67 JPJO 8 (1) (2023) 67-72 Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga Available online at: https://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/penjas/article/view/50671 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17509/jpjo.v8i1.50671 The Effect of STAD Learning Model on Learning Motivation of Elementary School Students Dede Iman Suhendra 1 *, Agi Ginanjar 2 , Mochamad Zakky Mubarok 2 , Reyan Novaldi 2 1 Department of Physical Education, Health, and Recreation, Galuh University, Ciamis, Indonesia 2 Departement of Physical Education, Health, and Recreation, STKIP Nahdlatul Ulama, Indramayu, Indonesia Article Info Article History : Received September 2022 Revised October 2023 Accepted February 2023 Available online April 2023 Keywords : elementary school students, stad learning model, motivation Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine the difference between the effect of the STAD learning model and the effect of the conventional learning model on elementary school student learning motivation. The research used an experimental method with a non-equivalent control group design. The participants were 26 sixth graders in one of the elementary schools in Indramayu district taken using systematic sampling. The research instrument used a learning motivation questionnaire in physical education for elementary school students. The analysis technique used an independent-samples t-test. The results of the study concluded that there was a difference between the effect of the STAD learning model and the effect of the conventional learning model on the learn- ing motivation of elementary school students. Further investigation of the use of the STAD learning model on other affective aspects, especially creativity, is needed. In addition, it is suggested to conduct research with larger number of participants so that the results of this study can be generalized, especially at the elementary school level.  Correspondence Address : Jl. R. E. Martadinata 150 Ciamis, 46251, Jawa Barat E-mail : dedeiman@unigal.ac.id https://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/penjas/index 68 INTRODUCTION The form of learning achievement of physical edu- cation (PE), in some perspectives, is expected to pro- vide overall development through movement activities. PE is a part of the overall education that influences a person development through activities that involve physical movements, including sports (Hadi, Nasarud- din, & Husniati, 2020). Also, PE is a learning process that prioritizes body movement activities aimed to im- prove the student knowledge, physical, and mental de- velopment (Supriyanto, Ginanjar, & Efendy, 2019). From some views, PE prioritizes movement activities in achieving learning goals. Furthermore, PE can fulfil cognitive, affective, and psychomotor aspects. PE can be interpreted as a learn- ing process that can cover cognitive and affective as- pects, use the psychomotor domain to achieve the de- sired goals, and become a forum for students to keep them physically fit or healthy through physical activi- ties and sports (Ginanjar, 2022). However, there are still many teachers who ignore the achievement of af- fective aspects in PE learning (Hanansyah & Ginanjar, 2019), because they prioritize the achievement of the psychomotor domain. In line with this, teaching and learning activity is a complete interconnected process to achieve predetermined learning goals, including an es- sential change of student behaviours in cognitive, affec- tive, and psychomotor domains, which are expected to occur after the learning process takes place (Wadudu, Setiawan, & Mubarok, 2019). One of the affective aspects contained in PE learn- ing is motivation. PE learning in elementary schools is delivered in various forms of games and sports in a team or group, which can foster motivations. In a group, students do not just follow learning activities. The learning objectives achieved by a group need to be understood so that students will have good motivation in participating in learning activities. Motivation has an important function because it can determine student efforts in the learning process (Ginanjar, Mubarok, & Mudzakir, 2021). Motivation is a desire influenced by factors from within itself and the environmental factors. Motivation is the energy that makes everything work or function (Komarudin, 2017). Motivation is divided into two kinds, namely intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motiva- tion. Intrinsic motivation comes from within the indi- vidual himself to carry out sport activities, while extrin- sic motivation is a desire that comes from outside the individual to carry out sport activities (Mylsidayu, 2014). Learning plan is a foundation to