















































 

20 

 

JOURNAL OF ENGLISH EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY 

Vol. 01 No. 01, March 2020, pp. 20 - 34 

Available online at: 

http://jeet.fkdp.or.id/index.php/jeet/issue/current 

ISSN: 2721-3811 (media online) 

 

The Effectiveness Of Using Teams Games Tournaments (TGT) In Teaching 
Reading Of Narrative At Second Grade Of MA Mambaus Sholihin 

Zumrotul Faricha1, Khoirul Huda2 

Students of Institut Keislaman Abdullah Faqih Gresik1 

English Language Department, Faculty of Tarbiyah, Institut Keislaman Abdullah Faqih Gresik 2 

zumrotulfaricha@gmail.com1, khoirulhuda.inkafa@gmail.com2 

  

ABSTRACT 
The objective of the research was to see the effectiveness Teams Games Tournaments (TGT) technique in 
teaching reading of the narrative text at the second Grade students of MA Mambaus Solihin and also to help 
the English teachers create interactive activities for students while learning reading of a narrative text. The 
method applied in this research was pre-experimental research. There was class, this research was conducted 
through the following procedures: giving the pre-test, and giving a post-test. The result of the research proved 
that the Teams Games Tournaments (TGT) technique is effective to be used in learning reading of a narrative 
text. The finding showed that both groups had a significant difference. It could be said that the pre-test and 
post-test value is increased. it was proven from the materials, scores and activities which were used in the C 
class that support students’ interesting to learn more about reading topic. 
Keywords: Cooperative learning, Teams Games Tournaments (TGT) Technique, Reading, 
Narrative Text 
 

 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Reading is one of the main language 

skills. Reading skill also has a big role for the 

students to get some information from 

English text in order to increase their 

knowledge. (Harmer, 1991) Explains that 

reading is receptive skill work, then, should 

involve learners in reading or listening where 

they are able to process the language 

sufficiently at least to extract the meaning, 

through Reading, students can increase their 

competence which is related to the target 

language. Students also can improve their 

fluency in other skills like speaking. Hence, 

http://jeet.fkdp.or.id/index.php/jeet/issue/current
http://u.lipi.go.id/1580741566
mailto:zumrotulfaricha@gmail.com
mailto:khoirulhuda.inkafa@gmail.com


 

21 

 

reading is taught in the second grade of 

senior high school with some goals that have 

been created by the government. Students of 

second-grade senior high school should 

understand the social function, text 

structure, and the elements of the narrative 

text in table based on the context function 

(Hakim, 2017). 

However, teaching reading text at 

second-grade senior high school is not easy. 

Based on the observed teacher of  MA 

Mambaus Sholihin  Gresik, some students 

get difficulties to achieve the goal in learning 

reading materials, in the learning process, 

they like to read the text loudly but they do 

not understand the messages or information 

of the text. Furthermore, it is caused by a lack 

of vocabulary they had. Here, the problem 

which is faced by the students in MA 

Mambaus Solihin  Gresik, Especially at 

second-grade students, becomes a central 

point of this research. Therefore, the 

researcher uses the Teams Games Tournaments 

(TGT) method and then measures its 

effectiveness. This research focuses on the 

effectiveness of TGT method in teaching 

reading which is expected can help the 

students to get the effective, good and gratify 

teaching and fulfill what they need in this 

learning  

Based on the explanation above, this 

research is focused on finding an alternative 

technique in teaching reading of a narrative 

text, it is expected can make students enjoy 

learning and make them confident to show 

their English ability. And then, the 

alternative technique is also expected can 

encourage students’motivation in the 

teaching and learning process (Aziz & Dewi, 

2019). 

Moreover, the students feel fun in the 

classroom while teaching and learning 

process. As a professional worker, the 

teacher is expected to be able to motivate the 

students in specific ways. By using Teams 

Games Tournaments (TGT), the teacher 

probably can motivate the students to 

understand narrative text (Kim, Almond, & 

Shute, 2016). Because by Teams Games 

Tournaments (TGT), the students can work 

together with their friends and they have 

variation in their learning style in the 

classroom. So, the teacher hopes that 

students will enjoy their learning activities. 

