217 JPJO 4 (2) (2019) 217-224 Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/penjas/index The Effect of Learning Model and Motivation Level on Students’ Self-Eficacy Muhamad Khaeriva Hasani, Komarudin, Tite Juliantine Program Studi Pendidikan Olahraga, Sekolah Pasca Sarjana, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Article Info Article History : Received March 2019 Revised June2019 Accepted July 2019 Available online September 2019 Keywords : Learning Model, Motivation Level, Self- Eficacy Abstrak Self-Efficacy adalah suatu keyakinan seseorang terhadap kemampuan yang dimilikin- ya dalam menyelesaikan tugas tertentu. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui perbedaan pengaruh model pembelajaran yaitu Teaching Personal and Social Respon- sibility (TPSR) dan Cooperative Learning pada siswa yang memiliki tingkat motivasi tinggi dan rendah terhadap peningkatan self-efficacy siswa kelas V. Metode eksperi- men dengan desain faktorial 2x2. Sampel penelitian ini adalah berjumlah 105 orang yang diambil menggunakan teknik sampling jenuh pada kelas V di SDN 208 Lugina- sari Kota Bandung. Analisis data menggunakan SPSS versi 21 dengan pengujian hipotesis melalui Two Way Anova. Hasil analisis dan perhitungan data mengungkap- kan bahwa tidak terdapat perbedaan pengaruh yang signifikan antara kedua model pembelajaran terhadap peningkatan self-efficacy, terdapat interaksi antara model pem- belajaran dengan motivasi terhadap peningkatan self-efficacy, tidak terdapat perbedaan pengaruh yang signifikan antara kedua model pembelajaran dengan tingkat motivasi tinggi terhadap peningkatan self-efficacy dan tidak terdapat perbedaan pengaruh yang signifikan antara kedua model pembelajaran dengan tingkat motivasi rendah terhadap peningkatan self-efficacy. Kesimpulan penelitian ini adalah kedua model pembelajaran memberikan pengaruh yang sama baiknya terhadap tingkat motivasi tinggi dan rendah pada self-efficacy dan ada interaksi antara model pembelajaran dengan motivasi ter- hadap peningkatan self-efficacy siswa. Abstract Self-Efficacy is a person's belief on his ability to complete certain tasks. The purpose of this study was to determine the influence differences between two learning models, namely TPSR and Cooperative Learning on students who have high and low motiva- tion levels to increase self-efficacy of the fifth grade students. Experimental methods with 2x2 factorial design was used. The sample of this research were105 fifth grade students at SDN 208 Luginasari, Bandung, chosen by using total sampling technique. Data analysis used SPSS version 21 with hypothesis testing through Two Way Anova. The results of the analysis and calculation of the data revealed that; there was no sig- nificant difference in the effect between the two learning models on increasing stu- dents’ self-efficacy; there was an interaction between learning models with motivation towards increasing self-efficacy; there was no significant difference in the effect be- tween the two learning models with high levels of motivation towards the increase of self-efficacy; and there was no significant difference in the effect between the two learning models with low motivation levels on increasing self-efficacy. The conclusion of this study is that both of the learning models have the same effect on both high and low motivation levels on the student self-efficacy and there is an interaction between learning models and motivation on increasing the student self-efficacy.  Correspondence Address : Jl. Dr. Setiabudi No. 229 Kota Bandung, Indonesia E-mail : muhamadkhaeriva25@gmail.com ISSN 2580-071X (online) ISSN 2085-6180 (print) DOI : 10.17509/jpjo.v4i2.19951 218 Muhamad Khaeriva Hasaniet, et. al./ Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 4 (2) (2019) INTRODUCTION Affective value and personality have a close rela- tionship with moral value in daily life personally or so- cially. Every person has a different personality, person- ality is a totality of an individual characteristic that cre- ate the existed and distinctive pattern thus an individual is different with other individuals (Hidayat, 2017). Nowadays, affective value and personality are decreasing, we could see this phenomena in our sur- roundings. Affective value is closely related to moral value in daily life, personally and socially. Therefore, the lack of affective value building could affect the ad- versity of moral value of the students as the future gen- eration of our nation. Bullying becomes a phenomenon that keeps happening in Indonesia and in the world, even the case involving students is getting higher. It should be our concern. A student who is bullied would lose their self-efficacy on their self and ironically, a belief is a foundation for a person to assess how far they could achieve or accomplish their