ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 10, Issue 1, December 2021 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 337 THE EFFECT GROUP INVESTIGATION METHOD ON LANGUAGE LEARNING OUTCOMES Ahmad Amarullah Department of Elementary Teacher Education Universitas Muhammadiyah Tangerang, Indonesia E-mail: ahmadamarullah.umt@gmail.com Enawar Department of Indonesian Language & Literature Universitas Muhammadiyah Tangerang, Indonesia E-mail: enawar.abah@gmail.com APA Citation: Amarullah, A. & Enawar (2021). The effect group investigation method on language learning outcomes. English Review: Journal of English Education, 10(1), 337-348. https://doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v10i1.5722 Received: 12-07-2021 Accepted: 07-01-2021 Published: 30-12-2021 Abstract: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of using group investigation method on second language learning outcomes (L2) in third grade students of SD Muhammadiyah 4 Tangerang City. The method used in this study was a quasi-experimental method by conducting pretest and posttest in two groups. This type of experimental research method uses a nonequivalent control group design, where the experimental class is treated and the control class is not treated. This nonequivalent control group design is almost the same as the pretest and posttest control group designs, only in this design the experimental and control groups are not chosen randomly. Data collection techniques using tests. The data analysis technique was started from normality test, homogeneity test, and continued with hypothesis testing. research data, calculations to test the hypothesis can be that t count is 13.31 and t table with dk = 58. Therefore, the price of t count 13.31 > 1.67 = t table means the null hypothesis (H0) is rejected and the hypothesis alternative (H1) is accepted. Based on the research above, it can be concluded that: there is a significant effect on the second language learning outcomes (L2) of students who use cooperative learning group investigation type compared to conventional methods. Second language learning outcomes (L2) of students who use cooperative learning group investigation type are higher compared to the conventional method, it can be said that the cooperative learning type group investigation method has an effect on students' second language (L2) learning outcomes. Keywords: cooperative learning; group investigation; learning outcomes. INTRODUCTION Education has a very big influence in the development of the times because without it, it would be difficult for humans to develop and even to live underdeveloped (Muliyantini & Parmiti, 2017), therefore children's education cannot be separated from their families because the family is the first place to learn to declare themselves as social beings in interacting with their groups. While teachers at schools are second parents after parents at home, in general students are human beings who still need to be educated or cared for by more mature people in this case are parents and teachers. One of the important components in the education system is the curriculum which is a reference for educational units, both managers and administrators, especially references for teachers. Because the curriculum contains planning for the development of student competencies that need to be achieved as a whole, namely from kindergarten to grade 12 so that competencies that enable students to progress gradually, and consistently in education along with the development and psychological maturity. However, the quality of education in Indonesia is still far behind compared to other countries in the world (Ariadi, Renda, & Rati, 2014). Conventional learning that is commonly done is teaching in the form of lectures or informative teaching methods, the teacher is more active in speaking or lecturing to inform the material and concepts of knowledge to students, while students only passively listen. Teacher centered tend to ignore the rights and needs of students, as well as the development and growth of children (Dewi, Manuaba, & Suniasih, 2018). Whereas the characteristics of different students mailto:ahmadamarullah.umt@gmail.com Ahmad Amarullah & Enawar The effect group investigation method on language learning outcomes 338 will greatly affect the achievement of learning objectives, where not all students are happy to listen to the teacher's explanation. The use of conventional methods often makes students bored, resulting in students not being enthusiastic about learning and students' interest in learning is low. This is in line with Muliyantini & Parmiti (2017) stating that teachers who are less able to present the material as well and as interesting as possible can cause students to become bored and bored during the learning activities. This, undeniably, has an impact on the suboptimal learning process that is fun, and educate students (Haryono, 2020). This is still happening in the teaching and