Roy Killen concludes that TGT is suited to 

the same types of subject matter and learning 

outcomes as STAD. It requires a little more 

than STAD, but can be very motivating for 

learners (Killen, 2006). 

There are some methods of teaching 

in teaching and learning English, one of them 

is Cooperative learning. Cooperative 



 

22 

 

learning requires pupils work together in 

small groups to support each other to 

improve their own learning and that of 

others (Jolliffe, 2015). It means in cooperative 

learning students study together and solve 

problems together, students have a sense of 

responsibility to themselves and also to their 

friends in teaching and learning process to 

accomplish the goals (Gibson, 2018; Mitra, 

2019). In cooperative learning, individuals 

look for the outcomes that are beneficial to 

themselves and beneficial to all group 

members. Cooperative Learning has many 

benefits which are related to students 

(Karim, 2018; Slavin, 2015; Slavin Robert, 

1995). Cooperative Learning classes are often 

more relaxed and enjoyable than traditional 

classes. This creates a positive learning 

environment, with more students attentive 

to assigned tasks. As a result, academic 

achievement increases for all students 

(Oliveira et al., 2015). 

Cooperative Learning has some 

general or variation methods (Jenkins, 

Fuchs, Van den Broek, Espin, & Deno, 2003; 

Jong, Lai, Hsia, Lin, & Lu, 2013; Son & 

Metcalfe, 2000), Some variations on the 

theme of Cooperative Learning: Students 

Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD), 

Teams Games Tournaments (TGT), Team 

Accelerated Instruction (TAI), Jigsaw, and 

Cooperative Integrated Reading and 

Composition  (CIRC) (Cruickshank, 1990). 

Furthermore, Teams Games Tournaments 

(TGT) technique originally was developed 

by David Den Vries and Keith Edward. 

According to Robert E. Slavin “Teams Games 

Tournaments (TGT) originally developed by 

David De Vries and Keith Edward. It uses the 

same teacher presentations and teamwork as 

in STAD but replaces the quizzes with 

weekly tournaments, in which students play 

academic games with members of the teams 

to contribute points to their team score 

(Slavin, 2015). 

II. LITERATURE REVIEW 

A. The General Concept of 
Cooperative Learning 

Cooperative learning is an interesting 

momentum learning in the early 1980s with 

the first meta-analysis involving 122 learners 

on the cooperative, competitive and 

individualistic goal structures on student 

achievement and productivity in the united 

states (Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, 

Nelson, & Skon, 1981). The results show that 

cooperative learning reserver the learning 

process more effectively than personal 

competition models. In addition, these 

results are consistent in all subject areas 

(language arts, reading, mathematics, 

science, social studies and physical 

education), for all age groups by involving 

conceptual understanding, problem-solving, 



 

23 

 

categorization, and reasoning (Karim, 2018; 

Slavin, 1983). 

Cooperative learning is a term that 

describes teaching procedures in which 

students collaborate in small groups and are 

rewarded for achievement learners 

(Cruickshank, 1990). Cooperative learning 

also defines as an instructional technique in 

which learners work together in small 

groups to help one other achieve a common 

learning goal (Belward, Balatti, & 

Australasia, 2012; Killen, 2006; Mitra, 2019). 

It means that individual students get the 

beneficial outcomes of themselves in 

cooperative situations. Cooperative learning 

enhances students‟ enthusiasm for learning 

in order to get academic success. Slavin, one 

of the founders of cooperative learning, 

believes that the group focus of cooperative 

learning can changes the norm of youth 

culture and make it more acceptable to excel 

in academic learning tasks (Slavin, 1983, 

2015). 