carry out learning process properly in accordance with scientific rules. The learning model used must be relevant to the charac- teristics of students. Learning models that are not in accordance with the characteristics of student develop- ment and lack of creativity in the implementation will make students bored so that it has an impact on student motivations to engage in learning. The purpose of learning is reflected in learning outcomes, showing that students have joined the learning process, which in- cludes new knowledge, skills, and attitudes which are expected to be achieved by students after participating in the learning process (Idris, 2017). Therefore, it is necessary to apply an appropriate learning model to improve student learning motiva- tions, where students can learn together with their groups. One of them is the cooperative learning (CL) learning model. CL is an effective and fun way to spur student achievement as a whole, not just individually (Slavin, 2015). CL is a set of instructional model in which students learn in groups to help each other learn the learning material (Barrett, 2005; Slavin, 1991). Then, in CL, students learn in small groups containing students with different levels of ability in completing group assignments, where each member cooperates with each other and helps to understand the learning material (Florida, 2019). Furthermore, CL can be ap- plied to all types of classes, including special classes for gifted children, special education classes, classes with average intelligence levels, and is indispensable in het- erogeneous classes with various levels of ability (Slavin, 2015). Related to research using CL in elemen- tary schools, several studies also state that CL is often used for research at the elementary school level (Dyson, 2001, 2002; Dyson, Colby, & Barratt, 2016; Dyson, Linehan, & Hastie, 2010; Wallhead & Dyson, 2017). Broadly speaking, there are several types of CL, such as Student Team-Achievement Divisions (STAD), Team Games Tournament (TGT), Team-Assisted In- struction (TAI), Jigsaw, and Group Investigation (GI) (Ginanjar, 2022; Metzler, 2000, 2005, 2017). The type of CL learning model used in this study was the STAD. In the implementation of STAD, all students and their Copyright © 2023, authors, e-ISSN : 2580-071X , p-ISSN : 2085-6180 Badruzaman / Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 8 (1) (2023) 69 groups are given the same task and the same time to show their learning results on the first test, then they have time to conduct another practice to improve the result on the second test (Ginanjar, 2022). The im- portant stages in STAD include the first exercise, the first assessment, the second exercise, and the second assessment (Ginanjar, 2022). Through grouping, it is expected that students can learn by working with friends who are more capable of helping and motivating fellow friends to be actively involved in physical activities so that the goals of learn- ing activities are achieved. From the previous observa- tions, the teacher used a conventional model where the teacher became the center of learning. Thus, students just followed what the teacher had instructed. Students lacked of creativity and were not honed because they just followed what the teacher had instructed (Ginanjar & Ramadhan, 2021; Setiawan, Juliantine, & Ko- marudin, 2017). The results of previous research related to STAD in elementary schools in Indonesia put more emphasis on psychomotor outcomes, such as volleyball passing (Wulandari, Henjilito, & Sunardi, 2021), rhythmic gymnastics (Asri & Haeril, 2021), long jump (Masdiyo, 2016), and dribble basketball (Sadik, 2016). The purpose of this study was to examine the dif- ference between the effect of STAD learning model and the effect of conventional learning model on the elementary school student learning motivation. METHODS The research method used in this study was the experimental method with a non-equivalent control group design. A non-equivalent control group design consists of two classes that are not chosen randomly. The pre-test was carried out first to determine the initial state of the two classes. Then, the experimental class was given treatments, while the control class was not given any treatment, followed by post-test for both clas- ses (Ginanjar, 2019). Participants The participants were 26 elementary school stu- dents Grade 6, in one of the elementary schools in In- dramayu, aged 11-12 years. Sampling Procedures The samples were divided into two classes using the systematic sampling with odd and even systems. In systematic sampling, members of the population get serial numbers, then the sampling is carried out using odd and even numbers (Ginanjar, 2019). From this opinion, the researcher