







































 

  
 
  

EDUCATIO : Journal Of Education 
Volume 8 , Number 3, November 2023 

 ISSN : 2579-8383 (Print) ISSN : 2579-8405 (Online) 

  

  

The Influence of Cooperative Learning Model Student Team 

Achievement Division ( STAD) And Learning Motivation On Learning 

Outcomes  

 

Yayuk Harini Yuliastuti , I Nyoman Sudana Degeng  , Ibut Priono Leksono  

Study Program School Education Technology Postgraduate PGRI Adi Buana University , 

Surabaya 

ayuarinastuti@gmail.com, nyoman.sudana.d.fip@um.ac.id ibutpriono@gmail.com  

 

Accepted: 
August 14th 2023 

Reviewed: 
Sept 18th 2023 

Published: 
Nov 30th 2023 

 

Abstract  
The purpose of this research is to find out 1). Differences in learning outcomes in 
Geography subject between students who were given the Student Team Achievement 
Division (STAD) learning model and those who were given Snowball Throwing learning 
student XI IPS class at SMAN 1 Lamongan and SMAN 1 Sukodadi . 2). The difference in 
the learning outcomes of students who have high learning motivation and low learning 
motivation in Geography 3 ). There is an interaction between the application of the Student 
Team Achievement Division (STAD) learning model and Snowball Throwing with 
Geography Learning Motivation on Learning Outcomes eye lesson geography . This 
research involves two independent variables, one moderator variable, and in the 
measurement (post test) there is one variable that is measured. The independent variable in 
this study is the learning model which consists of STAD cooperative learning and the 
Snowball Throwing learning model. The moderator variable is learning motivation which is 
divided into high motivation and low motivation. While the dependent variable is the result 
student learning . Calculation results Anava 2 lanes known , that 1). probability score the 
significance of the learning model variable ( between the STAD – Snowball Throwing learning 
models ) is 0.000. this means significance not enough of 0.05 (P < 0.05), Mean exist _ 
difference results Study eye lesson geography between given students learning the Student 
Team Achievement Division (STAD) model with those who are given Snowball Throwing 
learning model . 2). Value probability the significance of the variable motivation Study of 
0.000. this means significance not enough of 0.05 (P < 0.05), that is There is difference 
results Study eye lesson geography between students who have motivation Study height 
and students who have motivation Study low . 3). score probability significance on learning 
model variables and motivation Study of 0.005. this means significance not enough from 
0.05 (P < 0.05), so H 0 rejected and H 1 accepted . With thereby can concluded , that There 
is interaction between application learning model Student Team Achievement Division 
(STAD) and Snowball Throwing with motivation Study student to results Study  
 

 
Keywords : STAD Model, Snowball Drilling, Learning Motivation, and Learning 

Outcomes . 
 

 

mailto:ayuarinastuti@gmail.coml
mailto:nyoman.sudana.d.fip@um.ac.id


 

  
 
  

Volume 8, Number 3,  November 2023| 432 

  

  

Introduction 

Education in Indonesia is moderate develop fast and become need fundamental in 

human life a . Education has a very important role in life. Through education, every 

generation can become a superior successor in accordance with the hopes and aspirations 

of our nation and state1. The existence of this very important education has been 

recognized and at the same time has a very strong position as stated in the 1945 

Constitution Article 31 paragraph 1 which states that "Every citizen has the right to 

education". In Law Number 20 of 2003 concerning the National Education System 

(Sisdiknas) it is explained that education is a conscious and planned effort to create a 

learning atmosphere and learning process so that students actively develop their potential 

to have religious spiritual strength, self-control, personality, intelligence, noble character, 

and skills needed by himself, society, nation and state2. 

One of the high school level subjects in the 2013 Curriculum is Geography which is 

a science to support lifelong life and encourage improvement in life. Success process 

activity Study teach on geography subject can seen from level understanding , mastery 

material as well as results Study student3 . Matter This can he gap that the more tall level of 

understanding and mastery material as well as results learn , then the more tall also level 

success learning . But on in fact can seen that results Study geography subject Which 

achieved student Still low . Problem that , because lack of understanding draft student 

about material Which learned . With these problems, various efforts emerged to overcome 

them. One of them is with innovation in learning . The most prominent learning innovation 

is the reconstruction of understanding through various learning models and assessment systems , 

including motivation learning so that it can develop the reconstruction of students ' 

concept understanding abilities in various fields of knowledge in everyday matters4.  