In addition, cooperative learning 

encouraged the students to work together 

and responsible for all comprehension of the 

groups' members. Cooperative groups must 

be heterogeneous in terms of gender, 

academic ability, race, and other traits 

(Cruickshank, 1990; Jenkins et al., 2003; Son 

& Metcalfe, 2000). Heterogeneity is 

promoted for at least three reasons: First, 

cooperative learning is based partly on the 

humanistic school of thought about learning. 

One of its major objectives is to make 

students feel better about themselves and to 

be more accepting of others. A second reason 

to form heterogeneous teams is so that each 

member will have an equal opportunity to 

learn since “talent” is about equally 

distributed to each group. Finally, 

heterogeneity is fostered because students 

with lower abilities are more likely to 

improve their achievement in mixed group 

than in homogeneous groups (Bernal 

Castañeda, 2017; Cruickshank, 1990). 

From the statements above, it can be 

said that members of groups in Cooperative 

Learning method consist of various 

background abilities. It conducted to make 

the students feel better and accept others. 

Moreover, students with lower abilities will 

improve their achievement because they will 

learn with the students of higher abilities in 

the same group. 

B. Characteristic of Cooperative 
Learning 

Cooperative learning has some 

characteristics. According to (Hegelheimer, 

Ware, & Kessler, 2009) the characteristics of 

Cooperative Learning are:  First, Positive 

Independence; Positive independence occurs 

when the gains for one individual are 



 

24 

 

associated with gains for others: that is, 

when one student achieves, others benefit 

(Kessler, 1992). Second, Team Formation; 

Positive independence implies the grouping 

has occurred, either by assignment or by 

change. Students can group themselves: 

“leaders” can take turns selecting teammates 

or teachers can assign students to team 

(Costely, 2015). Informal or spontaneous 

grouping is less desirable in many situations 

than formal or planned grouping methods 

(heterogeneous, random, interest, and 

homogeneous/heterogeneous language 

ability).  

Third, Accountability. Research 

shows that both individual and group 

accountability is important for achievement 

in Cooperative Learning setting (Slavin, 

1983, 1988, 2015; Slavin Robert, 1995). 

Methods that use only a group grade or a 

group product without making each member 

accountable do not consistently produce 

achieving gains. Students may be made 

individually accountable by signing each 

student a grade on his or her own portion of 

the team project or by the rule that the group 

may not go on to the next activity until all the 

team members finish the task.  

A primary way to ensure 

accountability is through testing. Forth, 

Social Skills: (Johnson & Johnson, 1990) 

include teaching social skills as a defining 

characteristic of Cooperative Learning. 

Social skills teaching, however, are not 

always an element in some of the most widely 

researched Cooperative Learning 

procedures, such as Students Teams 

Achievements Divisions (STAD) discussed 

in (Slavin, 1983). And the last, Structuring 

and Structures. Structures are generic, 

content-free ways of organizing student 

interactions with content and with each 

other. For example, (Step 1) one student 

talks while others listen, the (Step 2) the 

next student talk, etc. structures describe 

different ways students are to interact 

(Hegelheimer et al., 2009; Kessler, 1992).  

C. the Role of Teachers in Increasing 
Collaboration among Students 

There is no doubt that teachers play a 

key role in building cooperative learning 

experiences in their classrooms. This 

includes grouping and assignments so 

students understand what they are expected 

to do and how they are expected to behave. 

It also includes the teacher's understanding 

that they have a role in promoting student 

interaction during small group discussions. 

Helping students to interact and work 

together not only allows students to learn 

from each other but also to accept 

responsibility for the tasks they have to 

complete and the decisions they have to 

make.  