decided the experimental class using odd serial numbers, while the control class using even serial numbers. Materials and Apparatus The research instrument used was a learning moti- vation questionnaire for elementary school student in PE (Nur, Ginanjar, Malik, & Pingon, 2021). The ques- tionnaire consisted of 30 valid test items with a reliabil- ity of 0.90. The questionnaire could be used for elemen- tary school students Grade 4, 5, and 6, as was tested on 134 students. Procedures The experimental class was given treatment using the STAD learning model, while the control class was taught using the conventional model or the learning model commonly used by PE teachers at the school where the research was conducted. Both the experi- mental class and the control class were given eight meetings outside the pretest and posttest so that the to- tal number of meetings was nine meetings. The first meeting was used to collect pre-test data. After that, treatments in eight meetings were given. At the last meeting, after completing the learning, the researchers immediately took post-test data. The duration of the meeting was 2 X 35 minutes conducted once a week. In giving treatments, floor gymnastics was used for both experimental class and control class. The details can be seen in Table 1. Copyright © 2023, authors, e-ISSN : 2580-071X , p-ISSN : 2085-6180 Meeting Experiment & Control Content 1 Pretest 2-3 Dominant sequence of motion, resting, repulsion, rotation, and landing on the forward roll 4-5 Dominant series of motion, resting, repulsion, rotation, and landing on the roll backwards 6-7 The series of dominant motions, resting, repuls- ing, turning, and landing on the elastic bolsters 8-9 A series of forward and backward rolls Posttest Table 1. Meeting Programme 70 The fidelity model followed the procedure for us- ing the STAD learning model, including planning and implementation where the reliability on planning = 0.79 and implementation = 0.86 (Ginanjar, Ramadhan, Adib, & Effendy, 2021). Data Analysis Data were analyzed using statistical descriptions to find out the mean, standard deviation, and variance. Hypothesis testing used independent sample t-test using the SPSS application by following the calculation pro- cedure of Ginanjar (2021). RESULT Based on the results of data analysis in pre-test, experimental class obtained mean = 18.77; standard deviation = 4.73; and variance = 22.26. In post-test, experimental class obtained mean = 21.85; standard deviation = 4.16; and variance = 17.31. In pre-test, con- trol class obtained mean = 20.62; standard deviation = 5.06; and variance = 25.59. In post-test, control class got mean = 19.92; standard deviation = 5.58; and vari- ance = 31.08. The details of each statistical description difference can be seen in Table 2. Hypothesis testing used independent sample t-test to answer the objectives of this study. The analysis ob- tained t = 2.32 with Sig. of 0.03 < 0.05, meaning that there was a difference of the effect of the STAD learn- ing model and the conventional learning model on the elementary school student learning motivation. The de- tails can be seen in Table 3. DISCUSSION The results of this study are relevant to previous studies that the STAD learning model can be used in PE learning for elementary school students (Asri & Haeril, 2021; Masdiyo, 2016; Sadik, 2016; Wulandari, Hen- jilito, & Sunardi, 2021). In addition, the results of this study provide a new insight that the use of STAD learn- ing model can improve the affective aspect, namely learning motivation of elementary school students. In general, the STAD learning model consists of exercise 1, test 1, exercise 2, and test 2 (Ginanjar, 2022). During the learning process in the class using STAD learning model, the student learning motivation was more visible shown from the enthusiasm of stu- dents in following each learning process. It was differ- ent from what happened to students who studied using conventional models. Students seemed to just "abort their obligations" by following the PE learning process. However, in line with previous studies, the teacher still found it difficult to use the STAD learning model at the initial stage (at the first two meetings). When first using the STAD learning model, the teacher experi- enced difficulties, needed to adapt, and seemed to be uncertain, especially in giving test 1 and test 2 (Ginanjar, Ramadhan, et al., 2021). Students who studied using the STAD learning model, where there was a group division in the process, seemed to be able to show their learning creativity when doing the exercises, especially in exercise 2, be- cause each student and group were trying to improve their test results on test 2 to exceed the results of test 1. For example, after