Cooperative learning model or au cooperative learning is method e learning share  idea  

that  student  Work  The same  For  learn and be responsible  answer  on learning  

colleague  team  they  as well as  they a  Alone 5. Cooperative learning is a learning method 

by forming groups. In this group, students who have different understandings try to teach 

each other . This method can produce more understanding than individual learning 

 
1 Jório Coelho, “The Importance of Education,” REM - International Engineering Journal., 2021; Ahmad 

Zuhdi, Firman Firman, and Riska Ahmad, “The Importance of Education for Humans,” SCHOULID: 
Indonesian Journal of School Counseling (2021); Mayurakshi Basu, “Importance of Research in Education,” SSRN 
Electronic Journal (2020). 

2 R I Undang-Undang, “Nomor 20 Tahun 2003 Tentang Sisdiknas Dan Peraturan Pemerintah RI 
Nomor 47 Tahun 2008 Tentang Wajib Belajar,” Bandung: Citra Umbara (2008). 

3 “Evaluasi Implementasi Kurikulum 2013 Di Sekolah Pelaksana Mandiri,” Innovative Journal of 
Curriculum and Educational Technology (2017). 

4 Warman, Suryaningsi, and Widyatmike Gede Mulawarman, “Overcoming Obstacles in 
Implementing 2013 Curriculum Policy,” Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 2021; Nyoman Ayu Putri Lestari, 
“Analysis of 2013 Curriculum Problems so It Is Changed into a Merdeka Curriculum,” JURNAL 
PENDIDIKAN DASAR NUSANTARA (2023); Fithriani et al., “TEACHER AS A ROLE MODEL IN 
THE 2013 CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT,” Jurnal Ilmiah Islam Futura (2021). 

5 Tiodora Fermiska Silalahi and Ahmad Fakhri Hutauruk, “The Application of Cooperative Learning 
Model during Online Learning in the Pandemic Period,” Budapest International Research and Critics Institute 
(BIRCI-Journal): Humanities and Social Sciences (2020); Tuty Novelindah Purba et al., “Analisis Kemampuan Self-
Efficacy Siswa Pada Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Jigsaw,” Journal of Education and Instruction (JOEAI) (2021). 



 

  
 
  

Volume 8, Number 3,  November 2023| 433 

  

  

methods. In addition, this cooperative method has been proven in previous studies to 

significantly increase achievement in science and other relevant fields such as (arts, 

humanities, and social sciences). Cooperative learning also increases positive attitudes 

towards learning6. there are five types method Study successful cooperative _ developed by 

researchers education at Johns Hopkins University , namely : STAD ( Student Teams 

Achievement Division ), TGT ( Teams Games Tournament ), TAI ( Teams Accelerated Instruction ), 

CIRC ( Cooperativee Integrated Reading & Composition), and Jigsaw7. 

STAD Model Learning , According Warsono and Haryanto 8 in  state that Student 

Team Achievement Division (STAD) is an encouraging learning model participant educate For 

each other Work same and mutual help in finish something problem, but in the end 

responsible answer in a manner independent 

Learning models Snowball Throwing is a learning model innovative f , which is more 

emphasize to student as center learning . Learning models This enough p pleasant For used 

in learn repeat dead learning that has given previously Because student can carry out 

learning while play 9 

Motivation is self - induced encouragement somebody in a manner aware or No aware For 

do something action with objective certain ( KBBI) . According to Sardiman 10, motive can 

said as Power mover from inside and inside subject For do activities certain to achieve 

something purpose . In activity learning , motivation is needed For awaken excitement 

Study student so that activity Study can walk with ok . Motivation Study is internal and 

external encouragement on students who are Study For  stage change Act behavior , in 

general with a number of indicator or supporting elements. 

 

Method 

This research involves two independent variables, one moderator variable, and in 

the measurement (post test) there is one variable that is measured. The independent 

 
6 Fitria Lestari et al., “Cooperative Learning Application with the Method of" Network Tree Concept 

Map": Based on Japanese Learning System Approach,” Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 7, no. 1 
(2019): 15–32. 