learning process that takes place at SD Muhammadiyah 4 Tangerang City and will certainly have an impact on the learning experience and student achievement. even though the active involvement of students in learning a second language (L2) is very necessary so that what is learned will be more embedded in students' minds when students are able to solve a problem in their own way. Therefore, it takes a cooperative learning method (Cooverative Learning) which is very useful to encourage students to be more active in learning and improve student learning outcomes because this cooperative learning model provides an active and creative learning pattern. According to Alhebaishi (2019), CL emphasizes the importance of student autonomy and a supportive learning environment in the learning process, which are basic principles of the humanistic approach. When students work together, they support each other, listen to each other, manage diversity, and cooperate among themselves to solve problems. This approach reduces fear and stress and, correspondingly, increases motivation. Furthermore, Vygotsky (1978, cited in Almula, 2017) stated that learners can exchange ideas and knowledge to achieve shared goals in a CL environment. This CL model is suitable for language classroom as it enhances English language acquisition by decreasing students’ learning anxiety, encouraging their active participation, increasing the amount of student talk, and providing a non-threatening classroom environment (Wahyukti, 2017). The efficiency of CL model has been proven by Gonzales and Torres (2016) and Er and Aksu Ataç (2014) who revealed that the majority of students preferred CL to individual learning because CL helped them to better understand study contents and participate in classroom activities. The meaning of the sentence learning pattern is the appearance of activities carried out by teachers, students and teaching materials that are able to make students learn, also systematically arranged about a series of learning events. This model also can benefit students in the following areas: “improved achievement, increased motivation, improved collaboration skills, improved student attitudes towards learning, and greater opportunities for teachers to assess student learning” (Jacobs, Power & Loh, 2016, p. 11). Moreover, another researcher Alhabeedi (2015) found that CL promoted students’ participation, motivation, sense of responsibility and desire for challenges. One of these learning models that can be used is the group investigation type. According to Suyanto (2012) group investigation type is a cooperative model that guides students to solve problems critically and scientifically and facilitates students to learn in small heterogeneous groups, to discuss and solve a problem assigned by the teacher to students, so that students able to think systematically, critically, actively participate in learning and have a creative culture through problem solving activities in the learning process through group investigations, students will learn actively. Students are involved since planning, both in determining the topic and the way to learn it through investigation (Chusni, Mahardika, Sayekti, & Setya, 2017). In short, this model is designed to guide students to define problems, explore various horizons about the problem, gather relevant data, develop and test hypotheses (Baharu, 2020). The Group Investigation learning model emphasizes heterogeneity, activities and collaboration between students (Huda, 2014). Furthermore, it has advantages including increasing independence, increasing student creativity, increasing interpersonal skills when working between students, increasing student reasoning (Christina & Kristin, 2016). This model is believed to improve process and outcome of learning (Astra, Wahyuni, & Nasbey, 2015) and can be integrated in language learning (Baki, Yildiz, Aydin, & Kogce, 2010). Paying critical attention to teaching using the cooperative model for elementary schools is urgent, so it is wise to make efforts in dealing with their teaching in order to obtain ways of teaching using ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 10, Issue 1, December 2021 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 339 this investigative-type cooperative model. For this reason, appropriate formulas are needed for optimal student development. As a term for psychology and education, "Learning" in English is known as learning. Learning is a word that is already familiar to all levels of society, especially for students. The word "learning" is a familiar word, in fact it is an inseparable part of all their activities in studying both in formal, informal, and non-formal educational institutions. Below are some of the definitions as follows: James (2007) argues that "learning may be defined as the process by which behavior originates or id altered through training of experience". (Baharuddin, 2017:159). So what James means, learning is a