 

25 

 

Several studies have shows that high-

level cognitive learning that combines facts, 

concepts, and thoughts only appears with 

low frequency when allowed to appear as a 

by-product of small group learning (Altun, 

2017; Häkkinen et al., 2017; Meloth & 

Deering, 1999; Sencibaugh & Sencibaugh, 

2016). Students do not decipher information, 

do not ask questions to stimulate thinking, 

and do not spontaneously utilize prior 

knowledge without some relevant external 

guidance (Gu, Shao, Guo, & Lim, 2015; King, 

2002; Meloth & Deering, 1999). (Chinn, 

O’donnell, & Jinks, 2000; Hitt & González-

Martín, 2015) also observed that students 

were rarely involved in high-level discourse 

or explanatory behavior that provided 

reasons for conclusions unless explicitly 

taught to do so. However, when students are 

taught to speak and reason together and 

apply these skills in their interactions with 

each other, (Gillies, 2016; Mercer*, Dawes, 

Wegerif, & Sams, 2004) find that they can 

speak and reason effectively. Besides, this 

talk-based group activity helps in the 

development of reasoning, problem-solving 

and individual learning. 

(Gillies, 2016) found that when 

teachers are taught how to mediate student 

learning by engaging in dialogical exchanges 

where they explore and clarify problems, 

deal with differences in student thinking, 

offer temporary advice, and acknowledge 

and validate students. responses, children's 

responses to one another reflect the many 

responses they give to their teacher, that is, 

they are detailed or elaborated. In a study of 

the verbal behavior of teachers and students 

in the middle class, (Gillies, 2017) found that 

teachers who applied cooperative learning 

showed more mediated learning interactions 

than teachers who only applied group work. 

In addition, students in cooperative groups 

engage in more general verbal behavior that 

is seen as helping and supporting group 

efforts than their peers in working groups 

only (ie, ad hoc groups where students have 

not been taught to work together). Gillies 

argues that many of these verbal behaviors 

may, in part, arise from the type of reciprocal 

interaction that their teacher models when 

they interact with group members where 

students learn to provide more explanations 

and detailed responses to requests for help or 

other students' perceptions. need help. The 

frequency of multi-directional responses that 

occur in cooperative groups both among 

students and with their teachers may also 

have arisen from group assignments that are 

generally open and discovery-based and 

require students to exchange information 

and ideas to find solutions to these problems. 

In short, research (Altun, 2017; Gillies, 2016; 

Mercer et al., 2004) shows that teachers can 



 

26 

 

teach students how to talk and reason 

together to improve student interaction and 

learning 

D. The General Concept of Teams 
Games Tournaments (TGT) 

According to Roy Killen, “TGT was 

Slavin‟s original version of cooperative 

learning (Slavin, 1983, 2015; Slavin Robert, 

1995). It is similar to STAD in that teachers 

present information to learners and then they 

have one another learn. The difference is the 

quizzes are replaced with tournaments in 

which learners compete with members of 

other teams in order to gain points for their 

home team (Killen, 2006). So based on the 

Roy Killen definition, Teams Games 

Tournaments (TGT) has similarity with 

STAD but the quizzes that used in STAD are 

replaced with tournaments in TGT. In 

addition, Slavin stated that “TGT is the same 

as STAD in every aspect but one: instead of 

the quizzes and the individual improvement 

score system, TGT uses academic 

tournament, in which students compete as 

representatives of their teams with members 

of other teams who are like them in past 

academic performance (Slavin, 2015). In 

another word, TGT and STAD have the same 

several elements but different in using 

quizzes, STAD uses the simple quizzes, 

while TGT uses academic tournament. 

E. The Principles of Teams Games 
Tournaments (TGT) 

According to Slavin, TGT has five 

principles as follows; Class presentation 

(Slavin, 1983), what does mean class 

presentation in TGT is the same as a class 

presentation in STAD, materials are 

introduced here. Slavin said that this is often 

the direct instruction or a lecture-discussion 

conducted by the teacher. Teams (Slavin 

Robert, 1995), teams in TGT is also same as 

teams in STAD, teams are composed of four 

or five students who represent a cross-

section of the class in terms of academic 

performance, sex, and race or ethnicity, the 

major function of the team is to make sure 

that all team members are learning, and, 

major specifically, to prepare its members to 

do well on the quizzes. After the teacher 

presents the material, the team meets to 

study worksheets or other material. Most 

often, the study involves students discussing 

problems together, comparing answers, and 

correcting any misconceptions if teammates 

make mistakes. Games (Slavin Robert, 1995), 

the games are composed of content-relevant 

questions designed to test the knowledge 

students gain from class presentations and 

team practice. Games are played at tables of 

three students, each of whom represents of a 

different team. Most games are simply 

numbered questions on the ditto sheet. 