7 Shila Majid Ardiyani and Riyadi Gunarhadi, “Realistic Mathematics Education in Cooperative 
Learning Viewed from Learning Activity,” Journal on Mathematics Education (2018); Yunisrina Qismullah Yusuf, 
Yuliana Natsir, and Lutfia Hanum, “A Teacher’s Experience in Teaching with Student Teams-Achievement 
Division (STAD) Technique.,” International Journal of Instruction 8, no. 2 (2015): 99–112. 

8 Shofan Hariyanto, Warsono Warsono, and Harmanto Harmanto, “Kompetensi Guru SD 
Muhammadiyah Manyar Gresik Dalam Memanfaatkan Media Pembelajaran Berbasis Teknologi Informasi 
Komunikasi (TIK),” ELSE (Elementary School Education Journal): Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran Sekolah Dasar 
4, no. 2 (2020): 116–123. 

9 Golda Novatrasio Sauduran and Rani Farida Sinaga, “Training of Learning Model Snowball 
Throwing of Teachers at State Elementary School,” International Journal of Community Engagement Payungi (2022); 

Kartika Manalu, Efrida Pima Sari Tambunan, and Oki Permata Sari, “Snowball Throwing Learning Model : 
Increase Student Activity And Learning Outcomes,” Journal Of Education And Teaching Learning (JETL) (2022); 
Servista Bukit et al., “Snowball Throwing Learning Model in Growing Questioning Skills of Elementary 
School Students: A Review,” Journal Corner of Education, Linguistics, and Literature (2023). 

10 I Komang Adi Suandika, I Nyoman Pasek Nugraha, and L.J.E. Dewi, “Pengaruh Model 
Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Team Game Tournament (TGT) Terhadap Keaktifan Dan Hasil Belajar 
Pekerjaan Dasar Otomotif Siswa Kelas X TKRO SMK Negeri 1 Denpasar,” Jurnal Pendidikan Teknik Mesin 
Undiksha (2020). 



 

  
 
  

Volume 8, Number 3,  November 2023| 434 

  

  

variable in this study is the learning model which consists of STAD cooperative learning 

and the Snowball Throwing learning model. The moderator variable is learning motivation 

which is divided into high motivation and low motivation. While the dependent variable is 

student learning outcomes. This research can be classified as quasi-experimental using an 

experimental class and a control class. equivalent. This method was carried out because it 

did not allow the researcher to exercise full control over the variables and experimental 

conditions. The experimental class is the class with the STAD learning model and the 

control class is the Snowball Throwing learning model. 

In conducting research on the effect of learning the STAD model with Snowball 

Throwing learning and learning motivation on learning outcomes geography, the research 

design used was a non-equivalent control group design. The experimental group and the 

control group were chosen randomly and for each group a pre-test and post-test were 

carried out 

this research designed as follows: 

Table 3. 1 Draft Study 

 Research methods 

Motivation to learn STAD Snowball Throwing 

High motivation X 1MT _ X2MT _ _ 

Low Motivation X1MR _ _ X2MR _ _ 

Description : 
X 1 MT = STAD model learning outcomes with motivation Study high . 
X 1 MR = STAD model learning outcomes with motivation Study low . 
X 2 MT = Study results Snowball Throwing method with motivation Study high . 
X 2 MR = Learning Outcomes Snowball Throwing method with motivation Study low . 

Population in study This is whole student class X I IPS SMA Negeri 1 Lamongan 
which consists of 3 group and students class X I IPS SMA Negeri 1 Sukodadi consists 3 
troop . ( technique taking sample ) using technique proportional random sampling where 
student class X I IPS SMA Negeri 1 Lamongan and students Class X I IPS SMA Negeri 1 
Sukodadi taken samples of each 2 class . Instruments used in research _ This consists from  
Test results study and Questionnaire motivation learn . Test results Study used For know 
development results Study geography . Form question choice double totaling 20 with 5 
alternatives choice at each number . Questionnaire motivation Study used For know level 
motivation Study student . The number of item questions 20 arranged based scale likert 
with 5 options answer . Before the instrument is used , validity and reliability tests are 
carried out . Data analysis technique using analysis test variant ( Anava ) two track For test 
hypothesis . However before done testing hypothesis with (ANAVA), then need 
prerequisite test _ analysis especially first . Test the necessary prerequisites done is the 
normality test and homogeneity test For inspect validity sample as precondition can done 
data analysis . 
 