goals. Self-efficacy was suggested and revised by A. Bandura as a belief or an assessment made by an indi- vidual that they could be successful or accomplish the identified task (Green, 2008). Therefore, belief on self is an individual strength to take an action, a person would take an action if they think that they have ability to do something. The bullying victim has a lower life satisfaction and gains more depression and anxiety than those who are not (Weng, dkk. 2017). Physical education at school should be the part of society hope to solve the social ills that physical edu- cation could build Indonesian citizen as a whole, a hu- man who is physically, spiritually, and socially healthy. Sport and physical education represent components in global education for children to grow and develop their movement ability, psychological aspect, and social abil- ity (Dacica, 2015). Therefore, through education, a per- son has a purpose that they set goals that could develop themselves to be a better person in the future. Learning outcome that they have become a depiction of their cognitive, affective, and movement skills. Other opin- ions said that physical education could improve self- efficacy and participation of the students, thus it could help the students to have learning achievement im- provement (Bertills, dkk. 2018). For that reason, physi cal education could give positive contribution on learn- ing achieve at school. Goal accomplishment depends on learning task in form of physical activities or chosen movement tasks that are delivered with learning method or strategy that is suitable with the specific goals that should be achieved. Besides psychomotor and cognitive aspect in physical education, affective aspect is also important in deciding students learning achievement. One of efforts to solve the problem in education especially education at school is learning model. A learning model refers to a whole comprehensive plan to teach (Metzler, 2005). TPSR model or Model Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility is a model that is suggested by Hellison as a mean to improve personal and social responsibility of the children through physical activity. This learning model is a learning model that put attention on attitude, values, and behavior of the children. TPSR model suggested by Hellison have a great impact on motor development, responsibility, motiva- tion, and have good validity on the implementation in physical education learning process (Djordjic, 2018). Besides improving responsibility, previous research found that TPSR is effective to move the managerial and social behavior into a more positive direction (Pozo, dkk. 2016). Besides TPSR model, there is also cooperative learning model that besides helping stu- dents to achieve learning adjective, it could also give positive impact on students’ social skill. The implemen- tation of cooperative learning shows social skill im- provement and attitude compared to the group that did not receive cooperative learning model (Goudas & Ma- gotsiou, 2009). Besides affecting social skill of the stu- dents, cooperative learning also has impact on students learning motivation, data show that there is improve- ment on intrinsic motivation and rules that had been identified only on experimental group who received cooperative learning model (Fernandez-Rio, dkk.2017). A factor that could have impacts on learning achievement is motivation, motivation is a strength that drive a person to take a behavior, the aim of motivation is to have a behavior that could bring highest benefits for a person (Tohidi & Jabbari, 2012). Therefore, moti- vation becomes a booster for a person that emerge ac- http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/penjas/index DOI : 10.17509/jpjo.v4i2.19951 219 tivities. Therefore, according to the explanation above, the researcher conducted a research entitled the effect of Learning Model and Motivation on Self-efficacy on Primary School students. METHODS Design This research was an experimental research that was aimed to contribute to new invention in developing reading literacy and the affectivity of education (Ronková & Wildová, 2016). One of research method- ology that has several characteristics including manipu- lating independent variable, randomizing or choosing the sample of the study, and comparing the experi- mental group with control group. An experimental research is based on the cause- effect assumption that is formulated as working hypoth- esis and is conducted in contoured action as the result of the study on the environment characteristics and ap- plication, in systemic view, strategic segment (Gheorghe & Nicolae, 2015). In this research, there was a manipulation or treat- ment in a group by implementing TPSR model in phys- ical education learning for experimental