 

27 

 

Students a numbered card and attempts to 

answer the question corresponding to the 

number. A challenging rule permits players 

to challenge one another answer. Tournaments 

(Slavin Robert, 1995), the tournament is the 

structure in which the games take place. It is 

usually held off the end of a week or a unit 

after the teacher has made the class-

presentation and the team has had time to 

practice with their worksheet. Thus, the 

teams have proper preparation for the 

participation of the tournament. Team 

Recognition (Slavin Robert, 1995), team scores 

are computed based on team ‟members 

improvement scores, and individual 

certificated, a class newsletter or a bulletin 

broad recognize the high-scoring team 

III. METHOD 

This study used a pre-experimental 

study in one class of an experimental class. 

The writer takes the pre-test for the students 

at the beginning of the study. After giving a 

pre-test, the writer gives the treatment by 

using TGT method in the class, At the last 

step of the research, the writer gives a post-

test in order to reach a result whether the 

students in that class have significant 

improvement in understanding narrative 

text or not. The formula one-Group pretest-

post test design: 

Pre-test Independent 

Variable 

Post-test 

𝛾
1
 x 𝛾

1
 

 

 𝑌1: Pre-test and post-test 

𝑋 : Independent of variable  

A. Participants 

The participants of this study are the 

second grade students of MA.Mambaus 

Sholihin Manyar Gresik. The writer specifies 

the sample by 18 students. 

The student uses the purposive 

sample that included one class to be a sample 

of experiment. Fm the second grade that has 

6 classes, the writer uses the C class to be 

subject of the experiment. 

B. Instrument 

The instrument of this research is a 

test. it is concluded of two tests which are 

pre-test and post-test.  

1. A pre-test is used for observation 

before applying TGT Method in 

teaching the reading of a narrative 

text. 

 

2. Post-test is used for observation 

after implement TGT Method in 

teaching reading of narrative text.  

 

 



 

28 

 

IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION 

The result shows that the average 

score of each group was different. The 

researcher found the difference in the average 

score between the pre-test and post-test. 

Several steps of t-test explained in the 

preceding chapter. The first step was an 

analysis of the pre-test. It presented as 

below: 

The writer gets the result of the test 

from the student of C class at MA. Mambaus 

Sholihin Gresik as the table below: 

Table 1 The Result of Test 

No Subject Pretest Post-test 

1 S1 40 80 

2 S2 40 70 

3 S3 50 90 

4 S4 60 90 

5 S5 70 90 

6 S6 40 80 

7 S7 30 70 

8 S8 50 90 

9 S9 30 80 

10 S10 30 80 

11 S11 40 80 

12 S12 40 80 

13 S13 30 70 

14 S14 30 60 

15 S15 40 90 

16 S16 40 70 

17 S17 50 90 

18 S18 50 90 

 N= 18 y1=760 y2=1450 

 

From on the table, the writer explains 

the resulting test achievement students 

before treatment and after treatment of TGT 

Method in reading comprehension skill at 

the second-grade students of MA. Mambaus 

Sholihin Gresik. 

The data analysis form contents from 

research, with the data analysis that be 

intended to born out or “t” test propriety on 

hypotheses, have forward is for try propriety 

about the effectiveness of using TGT Method 



 

29 

 

in teaching reading of the narrative text at 

the second-grade students of MA. Mambaus 

Sholihin Gresik. 

1. Alternative Hypotheses (Ha) that try 

building on research problem that 

explains as the following: the 

effectiveness of TGT Method in teaching 

reading. 

2. Null Hypotheses (Ho) is not the 

effectiveness of TGT Method in teaching 

reading. 