Result and Discussion 
Data Presentation 
1. Description Results Study 

Description results Study student class XI Social Sciences SMA Negeri I Lamongan and 



 

  
 
  

Volume 8, Number 3,  November 2023| 435 

  

  

SMA Negeri I Sukodadi , both models STAD Snowball Throwing . 
Table 4.1 STAD model learning outcomes and Snowball Throwing 

 
 

Statistics 

 Pretest Ex PostTest Ex PretestCon 
PostTestCo
n 

N Valid 64 64 64 64 

missing 0 0 0 0 

Means 63.36 83.67 61.17 75.55 

std. Error of Means 1,404 1,704 1,312 1,369 

Median 65.00 85.00 60.00 77.50 

Mode 70 80a _ 60 80 

std. Deviation 11.235 13,635 10,493 10,951 

Variances 126,234 185,906 110,113 119,934 

Range 45 50 45 50 

Minimum 35 50 35 45 

Maximum 80 100 80 95 

sum 4055 5355 3915 4835 

a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown 
From table 4.1 above is known that amount student in a manner whole is 128 
which consists of 64 of class experiment and 64 of class control . Pretest results 
show class _ experiment more tall compared to class control . On class experiment 
has an average of 63.36 being in class control is 61.17. On results pretest , fine class 
experiment nor control class has minimum value of 35 and maximum 80. Currently 
on the post test class experiment have means or an average of 83.67 with mark 
maximum 100 and class control 75.55 with mark maximum 95. Range or difference 
mark highest and rated lowest at pretest Good class experiment nor class control is 
The same ie 45 and the range in the results post test is 50 
Histogram of Learning Outcomes student Good from class experiment nor from 
class control can seen from Figure 4.1 follows :  
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=Y 
NORMAL HISTOGRAM 
/ORDER=ANALYSIS 

 
Figure 4.1 Histogram of results Study 

Study results With Motivation Study High And Low 
Description  results Study students who have motivation height and motivation can 
seen in table 4.2 below : 

HISTOGRAM 



 

  
 
  

Volume 8, Number 3,  November 2023| 436 

  

  

 
 
 
Table 4.2 Motivation Test Results Study 

Descriptive Statistics 

Dependent Variable: Learning Outcomes   

Learning Model Motivation Study Means std. Dev N 

STAD Motivation on 88.85 8,495 52 

Lower Motivation 61.25 7,424 12 

Total 83.67 13,635 64 

Snowball Throwing Motivation on 75.21 6,990 47 

Lower Motivation 56.76 4,982 17 

Total 70.31 10,461 64 

Total 
 
 

Motivation on 82.37 10,359 99 

Lower Motivation 58.62 6,394 29 

Total 76.99 13,837 128 

 
Based table 4.2 above can explained that students who got treatment as class experiment with 

the STAD learning model there are 52 students motivated tall with average score 88.85, 

moderate For student  motivated low there are 12 students with average score of 61.25. 

While the students who got treatment as class control with learning models Snowball Throwing 

there are 47 students motivated tall with a mean or average of 75.21, moderate For student 

motivated low amounted to 17 with an average score of 56.76  

Amount student a total of 128, which has score motivation study tall as many as 99 

students and the remaining 29 students  have motivation Study low 

1. Validity and Reliability Test Questionnaire Motivation 

Validity test carried out for each item statement motivational questionnaire _ _ _ with use 

SPSS help version 22.0. For find out whether it is valid or not grain question , then r hits  

compared to with r table with level significant 0.005. If r hits >= r tab  so question it's valid . 

Otherwise , if r hits <= r tab so grain question the invalid . From 20 grains question 

questionnaire motivation , number 14 is not valid. 