change in behavior through experience so that it refers to a change in a person. This is also in line with what was stated by Slameto (2010, p. 2) learning is "a business process carried out by a person to obtain a new change in behavior as a whole, as a result of his own experience in interaction with his environment. The changes in question are changes that are obtained by a person after going through a learning process including changes in overall behavior changes. If a person learns something, as a result he will experience a change in overall behavior in attitudes, skills, knowledge and so on. Active interaction between students and students and students and teachers should be a daily activity in learning a second language (L2). In addition, for interaction between students and students, teachers should have the ability to teach with a group work approach. Because with this group work interaction between students and students will occur. The teacher can see firsthand how students argue against the second language learning (L2) they are studying. Rusman (2010) argues that cooperative learning encourages students to interact actively and positively in groups, thus, education should be able to condition, and provide encouragement to be able to optimize and generate student potential, foster activity and creativity, so that it will ensure the dynamics in the learning process. According to the above definition, the cooperative learning model is very effective to use when learning a second language (L2) because it involves all students collaborating to achieve a common goal. As learning that emphasizes cooperation, helping each other, and encouraging discussion activities in each completing the tasks given. This is also stated by Isjoni (2010) that students who learn to use cooperative learning will have high motivation because they are encouraged and supported by their peers. Cooperative learning also improves critical thinking skills, forms friendly relationships, gains various information, increases student motivation, improves attitudes towards school and learns to reduce unfavorable behavior, and helps students appreciate other people's ideas. the way students learn and work in collaborative small groups whose members consist of 4-6 people with a heterogeneous group structure. In general, the formation of heterogeneous groups in the cooperative learning method has many benefits including providing broad opportunities for students to teach each other and support each other, improve relations and interactions between races, so it is very positive to familiarize students in real life, facilitate classroom management because with there is one person with high academic ability, the teacher gets one assistant for every three people. There are several experts who express different opinions in determining the steps in cooperative learning with the type of group investigation. According to Slavin (1995) the steps in cooperative learning of the type of group investigation were developed into six stages as follows: Table 1. Group investigation type learning steps Stage Activity 1 The teacher organizes students in groups and identifies topics by selecting topics that can be discussed 2 Planning learning assignments, The tasks given are designed so that they can encourage students to find something 3 Carry out investigations, investigations are carried out by discussing in groups. 4 Preparing the final report after finding the things students have to solve. 5 Making the final report 6 Evaluation Every human being must have a different mindset in determining the learning steps used, but all these steps have the same goal, namely so that all are able to understand the lessons taught by the teacher so that they can increase student interest in learning. Ahmad Amarullah & Enawar The effect group investigation method on language learning outcomes 340 Meanwhile, according to Rusman (2011, p. 221) the steps of cooperative learning of the Group Investigation type are divided into six steps as follows: Table 2. Group investigation type learning steps Stage Activity Identify the topic Students examine sources of information, interest in the same and heterogeneous topics, the teacher helps and facilitates in obtaining information Planning assignment s Planned jointly by students in their respective groups, which include: what is investigated, how to do it, for what purpose this topic is investigated. Carry out investigati ons Students seek information, analyze data and make conclusions, discuss. Prepare the final report Group members plan what to report and how to make the presentation. Presenting the final report Presentations are made to the whole class in various forms. Evaluation Students share about the feedback according to the topic being worked on, the work that has been done. Meanwhile, according to Isjoni (2011, p. 59) the learning steps for group investigation are as follows: Table 3. Group investigation type learning