group. The control group received physical education learning through cooperative learning. The design of this study is factorial design. This design is a design to expand the number of relationship that is probable to be identified in the experiment. The researcher modified the design group whether it is control group posttest-only or con- trol group pretest posttest- that allowed additional inde- pendent variable identification (Fraenkel dkk. 2012). The explanation above concludes that other value of factorial design is that it allows the researcher to learn the interaction of independent variable with other varia- ble or we call it moderator variable. The researcher also identified the effects of moderator variable or attribute that affected the result of the research. Population and Sample In this research, the population was the fifth grade students from 208 Luginasari Primary School in Ban- dung that consisted of 105 students since they had a similar characteristics with the background of the study that the bullying phenomenon commonly occured on other students. The sampling technique is a technique of choosing sample who are representative from the population. This research used saturated sampling tech- nique. Saturated sampling technique is a technique where all of the population are taken as samples (Sugiyono, 2014). For experimental study, minimum 30 samples per groups is suggested although sometimes experimental study involves only q 15 persons in each group if the control is highly conducted (fraenkel dkk. 2012). Ac- cording to the opinion above, the sample used in this study were 105 male and female students aged 11-12 who are reduced into 60 students represented moderator variable. 30 students had high motivation and 30 stu- dents had low motivation, thus there would be 45 stu- dents as the range. The average result of self-efficacy improvement was 19,93 and standard deviation was 2,904. Data Collection Technique This research used questionnaire to collect data. Motivation was measured by using SIS instrument, that has been validated in physical education for primary school students by (Sun, Chen, Ennis, Martin, & Shen, 2008). Meanwhile, for measuring students Self- Efficacy, SEQ-C instrument was used (Muris, 2001). The SEQ-C instrument contains 24 problems that eval- uate three aspects including academic, social, and emo- tional of Self-Efficacy. Although the validity and relia- bility of the two instrument has been tested before, the researcher still conducted the validity and reliability test of both instrument so that it would be suitable for the characteristics of the research. Data Analysis In this research, to analyze the data, the research- er used SPSS 21 started from normality test by using Kolmogorof-smirnov, homogeneity test by using Lav- ene’s test, and hypothesis analysis by using Two Way Anova RESULT The analysis of the data was conducted to answer the research problem and to prove the research hypothe- http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/penjas/index DOI : 10.17509/jpjo.v4i2.19951 Muhamad Khaeriva Hasaniet, et. al./ Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 4 (2) (2019) 220 sis. In this research, there were four research hypothe- sis. Therefore, in the discussion section the researcher will present the analysis or the result of hypothesis test. Hypothesis test was conducted by using two directional ANOVA. The following is the result of the test that could be seen in Table 1. According to table 1, in the Learning model col- umn, it shows that the value of significance 0,928. It indicates that the significance value > 0,05. Therefore, H0 is accepted and H1 is rejected. Therefore, the result concludes that there is no significant self-efficacy dif- ference between TPSR model group and cooperative learning group. The result of interaction between learning model and motivation on improving self-efficacy can be seen in Table 2. According to table 2, the column MP*motivation shows that the significant value is 0,042. It shows that the significant value is < 0,05. Therefore, H0 is rejected and H1 is accepted. Therefore, the result shows that there is interaction between learning model and motiva- tion on self-efficacy. The following is the picture show- ing interaction between learning model and motivation of self- efficacy. According to table 3, the high motivation table shows significant value 0,131. It indicates that the sig- nificant value is > 0,05. Therefore, H0 is accepted and H1 is rejected. Therefore, the result shows that in gen- eral there is no significant effect of TPSR and coopera- tive learning model on self-efficacy of the students who have high motivation. http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/penjas/index DOI : 10.17509/jpjo.v4i2.19951 Muhamad Khaeriva