taking test 1, students and their groups did more exercises to repeat the test to improve the next test results. Sometimes, students and their groups had more creativity in changing the form of ex- ercise when the form of exercise that had been carried out before was not effective to achieve the test results. Therefore, further research related to student creativity in using the STAD learning model is needed. It is in line with the statement of (Dyson et al., 2010) that us- ing CL has a consistent impact on social aspects in PE learning. Similar to previous studies, students still often joked and chatted when they were not doing any move- Copyright © 2023, authors, e-ISSN : 2580-071X , p-ISSN : 2085-6180 Table 2. Statistical Descriptions Variable Mean Std. Deviation Variance Exp. pre-test 18.77 4.73 22.26 Exp. post-test 21.85 4.16 17.31 Con. pre-test 20.62 5.06 25.59 Con. post-test 19.92 5.58 31.08 Table 3. Independent sample t-test Variable t Sig. Exp. >< Con 18.77 0,03 < 0,05 71 ment activities during the PE learning process. It is in line with the statement stating that it has become a char- acteristic of Indonesian students to joke and chat during PE learning process (Ginanjar, Ramadhan, et al., 2021). An interesting thing happened when using the STAD learning model for elementary school students. They trusted and often wanted to see examples of students in their groups who performed better on tests. It proved that the social process had occurred. It is also in line with the statement that STAD model provides interac- tion for each student to participate in PE learning (Ginanjar, Ramadhan, et al., 2021). It indicates that teachers need to provide a strong understanding regard- ing cognitive aspects during delivering learning objec- tives so that all students can transfer knowledge to each other to carry out their movement tasks. This is also relevant to the statement saying that students who re- ceived less content knowledge were difficult to teach their friends (O’Leary, Wattison, Edwards, & Bryan, 2015) and tended to be told by students who were more capable in performing movement tasks, according to the findings of this study. This research could also show how to re-do re- search using the STAD learning model for improving learning motivations (Ginanjar, Ramadhan, et al., 2021). This study confirms that motivation can be in- creased by using the STAD learning model. This study surely has shortcomings, thus it is hoped that further research is conducted related to the use of the STAD learning model in elementary schools, especially related to the affective aspects, because the research using the STAD learning model for elementary school students in Indonesia for improving the affective aspects is limited. CONCLUSION Based on the results and discussions of this study, this study concludes that there is a difference of the ef- fect of the STAD learning model and the conventional learning model on the learning motivation of elemen- tary school students. Further investigation using the STAD learning model on other affective aspects, espe- cially creativity, is needed. In addition, further research should be conducted with more participants so that the results of the study can be more generalized CONFLICT OF INTEREST The authors declared no conflict of interest. REFERENCES Asri, A. Haeril.(2021). Pengaruh Model Pemelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Stad (Student Team Achievement Division) Terhadap Kemapuan Dasar Senam Rhytmik. Jendela Olahraga, 6 (1), 89–97. Barrett, T. (2005). Effects of cooperative learning on performance of sixth-grade physical education stu- dents. Journal of teaching in Physical Education, 24 (1), 88-102. Dyson, B. (2001). Cooperative learning in an elemen- tary physical education program. Journal of teaching in Physical Education, 20(3), 264-281. Dyson, B., Rhodes, N., & Rubin, A. (2001). The imple- mentation of cooperative learning in an elementary physical education program. Research Quarterly for Exercise and sport, 72(1). Dyson, B. P., Colby, R., & Barratt, M. (2016). The co- construction of cooperative learning in physical edu- cation with elementary classroom teachers. Journal of teaching in physical education, 35(4), 370-380. Dyson, B. P., Linehan, N. R., & Hastie, P. A. (2010). The ecology of cooperative learning in elementary physical education classes. Journal of teaching in Physical Education, 29(2), 113-130. Florida, M. (2019). “Upaya Meningkatkan Motivasi Dan Hasil Belajar Penjaskes Peserta didik Kelas IV Semester Dua Tahun pelajaran 2018/2019 Melalui Penerapan Pendekatan Cooperative Learning (CL) Tipe STAD Di SD Negeri 19 Cakranegara”. JISIP (Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Pendidikan), 3(2). Ginanjar, A. (2019). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif da- lam Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga. Indramayu: Program Studi Pendidikan Jasmani Kesehatan dan Rekreasi STKIP Nahdlatul Ulama Indramayu. Ginanjar, A. (2021). Statistika Terapan Dalam Pendidi- kan Jasmani & Olahraga: Aplikasi Microsoft Excel & SPSS. Yogyakarta: Deepublish. Ginanjar, A. (2022). Implementasi Model-Model Pem- belajaran Pendidikan Jasmani: Perkembangan Penelitian Di Indonesia (1st ed.). Indramayu: Pro- gram Studi Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga STKIP Nahdlatul Ulama Indramayu. Ginanjar, A., Mubarok, M. Z., & Mudzakir, D. O. (2021). College students’ motivation after teaching using sport education season. International Journal of Human Movement and Sports Sciences, 9(4), 1-7. Ginanjar, A., & Ramadhan, R. (2021). Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Direct Instruction Terhadap Teknik Dasar Tendangan Depan Pencak Silat Siswa Mad- rasah Tsanawiyah. Jurnal Kependidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga, 2(1), 1-8. Copyright © 2023, authors, e-ISSN : 2580-071X , p-ISSN : 2085-6180 72 Ginanjar, A., Ramadhan, R., Adib, W., & Effendy, F. (2021). Differences between STAD Learning Model and DI Learning Model on Pencak Silat Learning Outcomes. Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga, 6(2), 217-223. Hadi, A., Nasaruddin, N., & Husniati, H. (2020). Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Stad Terhadap Hasil Belajar Pendidikan Jasmani, Olahraga Dan Kesehatan Kelas V Sdn 4 Pringgaba- ya Tahun Ajaran 2020/2021. Jurnal Ilmiah PEN- DAS: Primary Educational Journal, 1(2), 124-133. Hanansyah, A., & Ginanjar, A. (2019). Improvement Of Basketball Learning Results Using Group Inves- tigation Learning Model. JUARA: Jurnal Olahraga, 4(2), 90-98. Idris, M. (2017). Pembelajaran Kooperatif Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD) untuk Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar Penjaskes Siswa SMP. SUARA GURU, 3(1), 41-50. Komarudin. (2017). Psikologi olahraga. In Remaja Rosdakarya. Bandung. hlm. Madiyo, M. (2016). Upaya Meningkatkan Motivasi dan Hasil Belajar Lompat Jauh Gaya Jongkok Dengan Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif STAD Pada Siswa Kelas IV SDN Batokerbuy 5 Kabupaten Pamekasan Tahun Pelajaran 2015/2016. JOURNAL OF SPORTIF, 2(1), 59-64. Metzler, M. (2017). Instructional models in physical education. Taylor & Francis. Mylsidayu, A. (2014). Psikologi Olahraga. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara. hlm. Nur, L., Ginanjar, A., Malik, A. A., & Pingon, L. (2021). Validity and Reliability of Elementary School Students' Learning Motivation Instruments in Physical Education. Jurnal Maenpo: Jurnal Pendidi- kan Jasmani Kesehatan Dan Rekreasi, 11(2), 205- 215. O’Leary, N., Wattison, N., Edwards, T., & Bryan, K. (2015). Closing the theory–practice gap: Physical education students’ use of jigsaw learning in a sec- ondary school. European Physical Education Re- view, 21(2), 176-194. REKREASI, K. (2016). Upaya Meningkatkan Ket- erampilan Dribble Bola Dalam Permainan Sepak Bola Dengan Metode Student Teams Achievement Division Pada Siswa Kelas IV Dan V SDN Blum- bungan 1 Pamekasan Tahun Ajaran 2015-2016. Setiawan, E., Juliantine, T., & Komarudin, K. (2017). Development creativity students through problem based learning model in physical education in re- viewed of adversity quotient. In 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education (pp. 611-613). Slavin, R. E. (1991). Cooperative learning and group contingencies. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1, 105-115. Slavin, R. E. (2005). Cooperative learning teori, riset dan praktik. Bandung: Nusa Media, 236. Supriyanto, S., Ginanjar, A., & Effendy, F. (2019). Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Student Teams- Achievement Division Terhadap Teknik Dasar Pass- ing Sepakbola. Jurnal Kependidikan Jasmani Dan Olahraga, 3(1), 46-51. Wadudu, H., Setiawan, A., & Mubarok, M. Z. (2019). Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Student Teams- Achievement Divisions Terhadap Hasil Belajar Lari Cepat Siswa Sekolah Dasar. Jurnal Kependidikan Jasmani Dan Olahraga, 3(1), 8-16. Wallhead, T., & Dyson, B. (2017). A didactic analysis of content development during cooperative learning in primary physical education. European Physical Education Review, 23(3), 311-326. Wulandari, t. A. (2020). Upaya Meningkatkan Ket- rampilan Passing Bawah Bola Voli Dengan Menggunakan Model Pembelajaran Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD) siswa kelas iv sdn 005 Bukit Jaya Kecamatan Ukui Kabupaten Pelala- wan (Doctoral Dissertation, Universitas Islam Riau). Copyright © 2023, authors, e-ISSN : 2580-071X , p-ISSN : 2085-6180