steps Stage Activity 1 Students choose a subtopic 2 Planning goals 3 Learning Implementation 4 Students analyze 5 Students make conclusions METHOD The method used is quasi experimental design because the class has been formed from before. The quasi-experimental design used is the Nonequivalent Control Group Design which is almost the same as the pretest posttest control group design. (Sugiyono, 2012: 116). The population is all of students of SD Muhammadiyah 4 Tangerang City consisting of 771 students with 389 males and 382 females. Sample selection was done by cluster random sampling by selecting 2 of the 3 existing classes, class III A and class III B. After the sampling, obtained class III A with 35 students and III B with 35 students who will be sampled in the study. Table 4. Treatment design Treatment Experiment group Control group Similar Materal subject Time of buying and selling activities in the home and school environment. Time of buying and selling activities in the home and school environment Time 3 meetings 3 meetings Design Post test Post test Teacher Researcher Researcher Different Learning method Cooperative method (group investigation type) Conventional method (lecture, question and answer, assignment) If there is an increase in learning outcomes (variable Y) in the experimental class, it is really due to the use of the experimental method (variable X) not because of other factors. In this study, data collection techniques were used, namely the test made in the form of multiple choice (PG), because by using a multiple choice test the test results can be obtained quickly and have high accuracy of examination results. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Pre-test scores The research data was obtained from a homogeneous class, namely 30 students in class IIIA and 30 students in class IIIB, so that the total respondents were 60 students. Both classes received second language learning (L2) material on buying and selling activities in the home and school environment using different methods, namely class IIIA using cooperative learning type group investigation and class IIIB using conventional methods. The basic data of the research results are described to obtain an overview of student learning outcomes in second language learning (L2) using cooperative learning type group investigation methods and using conventional learning methods. This section describes the calculation results descriptively on the research data of the pretest score of the second language learning outcomes (L2) for the control and experimental classes. The following is the calculation of each class: ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 10, Issue 1, December 2021 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 341 Table 5. Data differences in pre-test control and experiment values No Data Size Control Experiment 1 Largest data (Dmax) 60 70 2 Smallest data (Dmin) 25 30 3 Mean ( ) 40,5 44,43 4 Mode (Mo) 41,7 43,5 5 Median (Me) 42,3 42.6 6 Standard Deviation (Sd) 8,91 10,31 7 Quartile (q) 59,5 71,5 From the following table, it can be seen that the largest data value between the two different classes is 70 and the lowest value is 30 for the experimental class and the largest value is 60 and the lowest value is 25 for the control class. Histogram graphs and polygon graphs are obtained from the absolute frequency distribution of each class. The following is the distribution table for the control and experimental classes: Table 6. Absolute frequency Interval kK F F.Kum (%) Interval kE F F.Kum (%) 25-30 5 16,67% 30-36 8 26,67% 31-36 5 16,67% 37-49 8 26.67% 37-42 9 30% 44-50 7 23,33% 43-48 4 13,33% 51-57 3 10% 49-54 5 16,67% 58-64 2 6,67% 55-60 2 6,67% 65-71 2 6,67% From the table above it can be formed histogram graphs and polygon graphs for the two classes as follows: 0 5 5 9 4 5 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 25 - 30 31 - 36 37 - 42 43 - 48 49 - 54 55 - 60 Fr e q u e n cy Class data 25 - 30 31 - 36 37 - 42 43 - 48 49 - 54 55 - 60 Figure 1. Control class histogram and polygon graph Figure 2. Experimental class histogram and polygon graphs The ogive graph is obtained from the cumulative frequency less than and more than, the following is the cumulative frequency table for the control class. Table 7. Control class absolute frequency Interval F Kum (<) F.Kum (%) Interval F.Kum (>) F.Kum (%) -25 0 0,00% 25 30 100% -31 5 16,67% 31 25 83,33% -37 10 33.33% 37 20 66,67% -43 19 63,33% 43 11 36.67% -49 23 76,67% 49 7 23,33% -55 28 93,33% 55 2 6,67% -60 30 100% 60 0 0 From the frequency table above, it can be formed into an ogive graph as follows: Figure 3. Control class ogive graphics The ogive graph is obtained from the cumulative frequency less than and more than, the following is the cumulative frequency table for the experimental class. Table 8. Experiment class absolute frequency Inter val F Kum (<) F.Kum (%) Interv al F.Ku m (>) F.Kum (%) Ahmad Amarullah & Enawar The effect group