Hasaniet, et. al./ Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 4 (2) (2019) Source Df Mean Square F Sig. Corrected Model 3 13.200 1.614 .196 Intercept 1 23840.267 2914.119 .000 Learning Model 1 .067 .008 .928 Motivation 1 4.267 .522 .473 MP * Motivation 1 35.267 4.311 .042 Error 56 8.181 Total 60 Corrected Total 59 Tabel 1. TPSR and Cooper ative Lear ning on the Self- Efficacy Improvement Source Df Mean Square F Sig. Corrected Model 3 13.200 1.614 .196 Intercept 1 23840.267 2914.119 .000 Learning Model 1 .067 .008 .928 Motivation 1 4.267 .522 .473 MP * Motivation 1 35.267 4.311 .042 Error 56 8.181 Total 60 Corrected Total 59 Tabel 2.Inter action between Lear ning Model and Motivation on Improving Self-Efficacy Picture 1. Inter action between Lear ning Model and Motivation on Improving Self-Efficacy Tabel 3. Differ ences between TPSR and Cooper ative Learning model on Improving Self-Efficacy of the Students with High Motivation Pairwise Comparisons Motivation Std. Error Sig. a Learning Model High TPSR Cooperative Learning 1.04 .131 Cooperative Learning TPSR 1.04 .131 Low TPSR Cooperative Learning 1.04 .166 Cooperative Learning TPSR 1.04 .166 221 The result of differences between TPSR and coop- erative learning model on improving self-ffficacy of the students with low motivation presented in Table 5. According to table 5, the high motivation column shows the significance level is 0,166. It shows that the significant value is > 0,05. Therefore, H0 is accepted and H1 is rejected. The result indicates that in general there is no effect differences between TPSR and coop- erative Learning model on self-efficacy of the students who have low motivation. DISCUSSION Effect Differences between TPSR and Cooperative Learning model on Self-Efficacy From the analysis of the data, the result proves that there is an insignificant effect. It indicates that both of the learning model have an equal effect on the improve- ment of the students’ self-efficacy since both of the model have similar characteristics that aims to improve social skills. The previous research related to TPSR shows that TPSR learning model is an effective teaching instru- ment for teachers to build responsible behavior (Escartí dkk. 2010). Meanwhile, the previous research related to cooperative learning showed that the imple- mentation of cooperative learning indicates the im- provement on social skill and attitude (Goudas & Ma- gotsiou, 2009). It is probably because there is similarities in learning sequence of the TPSR and cooperative learn- ing model. The TPSR model used daily lesson format containing counseling time, awareness talk, lesson fo- cus, group meeting, and reflection time. Meanwhile, on CL model, there are six phases including delivering objective and motivation, delivering information, or- ganizing students into learning groups, guiding working and learning groups, evaluating, and appreciating. The implementation of learning model in this research could change the behavior of the students into a better behavior. The habit of disturbing others, laugh- ing at students who did wrong movement, violent be- havior, and other negative behaviors decreased through this learning model. It is proven by the changes of be- havior that they did during learning process in every meeting through the implementation of cooperative learning model (Yamarik, 2010). Similar with coopera- tive learning model, TPSR model is effective to change managerial and social behavior into positive direction (Pozo, dkk. 2016). It is shown that, in the beginning of the meeting, negative behaviors were found that reflect the low level of self-efficacy such as in doing movement task, doubt in making decision, laughing at friends who did mis- takes in movement task, doing something that could hurt their friends, and cannot accept the loss. In the middle period of the research, the negative behavior of the students that reflects the low level of self-efficacy decreased, such as the decrease of mistake in movement task, getting faster in making decision, start to accept the result of competition, rarely laugh at friends who did mistake, and some other still disturbed other students. At the research period, behavior changes started to be obvious in comparison with the first meeting. It is indicated by the ability of the students in making fast and accurate decision, executing movement task well, accepting the loss and appreciating by giving applause to other students or team who did the task well, the be- havior that indirectly hurt others rarely found and the student initiated to say sorry. These behaviors showed the development of value, attitude, and behavior of stu- dents to be better. http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/penjas/index DOI : 10.17509/jpjo.v4i2.19951 Muhamad Khaeriva