Table 4.3 Validity test Questionnaire Motivation 
Item-Total Statistics 

 

Scale 
Mean if 

Item 
Deleted 

Scale Variance 
if Item Deleted 

Corrected Item-
Total 

Correlation 
Cronbach's Alpha 

if Item Deleted 

question_1 64.2188 139,273 .638 .934 

question_2 63.6875 135,964 .874 .927 

question_3 63.1250 163,210 .135 .938 

question_4 63.4063 153,023 .567 .934 

question_5 63.3438 162,362 085 .941 

question_6 63.4375 143,351 .815 .928 

question_7 63.8750 139,726 .826 .928 

question_8 63.5000 152,387 .631 .933 



 

  
 
  

Volume 8, Number 3,  November 2023| 437 

  

  

question_9 62.9688 149,451 .696 .931 

problem_10 63.4375 157,544 .378 .936 

problem_11 63.2188 145,660 .877 .928 

problem_12 63.9063 148,152 .700 .931 

problem_13 63.6875 145,448 .764 .930 

problem_15 63.3750 152,177 .653 .932 

problem_16 63.6875 137,254 .864 .927 

problem_17 63.4063 139,668 .806 .928 

question_18 63.4375 144,319 .749 .930 

question_19 62.8125 158,028 .297 .938 

problem_20 63.4688 153,999 .580 .934 

 
Reliability Test done to details statement that has been declared valid on the test validity . 
For measure reliability used mark Cronbach's Alpha . If the coefficient Cronbach's Alpha 
more big from 0.6, instruments considered reliable . If the coefficient Cronbach's 
Alpha not enough  from 0.6, instruments are considered No reliable . Based table 4.4, 
questionnaire motivation Study reliable 
 
Table 4.4 Reliability test Questionnaire Motivation 

Reliability Statistics 

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items 

.926 19 

 
2. Validity and Reliability Test Learning Outcome Test 

For find out whether it is valid or not grain question , then r hits compared to with r tabe with 
level significance 0.05. If r hit >= r tablel so grain question the declared valid. On the contrary 
If  r hit < r tablel , then grain question the stated invalid . 
Table 4.5 Validity test Learning Outcome Test 

No 
Question 

Pearson C Sig validity 
 

1 0.344 0.005 Valid 

2 0.641 0.000 Valid 

3 0.335 0.007 Valid 

4 0.584 0.000 Valid 

5 0.540 0.000 Valid 

6 0.380 0.002 Valid 

7 0.378 0.002 Valid 

8 0.337 0.007 Valid 

9 0.584 0.000 Valid 

10 0.534 0.000 Valid 

11 0.580 0.000 Valid 

12 0.584 0.000 Valid 

13 0.290 0.020 Valid 

14 0.545 0.000 Valid 

15 0.224 0.076  

16 -0.027 0.829  



 

  
 
  

Volume 8, Number 3,  November 2023| 438 

  

  

No 
Question 

Pearson C Sig validity 
 

17 0.305 0.014 Valid 

18 0.641 0.000 Valid 

19 0.558 0.001 Valid 

20 0.344 0.005 Valid 

From table 4.5 above , number questions 15 and 16 are invalid because mark its 

significance more big from 0.05 

Test Reliability i lit as test results Study done to details questions that have declared valid 

on the test validity . For measure reliability used mark Cronbach's Alpha . If the coefficient 

Cronbach's Alpha more big of 0.6, instrument considered reliable . If the coefficient 

Cronbach's Alpha not enough  of 0.6, instrument considered No reliable .. Based on 

the test , test result Study is reliable  

Table 4.6 Reliability test of learning outcomes 
Reliability Statistics 

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items 

.795 18 

 
Data Analysis 

1. Prerequisite Test  

Before do Testing hypothesis with use statistics analysis of variance (ANAVA) 

two track For know difference results Study Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) 

and Snowball Throwing with students who have motivation tall as well as motivation 

low , then previously need Prerequisite tests are carried out , namely normality and 

homogeneity tests 

a. Normality Test 

Probability sig α > 0.05 then H 0  received , distributed data normally . If the 

probability sig α < 0.05 then the data is not distributed normally . 

 Table 4.7 Test Normality of the One-Sample Kolmogorov- Smimov Test 

Tests of Normality 

     
Class 

Kolmogorov-Smirnov a Shapiro-Wilk 

Statistics df Sig. Statistics df Sig. 