investigation method on language learning outcomes 342 30 0 0 30 30 100% 37 8 26,67 % 37 22 73,33% 44 16 53.33 % 44 14 46,67% 51 23 76,67 % 51 7 23.33% 58 26 86,67 % 58 4 13,33% 65 28 93,33 % 65 2 6,67% 71 30 100% 71 0 0 From the table above, it can be formed into an ogive graph as follows: Figure 4. Experiment class ogive graph Post test scores This section will describe the results of calculations descriptively on the research data of post-test scores on learning outcomes of a second language (L2) for the control class and the experimental class formulated using multiple choice, totaling 20 questions with four answer choices provided. The following is the calculation of each class. Table 9. Data differences in control and experimental post test scores No Data Size Control Experiment 1 Largest data (Dmax) 60 85 2 Smallest data (Dmin) 25 75 3 Mean ( ) 43,7 73,5 4 Mode (Mo) 42,5 81,8 5 Median (Me) 42,5 72,8 6 Standard Deviation(Sd) 8,36 79,7 7 Quartile (q) 37,62 66,6 From the following table, it can be seen that the lowest scores for the two classes are different, namely the control class gets a score of 25 and the experimental class 75 and the highest score is much different from 60 for the control class and 85 for the experimental class. So the average of the two classes was much different. Histogram graphs and polygon graphs are obtained from the absolute frequency distribution of each class. The following table shows the distribution of the control and experimental classes. Table 10. Absolute frequency kK and kE Interval kK F F.Kum (%) Interval kE F F.Kum (%) 25-30 2 6,67% 60 - 64 5 16,67% 31-36 4 13,33% 65 – 69 6 20% 37-42 8 26,67% 70 – 74 6 20% 43-48 6 20% 75 – 79 3 10% 49-54 7 26,67% 80 – 84 8 26,67% 55-60 3 6,67% 85 – 89 2 6,67% From the table above it can be formed histogram graphs and polygon graphs for the two classes as follows: Figure 5. Control class histogram and polygon graph Figure 6. Experimental class histogram and polygon graphs ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 10, Issue 1, December 2021 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 343 The ogive graph is obtained from the cumulative frequency less than and more than, the following is the cumulative frequency table for the control class. Table 11. Control class absolute frequency Interval F.Ku m (<) F.Ku m (%) Inte rval F.Kum (>) F.Ku m (%) -25 0 0% 25 30 100% -31 2 6,67 % 31 28 93,33 % -37 6 26,67 % 37 24 80% -43 14 46,67 % 43 16 53,33 % -49 20 66,67 % 49 10 33,33 % -55 27 90% 55 3 10% -60 30 100% 60 0 0 From the frequency table above, it can be formed into an ogive graph as follows: 0 10 20 30 40 25 31 37 43 49 55 60 Less than More than Figure 7. Control class ogive graphics The ogive graph is obtained from the cumulative frequency less than and more than, the following is the cumulative frequency table for the experimental class. Table 12. Experiment class absolute frequency Interval F Kum (<) F.Kum (%) Interval F.Kum (>) F.Kum (%) -60 0 0 60 30 100% -65 5 16,67% 65 25 83,33% -70 5 36.67% 70 19 63,33% -75 17 56,67% 75 13 43.33% -80 20 66,67% 80 10 33,33% -85 28 93,33% 85 12 40% -89 30 100% 89 0 0 From the table above, it can be formed into an ogive graph as follows: Figure 8. Experiment class ogive graph Requirements of data analysis test The requirements analysis test was carried out because the analysis used was a statistical analysis that required the data to be taken normally and homogeneously, and the test used the normality test and homogeneity test. Normality test (Pre test value) The normality test was carried out to prove the data obtained were data that were normally distributed. Calculations can be seen in appendix 2 on pages 78 and 82 and the results can be seen in the following table: Table 13. Normality test results pre test kK and kE Class h2 score t2 score Result Conclusion Control 3,82 11,1 H0 accepted Normal Distribution Experiment 8,28 11,1 H0 accepted Normal Distribution Based on the table above, the data from the control class and t2 pre-test answers accept H0 and reject H1. Homogeneity test (Bartlett test) The homogeneity test was carried out to prove the data obtained had the same variance for each group. Calculations can be seen in appendix 2 on page 84 and the results can be seen in the table below: Table 14. Homogeneity test results pre test control class and experiment class Class h2 score t2 score Result Conclusion Ahmad Amarullah & Enawar The effect group investigation method on language learning outcomes 344 Control 12,54 33,9 Ho accepted Homogen Experiment Based on the table above, the data from the control class and t2 pre-test answers accept H0 and reject H1. Normality test (post test value) The normality test was carried out to prove the data obtained were data that were normally distributed. Calculations can be seen in appendix 2 on pages 90 and 94 and the results can be seen in the following table: Table 15. Post-test normality test results kK and kE Class h2 score t2 score