Hasaniet, et. al./ Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 4 (2) (2019) Tabel 4. Differ ences between TPSR and Cooper ative Learning model on Improving Self-Efficacy of the Students with Low Motivation Pairwise Comparisons Motivation Std. Error Sig. a Learning Model High TPSR Cooperative Learning 1.04 .131 Cooperative Learning TPSR 1.04 .131 Low TPSR Cooperative Learning 1.04 .166 Cooperative Learning TPSR 1.04 .166 222 Interaction between Learning Model and Motiva- tion on Improving Self-Efficacy The second hypothesis test showed that there is interaction between TPSR model and cooperative learn- ing and group with high motivation level and group with low motivation level. The interaction occurred due to these treatments showed different improvement on self-efficacy. This research shows difference effects of learning model on motivation group. In high motivation level group, the improvement of self-efficacy is higher in TPSR model, while in the low motivation group, the improvement of the self-efficacy is higher that coopera- tive learning model. It shows that there is an interaction between learning model and motivation level on self- efficacy. In TPSR group with high motivation students, during the treatment, this group was more dominant that cooperative learning with high motivation group. It is indicated by the attitude of the students of TPSR group with high motivation during learning showed better initiative and responsibility during learning pro- cess in finishing movement tasks, besides that the TPSR group seemed to be more often in helping others who faced problems in finishing movement tasks even they helped other groups such as helping them to take the stuck ball. This finding is strengthen by the previous research that the implementation of TPSR model has impacts on behavior changing of the students such as the decrease of irresponsible behavior, the increase of initiative, and increase the awareness (Balderson, 2006). Meanwhile, the cooperative learning group with high motivation although seemed to be enthusiast and followed the learning process well, this group had less initiative and awareness on others. It is shown in the learning process, they always wanted to be the winner, and sometimes hurt others for their over enthusiast be- havior, and they did not always have initiative to say sorry since they though they did not do that purposive- ly. For the group with low motivation level, coopera- tive learning group gain better improvement on self- efficacy that TPSR group. It is shown during the treat- ment the cooperative learning looked more enthusiast during learning process. It is shown by the role played by individual in group, helping other group members, keep the cooperation during learning process, and being cooperative. It is supported by the statement of (Slavin, 2015) that cooperative learning refers to earning meth- od that the students learn in small group to help each other during learning. Meanwhile, TPSR group with low motivation level gained slower changes than other groups, although the improvement of self-efficacy occurred. It is indicat- ed from the beginning of the treatment, the changes happened in the fourth and fifth meeting. In the first three meetings, laughing others, disturbing, took a long time in making decision during doing movement task were often found. As the time goes by, these groups started to change their behavior into more positive direction. It is shown by the ability of the students to take action and make decision, their initiative to help others, the de- crease of mistakes in doing movement task. Most of the students who received TPSR model were successful in showing self-control, respecting oth- ers, and obeying the rules of the game (Filiz, 2017). It is supported by the previous research that stated that learning with TPSR method could build a better attitude of the students and support them to be more independ- ent learners (Gordon, dkk. 2012). The statement highlights that independent behav- ior is a behavior owned by an individual as a sign of their tendency to make a choice or decision to take ac- tion in their society. Therefore, through TPSR learning model, the students have opportunities to gain high ini- tiative in various things during learning without waiting for instruction from the teachers. Meanwhile, the cooperative learning model group with high motivation level, although they were enthusi- ast during learning process, it sometimes became a drawback that they hurt others (not purposively) even the student in their own group. The students who re- ceived cooperative learning were motivated to give physical and psychological support and instruction and overcoming others’ mistakes (Polvi & Telama 2000). High motivation is highly needed in school les- son so that the students could follow the learning