3. For the forward  “t” test hypotheses as 

already forward, so the writer uses 

analysis statistics “t” test with table 

extrapolation the following: 

Table 2 

The result pre-test and post-test pre-experiment 

No Subject Pretest Post-

test 

D (Gain 

Pe-test 

and post-

test) 

1 S1 40 80 +40 

2 S2 40 70 +30 

3 S3 50 90 +40 

4 S4 60 90 +30 

5 S5 70 90 +20 

6 S6 40 80 +40 

7 S7 30 70 +40 

8 S8 50 90 +40 

9 S9 30 80 +50 

10 S10 30 80 +50 

11 S11 40 80 +40 

12 S12 40 80 +40 

13 S13 30 70 +40 

14 S14 30 60 +30 

15 S15 40 90 +50 

16 S16 40 70 +30 

17 S17 50 90 +40 

18 S18 50 90 +40 

 N= 18 y1=760 y2=1450  



 

30 

 

 

 

 

NO

  

D (Gain Pe-

test and post-

test) 

 Xd 

(Md-d) 

Dm 

(Md-d) 

S1 +40 1,7 2,89 

S2 +30 -8,3 68,89 

S3 +40 1,7 2,89 

S4 +30 -8,3 68,89 

S5 +20 -18,3 334,89 

S6 +40 1,7 2,89 

S7 +40 1,7 2,89 

S8 +40 1,7 2,89 

S9 +50 11,7 136,89 

S10 +50 11,7 136,89 

S11 +40 1,7 2,89 

S12 +40 1,7 2,89 

S13 +40 1,7 2,89 

S14 +30 -8,3 68,89 

S15 +50 11,7 136,89 

S16 +30 -8,3 68,89 

S17 +40 1,7 2,89 

S18 +40 1,7 2,89 

   1050,02 

 

Md = 
∑ 𝑑

𝑁
 = 

690

18
 = 38,3 

   t  = 
Md

√
∑ 2dx

N (N−1)

 

= 
38,3

√
1050,03

18(17)

 

     = 
38,3

1,85
 

= 20,7 

  

The finding showed that there was a 

significant difference on the English reading 

comprehension between the student’s pre-

test and post-test who were taught by using 

TGT method. There were some 

interpretative reasons to explain this 

problem. 



 

31 

 

First, it was related to the students` 

initial differences in the pre-test and post-

test. Those were the differences in the 

students` ability based on the pretest scores. 

The pre-test is to measure the student’s 

achievement. 

The discussion from cost-

effectiveness between result achievement 

pre-test and post-test not signed negative, 

the mean get to conclude that between two 

result achievement that signed correlation 

positive with analysis “t” test that procurable 

value 20,7. The strength of result data 

analysis the effectiveness student over have 

the conclusion that comprehension students 

about model cooperative learning typescript 

that is very big. Moreover, get acceptance by 

students and used as model learning. 

So that alternative hypotheses (Ha) 

that forward get to know that model TGT 

(team games tournaments) is very effective 

to increase in teaching reading; at the 

second-grade students of MA. Mambaus 

Sholihin Gresik. 

From the finding over, so get to know 

the effectiveness of TGT Method in teaching 

reading very effective, because this method is 

correct for senior high school to coached 

students in exportable skill, although cost-

effectiveness in learning until very increasing 

to reading comprehension in learning.  

The finding showed that both group 

had a significant difference. It could be said 

that the pre-test and post-test value is 

increased. it was proven from the materials, 

scores and activities which were used in the 

C class that support students’ interesting to 

learn more about reading topic. 

In addition, Slavin stated that TGT is 

the same as STAD in every aspect but one: 

instead of the quizzes and the individual 

improvement score system, TGT uses 

academic tournament, in which students 

compete as representatives of their teams 

with members of other teams who are like 

them in past academic performance. 

Therefore, the research conducted by Slavin 

gave the researcher an inspiration to conduct 

a research on the teaching reading using TGT 

in student’s reading comprehension. The 

researcher wants to know the effectiveness 

of TGT method in teaching reading at 

second-grade students of MA. Mambaus 

Sholihin Suci Manyar Gresik. 

