Increasing Activeness and Learning Outcomes at the University by Applying the STAD Method to Learning

Andi Padalia, Andi Jamilah, Heriyati Yatim, Alimuddin Alimuddin, Warih Handayaningrum, Wida Rahayuningtyas


Education is one important aspect of human life. The level of success in education itself is largely determined by the quality of the learning process. The type of research used in this research is classroom action research with action in the form of cooperative application with the STAD (Student Teams Achievement Division) model. This classroom action research was carried out in two cycles, each cycle carried out following planning procedures, acting, observing, and reflecting. Total Samples are 38 students consisting of 18 male students and 20 female students. From the research results, it was found that there was a high increase related to student activeness in learning and the evaluation results of the learning material compared to using conventional methods that have been carried out so far. In conventional model learning (lectures) does not provide opportunities for students to be active in learning, so students tend to be silent and only listen to explanations from the teacher. Even though it has different background problems and categories, the STAD method applied can achieve the same goals, namely increasing the number of graduations and student understanding and improving the quality of learning and teaching. The learning process is basically an interaction of educators (teachers) with students to achieve the expected learning goals. For this reason, the teacher must have a strategy so that student learning can learn effectively and efficiently.


Cooperative Learning; Learning Process; Student Motivation; Effective Teaching

Full Text:



Altrichter, H., Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Zuber‐Skerritt, O. (2002). The concept of action research. The Learning Organization.

Donald, J. G. (1997). Improving the Environment for Learning: Academic Leaders Talk about What Works. ERIC.

Dörnyei, Z. (1997). Psychological processes in cooperative language learning: Group dynamics and motivation. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 482–493.

Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2007). Cooperative learning. Active Learning: Models from the Analytical Sciences, ACS Symposium Series, 970, 34–53.

Fitria, F., Ruslan, R., & Mappeasse, M. Y. (2021). Application of E-Learning Based on Enriched Virtual Model in the Subject Database. International Journal of Environment, Engineering & Education, 3(1), 32–40.

Gillies, R. M., & Ashman, A. F. (2003). Co-operative learning: The social and intellectual outcomes of learning in groups. Psychology Press.

Gurin, P., Dey, E., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330–367.

Idkhan, A. M., & Idris, M. M. (2021). Dimensions of Students Learning Styles at The University with The Kolb Learning Model. International Journal of Environment, Engineering & Education, 3(2), 75–82.

Jaques, D., & Salmon, G. (2007). Learning in groups: A handbook for face-to-face and online environments. Routledge.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 67–73.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2011). Cooperative learning. The Encyclopedia of Peace Psychology.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college what evidence is there that it works? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 30(4), 26–35.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2014). Cooperative learning: Improving university instruction by basing practice on validated theory. Journal on Excellence in University Teaching, 25(4), 1–26.

Kemmis, S. (2010). What is to be done? The place of action research. Educational Action Research, 18(4), 417–427.

Konu, A., & Rimpelä, M. (2002). Well-being in schools: a conceptual model. Health Promotion International, 17(1), 79–87.

Laguador, J. M. (2014). Cooperative learning approach in an outcomes-based environment. International Journal of Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities, 2(2), 46–55.

Liu, C.-H. (2010). The comparison of learning effectiveness between traditional face-to-face learning and e-learning among goal-oriented users. 6th International Conference on Digital Content, Multimedia Technology and Its Applications, 255–260.

Macintyre, C. (2012). The art of action research in the classroom. David Fulton Publishers.

Mayes, T., & De Freitas, S. (2007). Learning and e-learning. Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age, 13–25.

Mertler, C. A. (2009). Action research: Teachers as researchers in the classroom. Sage.

Moos, R. H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments. Jossey-Bass San Francisco.

Oxford, R. L. (1997). Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and interaction: Three communicative strands in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 443–456.

Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1987). Training teachers for cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 45(3), 20–25.

Siegel, C. (2005). Implementing a research-based model of cooperative learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(6), 339–349.

Slavin, R. E., & Davis, N. (2006). Educational psychology: Theory and practice.

Suarlin, S., & Ali, M. I. (2020). The Effect of Environmental Education Learning on Students at University. International Journal of Environment, Engineering & Education, 2(3), 49–56.

Thiagarajan, S., Semmel, D. S., & Semmel, M. I. (1974). Instructional development for training teachers of exceptional children. Leadership Training Institute/Special Education.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2022 International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding (IJMMU) ISSN 2364-5369
Copyright © 2014-2018 IJMMU. All rights reserved.