Result Conclusion Control 5,27 11,1 H0 accepted Normal Distribution Experiment 7,56 11,1 H0 accepted Normal Distribution Based on the table above, the data from the post test answers for the control class and t2 accept H0 and reject H1. Homogeneity test (Bartlett test) The homogeneity test was carried out to prove the data obtained had the same variance for each group. Calculations can be seen in appendix 2 on page 96 and the results can be seen in the table below: Table 16. Result of homogeneity test of post-test control class and experiment class Class h2 score t2 score Result Conclusion Control 5,54 33,9 Ho accepted Homogen Experiment Based on the table above, the data from the post test answers for the control class and t2 accept H0 and reject H1. T test pretest value Hypothesis testing is intended to determine whether the proposed hypothesis is accepted or not. In testing the hypothesis using the confidence level with a ttable value of 5% and dk = 58. The calculation procedure is attached in Appendix 2 on page 86 and the results of these calculations obtained a tcount value of 1.48 with a t-table of 1.67. It means that the pre test value th < tt means that there is no difference between the pre test scores for the control class and the experimental class. T test post test score In testing the hypothesis using a confidence level with a ttable value of 5% and dk = 58. The calculation procedure is attached in Appendix 2 on page 98 and the results of these calculations get a tcount value of 13.31 with a t-table of 1.67. Means that the post test value th > tt means that there is a difference between the post test scores of the control class and the experimental class. Basically, the purpose of this research is to find out empirically about the effect of the cooperative learning type group investigation method on the second language learning outcomes (L2) of third grade elementary school students. Based on the results of the research above, the following discussion will be carried out. Experiment class In the experimental class using the cooperative learning method of group investigation, the number of respondents was 30 students. The second language learning outcome score (L2) in the experimental class was obtained by calculating the scores obtained by students who took the second language learning outcomes test (L2) which consisted of 20 multiple choice questions. Based on the results of the assessment, the average value is 73.5, the mode value is 81.8, the median value is 72.8, the standard deviation is 79.7 and the quartile value is 66.6, the lowest score is 75 and the highest score is 85. The results of the assessment of the experimental class were higher than the results of the assessment of the control class. This is because the experimental class uses the cooperative learning method of group investigation type. Cooperative learning as a learning method that changes students' attitudes from passive to active, cooperative learning method group investigation type in learning activities with topics that have been provided by the teacher to be investigated by students. In this case, the teacher provides reading material related to the topics investigated by students so that students are more motivated. In addition, students also do not only do group work but each student is also given individual assignments that can affect the score that will be ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 10, Issue 1, December 2021 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 345 obtained by the group, this is a form of individual responsibility against the group. Researchers in this study used the cooperative learning types of group investigation steps in learning a second language (L2) in third grade elementary school. Control class In the control class using the conventional method, the number of respondents was 30 students. The second language learning outcome score (L2) in the experimental class was obtained by calculating the scores obtained by students who took the second language learning outcomes test (L2) which consisted of 20 multiple choice questions. Based on the results of the assessment, it can be obtained that the average value is 43.7, the mode value is 42.5, the median value is 42.5, the standard deviation value is 83.6 and the quartile value is 37.62, the lowest score is 25 and the highest score is 60. The results of the assessment in the control class are lower than the results of the assessment from the experimental class. This is because the control class uses conventional methods, where the learning process is more teacher-centered. In practice, this learning focuses on the lecture method, the lecture method referred to here is that the way of learning is dominated by the teacher, while the position of students is only passive recipients of lessons. After the assessment of the second language learning outcomes (L2) in the experimental and control classes was carried out and declared