Finally, teaching reading by using 

TGT method is effective as interesting 

activities, because TGT is a simple method 

for improving students' reading skill 

comprehension. It also made students active 

and cooperative with their friends to find the 

solutions of problem they find. So that, they 

can increase their competence in learning 

reading skill.  



 

32 

 

V. CONCLUSION 

Based on the data analysis, the study 

concludes that the Teams Games 

Tournaments method is more effective than 

the conventional method in teaching reading. 

Then, Although this research is finished well 

and successfully, there are some flaws of this 

research which become the evaluation for the 

researcher. The reference books which the 

researcher got are too limited, so the 

theoretical review is felt insufficiently 

perfect. The treatments of teaching reading 

was also felt less because the time was 

limited. On the other hand, the scope of 

teaching reading is still general and it needs 

to be limited in order that the objective of the 

study can be achieved and answered clearly 

and specifically, and in order that it will not 

be extended. So, the writer took a limitation 

in teaching reading skills. 

VI. REFERENCES 

Altun, S. (2017). The effect of cooperative 
learning on students’ achievement and 
views on the science and technology 
course. International Electronic Journal of 
Elementary Education, 7(3), 451–468. 

Aziz, I. N., & Dewi, Y. A. S. (2019). The 
Effect of Contextual Teaching and 
Learning on Students’ English 
Grammar Competance. ALSUNA: 
JOURNAL OF ARABIC AND ENGLISH 
LANGUAGE, 2(2), 3. 

Belward, S., Balatti, J., & Australasia, M. E. 
R. G. of. (2012). Doing It Differently: 
The Ups and Downs of Peer Group 

Learning. Mathematics Education Research 
Group of Australasia. Retrieved from 
http://ezproxy.stir.ac.uk/login?url=http:
//search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dire
ct=true&db=eric&AN=ED573195&site=
ehost-live 

Bernal Castañeda, S. (2017). Affective 
Limitations in Second Language 
Acquisition by Spanish Adult Learners 
in Vocational Training Programs. Latin 
American Journal of Content & Language 
Integrated Learning, 10(1), 133–160. 
https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2017.10.1.6 

Chinn, C. A., O’donnell, A. M., & Jinks, T. S. 
(2000). The structure of discourse in 
collaborative learning. The Journal of 
Experimental Education, 69(1), 77–97. 

Costely, K. (2015). Research Supporting 
Integrated Curriculum: Evidence for 
using this Method of Instruction in 
Public School Classrooms. Arkansas Tech 
University, 1–11. 

Cruickshank, D. R. (1990). Research that 
Informs Teachers and Teacher Educators. 
ERIC. 

Gibson, S. R. C. (2018). A Study Into the 
Effect of SQ3R with Cooperative 
Learning on the Reading Progress of 
Student Nurses. Alabama Agricultural 
and Mechanical University. 

Gillies, R. M. (2016). Cooperative learning: 
Review of research and practice. 
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 
41(3), 3. 

Gillies, R. M. (2017). Promoting 
academically productive student 
dialogue during collaborative learning. 
International Journal of Educational 
Research. 

Gu, X., Shao, Y., Guo, X., & Lim, C. P. 
(2015). Designing a role structure to 



 

33 

 

engage students in computer-
supported collaborative learning. The 
Internet and Higher Education, 24, 13–20. 

Hakim, L. (2017). Analisis Perbedaan Antara 
Kurikulum KTSP dan Kurikulum 2013. 
Didaktika, 17(2), 280–292. 
https://doi.org/10.22373/jid.v16i1.590.5 

Häkkinen, P., Järvelä, S., Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., 
Ahonen, A., Näykki, P., & Valtonen, T. 
(2017). Preparing teacher-students for 
twenty-first-century learning practices 
(PREP 21): a framework for enhancing 
collaborative problem-solving and 
strategic learning skills. Teachers and 
Teaching, 23(1), 25–41. 

Harmer, J. (1991). The Practical of English 
Language Teaching (Third Edit). United 
Kingdom: (Longman) Pearson 
Education Limited. 