Learnin
g 
Outco
mes 

STAD .136 32 .137 .904 32 008 

Snowball Throwing 
.124 32 

.200 
* 

.949 32 .131 

*. This is a lower bound of the true significance. 

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction 
Based on table data on is known that results study in class experiment that is with 

treatment Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) has mark significance α = 0.137 

and class control with treatment Snowball Throwing have mark significance α = 0.200. 

Good class experiment nor class control have mark significance α > 0.05. this _ 

means  𝐻𝑜 accepted , both the STAD and Snowball Throwing learning models are 

the same normally distributed 



 

  
 
  

Volume 8, Number 3,  November 2023| 439 

  

  

b. Homogeneity Test 

Homogeneity Test done For know what is the result data Study eye lesson 

geography originate from same population _ or no . Criteria testing is data nature 

homogeneous If sig probability α > 0.05 then data is homogeneous . If the 

probability sig α < 0.05 then the data is No homogeneous . 

Table 4.8 Homogeneity Test 

Test of Homogeneity of Variance 

 Levene Statistics df1 df2 Sig. 

Learnin
g 
Outco
mes 
 
 
 

Based on Means 080 1 62 .778 

Based on Median .104 1 62 .748 

Based on Median and with 
adjusted df 

.104 1 
61,97

5 
.748 

Based on trimmed mean 
.111 1 62 .740 

 

Based table 4.8 above can is known that mark probability significance  is more from 

0.05. this _ means data is homogeneous . It means Good from group class 

experiment with the STAD learning model as well from class control with learning 

models Snowball Throwing   homogeneous properties  

2. Hypothesis Test 

Average scores obtained on each _ cell furthermore will tested in a manner 

statistics , whether the difference that occurred of course significant or only Because 

error in taking sample . If analysis prove difference the significant , then can concluded 

that results Study eye student _ lesson generated geography through learning models The 

Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) is different with what is generated through 

learning models Snowball Throwing ,. Besides That will can is known is second variable 

namely the model of learning and motivation Study student each other interact to results 

Study student . Testing hypothesis study done with Analysis of Variance (ANAVA) two 

path . The purpose of ANAVA two track is investigate two influence main and one 

influence interaction . Influence main that is differences in learning models to results 

Study eye lesson geography and motivation Study student to results learn . Influence 

interaction is the influence of learning models and motivation Study student to results 

Study eye geography lesson kindly whole summary results ANOVA loaded in  

following this : 

Table 4.9 Calculation results Anava two track   

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects 

Dependent Variable: Learning Outcomes   

Source 

Type III 
Sum of 
Squares df 

MeanSqua
re F Sig. 

Partial Eta 
Squared 

Corrected 
Model 

17385.042 a 3 5795014 103,662 .000 .715 

Intercepts 435583537 1 435583537 7791798 .000 .984 



 

  
 
  

Volume 8, Number 3,  November 2023| 440 

  

  

Model 1797.214 1 1797.214 32,149 .000 .206 

Motivation 11606.376 1 11606.376 207,617 .000 .626 

Model * 
Motivation 

458,150 1 458,150 8,195 005 062 

Error 6931950 124 55,903    

Total 783075000 128     

Corrected Total 24316992 127     

a. R Squared = .715 (Adjusted R Squared = .708) 

Based on the results of the 2- way Anova test in Table 4.9 above , then can is known is 

hypothesis accepted or rejected _ with assumption , if score results calculation 

probability significance > 0.05, then H 0 is accepted and H 1 is rejected . On the 

contrary If score results calculation probability significance < 0.05, then H 0 rejected . 

and H 1 is accepted .  

a. hypothesis First 

If the probability significance > 0.05 then 𝐻𝑂accepted. It means No there is difference 

results Study eye lesson between given students _ learning the Student Team 

Achievement Division (STAD) model with those who are given Snowball Throwing 

learning model . If the probability significance < 0.05 then 𝐻𝑂rejected, and 

𝐻1accepted. It means exist _ difference results Study eye lesson geography 

between given students _ learning the Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) 

model with those who are given Snowball Throwing learning model . Based on Table 

4 .9 results calculation Anava 2 lanes known , that score probability the significance 

of the learning model variable ( between the STAD – Snowball Throwing learning 

models ) is equal to 0.000 . this _ means significance not enough from 0.05 (P < 

0.05), so H 0 rejected and H 1 accepted . With thereby can concluded , that there is 

difference results Study eye lesson geography between given students learning the 

Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) model with those who are given Snowball 

Throwing learning model . 

b. hypothesis Second 

If the probability significance > 0.05 then 𝐻𝑂accepted. It means No There is difference 

results  Study eye lesson geography between students who have motivation Study height 

and students who have motivation Study low . 