to have passed the requirements test, a t-test was carried out to determine whether the hypothesis was accepted or rejected. Based on the results of the research using the t-test, it is known that tcount is 13.31 and dk = 58 with ttable 1.67 so that tcount > ttable, then H0 is rejected and H1 is accepted, which means that there is an effect of the cooperative learning type group investigation method on second language learning outcomes. (L2) grade III Elementary School. Thus, the results of testing the hypothesis prove that the effect of the cooperative learning type group investigation method is not engineering, but because of the treatment in each class. Therefore, it can be argued that the application of cooperative learning has more influence on student learning outcomes and can improve students' second language (L2) learning outcomes. CONCLUSION Learning a second language (L2) by using the cooperative learning method of group investigation type is an alternative that can be used in learning a second language (L2). In the cooperative learning method of group investigation, there are learning steps consisting of five stages, including the following: In the first stage, students choose topics to be investigated in a general area, examine sources of information, then they join study groups with the same and heterogeneous selection of topics, while the teacher helps and facilitates in obtaining information. In the second stage, students plan how to collect data and other learning activities such as, what to investigate, how to do it, how to divide the work, and so on. The third stage of group investigation is the implementation of the investigation. Students search for information, analyze data, share ideas, discuss, and draw conclusions. Each group member contributes to the group effort. In the fourth stage, students determine the messages they study, plan what to report and how to present them. In the fifth stage, students share the information that has been obtained, the presentation involves other groups actively. The last stage is evaluation, students share experiences on the topics they are working on, then teachers and students collaborate in evaluating learning. Based on this description, the implication of this research is to be able to provide good learning outcomes, it is necessary to have a fun, creative learning that involves students actively, both individually and in groups. One of them is the cooperative learning method of group investigation type. REFERENCES Alhabeedi, E. (2015). Increasing students’ participation by using cooperative learning in library and research course. (Unpublished thesis). New York: University of New York Alhebaishi, S. M. (2019). Investigation of cooperative learning techniques and attitudes in language learning classrooms. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 8(2), 219-230. Alisuf, B. (2010). Psikologi pendidikan. Jakarta: Pedoman Ilmu Jaya. Almula, M. (2017). An investigation of cooperative learning in a Saudi high school: A case study on Ahmad Amarullah & Enawar The effect group investigation method on language learning outcomes 346 teachers’ and students’ perceptions and classroom practices. (Doctoral Dissertation). Leicester: University of Leicester. Ariadi, I. P., Renda, N. T., & Rati, N. W. (2014). Pengaruh model pembelajaran group investigation (GI) terhadap hasil belajar IPA kelas IV. Mimbar PGSD Undiksha, 2(1). Arikunto, S. (2012). Dasar-dasar evaluasi pendidikan. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara Arikunto, S. (2010). Prosedur penelitian suatu pendekatan praktik. Jakarta: PT Rineka Cipta Astra, I. M., Wahyuni, C., & Nasbey, H. (2015). Improvement of learning process and learning outcomes in physics learning by using collaborative learning model of group investigation at high school (Grade X, SMAN 14 Jakarta). Journal of Education and Practice, 6. 75-79. Baharu, H. (2020). Improving the skills of story through the application of the group investigation learning. Exposure Journal, 9(2), 195-208. Baharuddin, (2010). Pendidikan dan psikologi perkembangan. Yogyakarta: Ar-ruz Media. Baki, A., Yildiz, C., Aydin, M., & Kogce, D. (2010). The application of group investigation technique: the views of the teacher and students. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education,1(2), 166-186. Christina, L. V, & Kristin, F. (2016). Efektivitas model pembelajaran tipe Group Investigation (GI) dan Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) dalam meningkatkan kreativitas berpikir kritis dan hasil belajar IPS siswa kelas 4. Scholaria: Jurnal Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, 6(3), 217-230. Chusni, M. M., Mahardika, A., Sayekti, I. C., & Setya, W. (2017). The profile of student activities in learning basic natural science concepts through the contextual teaching and learning (CTL) approach with group investigation (GI) model. Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA, 3(1), 1- 10. Dewi, P. P. Y., Manuaba, I. S., & Suniasih, N. W. (2018). Pengaruh model pembelajaran group investigation berbasis proyek terhadap hasil belajar ipa siswa kelas IV. International Journal of Elementary Education, 1(4), 264-271. Er, S., & Aksu Ataç, B. (2014). Cooperative learning in ELT classes: The attitudes of students towards cooperative learning in ELT classes. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 2 (1), 109-122. Gonzales, W. & Torres, P. (2016). Filipino ESL learners attitudes toward cooperative learning and their relationship to reading comprehension. TESOL International Journal, 11(2), 70-90. Goziyah, G., Sulaeman, A., & Suherman, A. (2021). Pelatihan inovasi pembelajaran di era kenormalan baru pada guru-guru SMK Islam Baidhaul Ahkam Sepatan. Jurnal Abdimas Prakasa Dakara, 1(1), 12-17. Hamzah, B. (2011). Model pembelajaran menciptakan proses belajar mengajar yang kreatif dan efektif. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara. Haryono, H. E. (2020). The influence of cooperative learning model type group investigation toward results of learning science materials of students. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika, 4(1), 1-6. Hudhana, W. D. (2019). Peningkatan keterampilan menulis cerita pendek berbasis karakter menggunakan media pembelajaran videoscribe. In Seminar Nasional Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra (pp. 265-270). Isjoni, (2011). Cooperative learning mengembangkan kemampuan belajar berkelompok. Bandung: Alfabeta Jacobs, G., Power, M., & Loh. (2016). The teacher’s sourcebook for cooperative learning: Practical techniques, basic principles and frequently asked questions. New York: Skyhorse publishing. Kette, E. S. S., Pratiwi, Y., & Sunoto, S. (2016). Pengembangan bahan pelatihan menulis cerita pendek bermuatan nilai karakter untuk guru SMP negeri mata pelajaran bahasa Indonesia se-kota Kupang. Jurnal Pendidikan: Teori, Penelitian, dan Pengembangan, 1(4), 698-704. Masnur, M. (2009). KTSP pembelajaran berbasis kompetensi dan kontekstual, Ed. 1, Cet.6, Jakarta: Bumi Aksara Muhammad, N. (2008). Ilmu pengetahuan sosial 3, Jakarta: Pusat Perbukuan, Departemen Pendidikan Nasional Muliyantini, P., & Parmiti, D. P. (2017). Penerapan model pembelajaran Group Investigation (GI) untuk meningkatkan hasil belajar IPA kelas V. Jurnal Ilmiah Sekolah Dasar, 1(2). Riduwan, (2011). Dasar-dasar Statistika. Bandung: Alfabeta Rusman, (2011). Model-model pembelajaran mengembangkan profesionalisme guru. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers. Sapriya, (2011). Pendidikan IPS. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya Sardjiyo, ( 2009). Pendidikan IPS di SD. Ed. 2, Cet.7, Jakarta: Universitas Terbuka Slameto, (2010). Belajar dan faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhinya. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta. Sugiyono, (2011). Statistik untuk penelitian. Bandung: Alfabeta Sugiyono. (2012). Metode penelitian pendidikan. Bandung: Alfabeta ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 Volume 10, Issue 1, December 2021 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 347 Sulaeman, A. & Dwihudhana, W. (2019). Hubungan motivasi belajar dengan hasil pembelajaran bahasa Indonesia bagi penutur asing (BIPA) pada mahasiswa semester 7 program studi pendidikan bahasa dan sastra indonesia FKIP Universitas Muhammadiyah Tangerang. Silampari Bisa: Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Bahasa Indonesia, Daerah, dan Asing, 2(1), 59-70. Sulaeman, A. & Goziyah. (2019). Metodologi penelitian bahasa dan sastra. Jakarta: Edu Pustaka. Sulaeman, A. (2019). Motivasi pemelajaran bahasa Indonesia bagi penutur asing (BIPA) mahasiswa peminatan BIPA Prodi PBSI FKIP Universitas Muhammadiyah Tangerang. Simposium Nasional Mulitidisiplin (SinaMu), 1. Sulaeman, A., Enawar, E., Sori, S., & Suherman, A. (2021). Skimming reading techniques on the ability to identify intrinsic drama text elements. Journal of English Language and Literature, 6(1), 25-38. Sulaeman, A., Hun, K. Y., & Ferdianda, A. Ecocritics in song lyrics collection by Barasuara and its implication towards the Indonesian language learning material in senior high school. Jurnal Gramatika: Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesia, 7(1), 103-116. Sundari, H., Miranti, I., & Sulaeman, A. (2020). An eclectic approach in syllabus design: a preliminary study of one-to-one teaching Indonesian for speakers of other languages. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra, 20(2), 197-210. Suyanto, & Asep, D (2012). Bagaimana menjadi calon guru dan guru profesional. Yogyakarta: Multi Pressindo. Wahyukti, T. (2017). Enhancing students’ cooperative learning in an EFL classroom through lesson study. Advances in Social Science, Education and humanities Research, (109), 288-292. Presented at 4th Asia Pacific Education Conference (AECON 2017). Ahmad Amarullah & Enawar The effect group investigation method on language learning outcomes 348