Hegelheimer, V., Ware, P., & Kessler, G. 
(2009). TESOL technology standards 
framework (First). Virginia, USA: 
Teachers of English to Speakers of 
Other Languages, Inc. Retrieved from 
https://www.tesol.org/docs/default-
source/books/bk_technologystandards_
framework_721.pdf 

Hitt, F., & González-Martín, A. S. (2015). 
Covariation between variables in a 
modelling process: The ACODESA 
(collaborative learning, scientific 
debate and self-reflection) method. 
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 88(2), 
201–219. 

Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, L. S., Van den Broek, P., 
Espin, C., & Deno, S. L. (2003). Sources 
of Individual Differences in Reading 
Comprehension and Reading Fluency. 
Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 
719–729. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.95.4.719 

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1990). 

Cooperative learning and achievement. 

Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., 
Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of 
cooperative, competitive, and 
individualistic goal structures on 
achievement: A meta-analysis. 
Psychological Bulletin, 89(1), 47. 

Jolliffe, W. (2015). Bridging the gap: 
teachers cooperating together to 
implement cooperative learning. 
Education 3-13, 43(1), 70–82. 

Jong, B., Lai, C., Hsia, Y., Lin, T., & Lu, C. 
(2013). Using Game-Based Cooperative 
Learning to Improve Learning 
Motivation : A Study of Online Game 
Use in an Operating Systems Course. 
IEEE Transaction on Education, 56(2), 183–
190. 

Karim, K. (2018). Cooperative Language 
Learning. The TESOL Encyclopedia of 
English Language Teaching, 1–5. 

Kessler, C. (1992). Cooperative language 
learning: A teacher’s resource book. Prentice 
Hall. 

Killen, R. (2006). Effective teaching strategies: 
Lessons from research and practice. Cengage 
Learning Australia. 

Kim, Y. J., Almond, R. G., & Shute, V. J. 
(2016). Applying Evidence-Centered 
Design for the Development of Game-
Based Assessments in Physics 
Playground. International Journal of 
Testing, 00, 1–22. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2015.11
08322 

King, A. (2002). Structuring peer 
interaction to promote high-level 
cognitive processing. Theory into Practice, 
41(1), 33–39. 

Meloth, M. S., & Deering, P. D. (1999). The 
role of the teacher in promoting 



 

34 

 

cognitive processing during 
collaborative learning. 

Mercer*, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & 
Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a 
scientist: Ways of helping children to 
use language to learn science. British 
Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 359–
377. 

Mitra, S. (2019). Does Collaborative Use of 
the Internet Affect Reading 
Comprehension in Children?. Journal of 
Learning for Development, 6(1), 20–36. 

Oliveira, A. W., Meskill, C., Judson, D., 
Gregory, K., Rogers, P., Imperial, C. J., 
& Casler-Failing, S. (2015). Language 
repair strategies in bilingual tutoring of 
mathematics word problems. Canadian 
Journal of Science, Mathematics and 
Technology Education, 15(1), 102–115. 

Sencibaugh, J. M., & Sencibaugh, A. M. 
(2016). An analysis of cooperative 
learning approaches for students with 

learning disabilities. Education, 136(3), 
356–364. 

Slavin, R. E. (1983). Cooperative Learning. 
Research on Teaching Monograph Series. 
ERIC. 

Slavin, R. E. (1988). Cooperative learning 
and student achievement. Educational 
Leadership, 46(2), 31–33. 

Slavin, R. E. (2015). Cooperative learning in 
elementary schools. Education 3-13, 43(1), 
5–14. 

Slavin Robert, E. (1995). Cooperative 
Learning: Theory, Research, and 
Practice. Massachusetts: A Simon and 
Schuster Company. 

Son, L. K., & Metcalfe, J. (2000). 
Metacognitive and Control Strategies 
in Study-Time Allocation. Jownal of 
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, 
and Cognition, 26(1), 204–221. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/278-
7393.26.1.204 

 

 