If the probability significance < 0.05 then 𝐻𝑂rejected, and 𝐻1accepted. It means 

There is difference results Study eye lesson geography between students who 

have motivation Study height and students who have motivation Study low . 

Based on Table 4 .9 results calculation Anava 2 lanes known , that mark probability 

the significance of the variable motivation Study as big 0.000 . this _ means 

significance not enough from 0.05 (P < 0.05), so H 0 rejected and H 1 accepted . 

With thereby can concluded , that There is a difference results Study eye lesson 

geography between students who have motivation Study height and students who 

have motivation Study low 

c. hypothesis Third 



 

  
 
  

Volume 8, Number 3,  November 2023| 441 

  

  

If the probability > 0.05 then 𝐻𝑂 accepted . It means No there is interaction 

between application learning model Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) and 

Snowball Throwing with motivation Study student to results Study  

If probability < 0.05 then 𝐻𝑂rejected, and 𝐻1accepted . It means there is interaction 

between application learning model Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) and 

Snowball Throwing with motivation Study student to results learning There is 

interaction between learning models and motivation Study student to results Study 

eye lesson geography 

Based on Table 4.9 results calculation Anava 2 lanes known , that score probability 

significance on learning model variables and motivation Study of 0.005. this _ 

means significance not enough from 0.05 (P < 0.05), so H 0 rejected and H 1 

accepted . With thereby can concluded , that There is interaction between 

application learning model Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) and Snowball 

Throwing with motivation Study student to results Study  

 

Conclusion 

There is difference learning outcomes of the Geography subject between students 

who were given the Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) learning model and 

those who were given Snowball Throwing learning for class XI IPS students at SMA 

Negeri 1 Lamongan and SMA Negeri 1 Sukodadi in the 2022-2023 academic year . There 

are differences in the learning outcomes of students who have high learning motivation and 

low learning motivation in Geography Class XI at SMA Negeri 1 Lamongan and SMA 

Negeri 1 Sukodadi for the 2022-2023 academic year . There is an interaction between the 

application of the Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) and Snowball Throwing 

models with Motivation to Learn Geography on the Learning Outcomes of Class XI 

Students of SMA Negeri 1 Lamongan and SMA Negeri 1 Sukodadi for the academic year 

2022-2023 

 

Suggestion 

In the learning process must chosen appropriate and appropriate method _ _ with 

material learning and fit with characteristics students , reason Because use method which 

corresponds to a i and appropriate can increase results Study student . on matter 

learning geography teacher is expected use me method Which appropriate Because 

with use the proper method Can help students to improve their understanding so that 

capable increase results learn . In the learning process teacher teaching is expected capable 

grow and improve  motivation Study students , because with motivation high learning _ results 

learn too _ increase ok . Use method good and appropriate learning , necessary _ Keep going 

developed for more interesting so that student more happy and active Study geography . To 

other related parties with education mainly Head School to join support and facilitate applied 

various models and methods environmental learning _ their respective schools . To other 

researchers suggested so researching methods predictive learning _ can increase results Study 

student . Research results This need developed and tested Again with make instrument study 



 

  
 
  

Volume 8, Number 3,  November 2023| 442 

  

  

valid possible to obtain more results . 

 

 

 

Reference 

Ardiyani, Shila Majid, and Riyadi Gunarhadi. “Realistic Mathematics Education in 
Cooperative Learning Viewed from Learning Activity.” Journal on Mathematics Education 
(2018). 

Basu, Mayurakshi. “Importance of Research in Education.” SSRN Electronic Journal (2020). 
Bukit, Servista, Devi Ariastika, Yuni Noviati, and Yusnaini Lubis. “Snowball Throwing 

Learning Model in Growing Questioning Skills of Elementary School Students: A 
Review.” Journal Corner of Education, Linguistics, and Literature (2023). 

