cooperation shows improvement from Cycle I with the percentage of cooperative students was 71.4%, to Cycle II with 81.1%. The studentsÂ’ scores had also improved from pre-cycle study with 54.65, to Cycle I with 58.4, and finally to Cycle II with 67.1 from the scale of 100. This result also shows that dynamic working group designed by the teacher in Cycle II is more effective than the one set by students in Cycle I.