pro- cess optimally, but the over motivation could create http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/penjas/index DOI : 10.17509/jpjo.v4i2.19951 Muhamad Khaeriva Hasaniet, et. al./ Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 4 (2) (2019) 223 incident during learning. It probably affected the im- provement self-efficacy of the cooperative learning with low motivation group. Therefore, it is possible that the improvement of the self-efficacy through TPSR learning model is suitable for the students with the high motivation. Effect Differences between TPSR learning model and Cooperative Learning Model on Self-Efficacy of the Low Motivated Group The fourth hypothesis testing is about the effect of learning model on self-efficacy of low motivated group. This test showed an insignificant effect differences of TPSR and cooperative learning model. However, the effect of the cooperative learning model on the low mo- tivated students is better that the TPSR model group. During the treatment of the group with low moti- vation, the cooperative learning model group were more dominant during the lesson and more active during the games. It is shown by how the students played their role in group very well. They helped each other (in group), being cooperative, had good communication, appreciat- ed each other. Cooperative learning helped students to gain so- cial skills through participation in group activities (Lavasani & Afzali, 2016). Besides that, the previous research stated that students who received cooperative learning model were significantly more motivated in learning (Hancock, 2010). Group is a media for the students to listen when other person talks, practicing self-control, and learning not to disturb others when they are talking. Cooperative learning model would result in empathy among group member, trust of other group member to accomplish an agreement, acceptance and respect others’ point of view (López-mondéja, dkk. 2017). Meanwhile, the TPSR group with low motivation gained slower changes than other groups, although they gained self-efficacy improvement. However, during the treatment, the changes of attitude was slower. The changes started to come up in the fourth and fifth meet- ing. In the first meetings, laughing others, disturbing behavior, taking a long time to make decision hap- pened. However, as the time went by, this group started to change to be more positive. It is indicated by their ability in executing movement task, fast in making de- cision and taking action, sportive in games, helping oth- ers who faced difficulties, and respecting others’ point of view. The Hellison model give great impacts on mo- tor, responsibility, and motivation development (Djordjic, 2018). Therefore, it is possible to improve self-efficacy through cooperative learning model for the students with low motivation level. CONCLUSION According According to the result of theoretical study of dependent variable, moderator variable, and independent variable, it concludes that: First, TPSR learning model and cooperative learning model had im- pacts on the improvement of self-efficacy and there was no significant differences between the two models. Sec- ondly, there was interaction between learning model and the level of motivation on self -efficacy. The inter- action happened since both of the treatments presented different improvement on self-efficacy result. For the group with high motivation, the higher improvement on self-efficacy happened in the group with TPSR learning model. Meanwhile, for the group with the low motiva- tion, the better effect on self-efficacy was gained by the students in cooperative learning model group. Third, teaching personal and social responsibility model was better that cooperative learning model group on self- efficacy improvement on the high motivated group. However, the difference was not significant. Fourth, the cooperative learning model is better that the teaching personal and social responsibility in the improvement of self-efficacy in low motivated group. However, the difference was not significant. REFERENCES Balderson, D. W. (2006). The effects of a personal re- sponsibility model on individual student and class- wide social behaviors. Bertills, K., Granlund, M., Dahlström, Ö., & Augustine, L. (2018). Relationships between physical education (PE) teaching and student self-efficacy, aptitude to participate in PE and functional skills: with a special focus on students with disabilities. Physical Educa- tion and Sport Pedagogy, 23(4), 387–401. https:// doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2018.1441394 http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/penjas/index DOI : 10.17509/jpjo.v4i2.19951 Muhamad Khaeriva Hasaniet, et. al./ Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 4 (2) (2019) 224 Dacica, L. (2015). The Formative Role of Physical Ed- ucation and Sports. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180(November 2014), 1242–1247. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.256 Djordjic, V. (2018). The Effectiveness Of Hellison ’ S Model Of Personal And Social Of Personal And So- cial Responsibility In Physical Education Teaching, (January). https://doi.org/10.22190/ FUPES171110060B Escartí Gutiérrez, M., Pascual, C., & Llopis, R., A. (2010). Implementation of the personal and social responsibility model to improve self-efficacy during physical education classes for primary school chil- dren. . International Journal of Psychology and Psy- chological Therapy, 10(3), 387–402. Fernandez-Rio, J., Sanz, N., Fernandez-Cando, J., & Santos, L. (2017). Impact of a sustained Cooperative Learning intervention on student motivation. Physi- cal Education and Sport Pedagogy, 22(1), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2015.1123238 Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E., & Hyun, H.H. (2012). How To Design and Evaluate Research In Educa- tion. USA: McGraw Hill. Inc Filiz, B. (2017). Applying the TPSR Model in Middle School Physical Education, 3084(April), 3–6. https:// doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2017.1281672 Gheorghe, Ş. O., & Nicolae, M. (2015). The Usage of Benchmarking as a Specific Management Method within the Experimental Research at University Sport Club. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Scienc- es, 180(November 2014), 1330–1335. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.273 Goudas, M., & Magotsiou, E. (2009). The effects of a cooperative physical education program on students’ social skills. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21(3), 356–364. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10413200903026058 Green, D. M. (2008). Journal of Teaching in Social Work Self-Efficacy, (October 2014), 37–41. https:// doi.org/10.1300/J067v23n03 Hancock, D. (2010). Cooperative Learning and Peer Orientation Effects on Motivation, (December 2013), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.3200/ JOER.97.3.159-168 Hidayat, Y. (2017). Pengantar Psikologi Olahraga. Ban- dung: CV Bintang WarliArtika Lavasani, M. G., & Afzali, L. (2016). Cypriot Journal of Educational, (January). López-mondéjar, L. M., Ma, L., & Pastor, T. (2017). Development of socio-emotional skills through co- operative learning in a university environment. Pro- cedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 237(June 2016), 432–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.sbspro.2017.02.086 Metzler. (2005). Instructional Models For Physical Ed- ucation. Holcomb Hathaway,Inc Muris, P. (2001). A Brief Questionnaire for Measuring Self-Efficacy in Youths, 23(3). Polvi, S., & Telama, R. (2000). The Use of Cooperative Learning as a Social Enhancer in Physical Educa- tion. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 44(1), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/713696660 Pozo, P., Grao-cruces, A., & Pe, R. (2016). Teaching personal and social responsibility model-based pro- grammes in physical education : A systematic re- view. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X16664749 Ronková, J., & Wildová, R. (2016). Reading Strategies Activated in Experimental Research. Procedia - So- cial and Behavioral Sciences, 217, 363–371. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.02.103 Slavin, R. E. (2015). Cooperative learning in elemen- tary schools. Education 3-13, 43(1), 5–14. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2015.963370 Sugiyono, 2014. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan. Ban- dung: Alfabeta Sun, H., Chen, A., Ennis, C., Martin, R., & Shen, B. (2008). An examination of the multidimensionality of situational interest in elementary school physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79(1), 62–70. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2008.10599461 Tohidi, H., & Jabbari, M. M. (2012). The effects of mo- tivation in education. Procedia - Social and Behav- ioral Sciences, 31(2011), 820–824. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.148 Weng, X., Chui, W. H., & Liu, L. (2017). Bullying Be- haviors among Macanese Adolescents — Associa- tion with Psychosocial Variables. https:// doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14080887 Yamarik, S., & Yamarik, S. (2010). The Journal of Economic Does Cooperative Learning Improve Stu- dent Learning Outcomes ? Research in Economic Education Student Learning Outcomes ?, (May 2013), 37–41. http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/penjas/index DOI : 10.17509/jpjo.v4i2.19951 Muhamad Khaeriva Hasaniet, et. al./ Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 4 (2) (2019)