Coelho, Jório. “The Importance of Education.” REM - International Engineering Journal., 
2021. 

Fithriani, Syabuddin, Gunawan, T. Zainuddin, and Sulaiman. “TEACHER AS A ROLE 
MODEL IN THE 2013 CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT.” Jurnal Ilmiah Islam 
Futura (2021). 

Golda Novatrasio Sauduran, and Rani Farida Sinaga. “Training of Learning Model 
Snowball Throwing of Teachers at State Elementary School.” International Journal of 
Community Engagement Payungi (2022). 

Hariyanto, Shofan, Warsono Warsono, and Harmanto Harmanto. “Kompetensi Guru SD 
Muhammadiyah Manyar Gresik Dalam Memanfaatkan Media Pembelajaran Berbasis 
Teknologi Informasi Komunikasi (TIK).” ELSE (Elementary School Education Journal): 
Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran Sekolah Dasar 4, no. 2 (2020): 116–123. 

Lestari, Fitria, Buang Saryantono, Muhamad Syazali, Antomi Saregar, Madiyo MADIYO, 
Durrul JAUHARIYAH, and UMAM Rofiqul. “Cooperative Learning Application 
with the Method of" Network Tree Concept Map": Based on Japanese Learning 
System Approach.” Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists 7, no. 1 (2019): 15–
32. 

Lestari, Nyoman Ayu Putri. “Analysis of 2013 Curriculum Problems so It Is Changed into 
a Merdeka Curriculum.” JURNAL PENDIDIKAN DASAR NUSANTARA (2023). 

Manalu, Kartika, Efrida Pima Sari Tambunan, and Oki Permata Sari. “Snowball Throwing 

Learning Model : Increase Student Activity And Learning Outcomes.” Journal Of 
Education And Teaching Learning (JETL) (2022). 

Purba, Tuty Novelindah, Susi Sihombing, Lulu Silalahi, Wita Sinaga, Riko Marpaung, 
Simon Panjaitan, Simon Panjaitan, and Agusmanto Hutauruk. “Analisis Kemampuan 
Self-Efficacy Siswa Pada Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Jigsaw.” Journal of Education 
and Instruction (JOEAI) (2021). 

Silalahi, Tiodora Fermiska, and Ahmad Fakhri Hutauruk. “The Application of Cooperative 
Learning Model during Online Learning in the Pandemic Period.” Budapest International 
Research and Critics Institute (BIRCI-Journal): Humanities and Social Sciences (2020). 

Suandika, I Komang Adi, I Nyoman Pasek Nugraha, and L.J.E. Dewi. “Pengaruh Model 
Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Team Game Tournament (TGT) Terhadap Keaktifan 
Dan Hasil Belajar Pekerjaan Dasar Otomotif Siswa Kelas X TKRO SMK Negeri 1 
Denpasar.” Jurnal Pendidikan Teknik Mesin Undiksha (2020). 

Undang-Undang, R I. “Nomor 20 Tahun 2003 Tentang Sisdiknas Dan Peraturan 
Pemerintah RI Nomor 47 Tahun 2008 Tentang Wajib Belajar.” Bandung: Citra Umbara 
(2008). 



 

  
 
  

Volume 8, Number 3,  November 2023| 443 

  

  

Warman, Suryaningsi, and Widyatmike Gede Mulawarman. “Overcoming Obstacles in 
Implementing 2013 Curriculum Policy.” Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 2021. 

Yusuf, Yunisrina Qismullah, Yuliana Natsir, and Lutfia Hanum. “A Teacher’s Experience 
in Teaching with Student Teams-Achievement Division (STAD) Technique.” 
International Journal of Instruction 8, no. 2 (2015): 99–112. 

Zuhdi, Ahmad, Firman Firman, and Riska Ahmad. “The Importance of Education for 
Humans.” SCHOULID: Indonesian Journal of School Counseling (2021). 

“Evaluasi Implementasi Kurikulum 2013 Di Sekolah Pelaksana Mandiri.” Innovative Journal 
of Curriculum and Educational Technology (2017). 

 


