















































 
 
  

 

35 
 
 

p-ISSN: 2722-399X;  e-ISSN: 2722-1857 
SiLeT, Vol. 2, No. 2, Agustus 2021: 35-46 

©2021 Studies in Learning  
and Teaching 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
Homepage: https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 
Email: silet@scie-journal.com 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

Make a Match Techniques in Cooperative Learning: Innovations to 
Improve Student Learning Outcomes, Student Learning Activities, and 

Teacher Performance 

Viyayanti1, * Dwikoranto2 
1SMK Negeri 1 Cerme Gresik, Indonesia 

2Department of Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya 60231, 
Indonesia 

Article Info  ABSTRACT 

Article history: 

Received August 15, 2021 
Revised September 1, 2021 
Accepted September 8, 2021 
Available Online September 9, 2021 

The purpose of this study is to describe improving student learning 
outcomes, describe student activities, describe teacher performance 
after applying the make a match technique in cooperative learning. 
This learning improvement is carried out by classroom action 
research, with steps of planning, implementing, observing, revising. 
The research subjects were 34 students in the chemistry class of 
Vocational School 1 Cerme Gresik. Data were analyzed descriptively 
quantitatively. The results of the class average score before the action 
were 70. Students who scored above the Minimum Completeness 
Criteria (MCC) 76 were 16 students (47%) with the highest score of 92 
and students who scored below the MCC were 18 students (53%) 
with the lowest score of 40. After taking action in cycle 1 the average 
grade of 79. Students who scored above or equal to the MCC were 26 
students (76%) with the highest score of 100 and students who scored 
below the MCC were 8 students (24%) with the lowest score of 52. 
Cycle 2 the average grade of 84. Students who scored above the MCC 
were 31 students (91%) with the highest score of 100, while students 
who scored below the MCC as many as 3 students (9%) with the 
lowest score of 64. The students' attention, activity, and enthusiasm 
for learning increased. Teacher performance in learning has 
increased. 

Keywords: 

Activities 
Cooperative learning  
Learning outcomes 
Make a match 
Teacher performance 
 

 
https://doi.org/10.46627/silet  

INTRODUCTION 
The success of learning is determined by many factors, one of which is the teacher's factor in 
carrying out the teaching and learning process, because the teacher can directly influence, color, 
foster, and improve student learning outcomes and skills. The role of the teacher remains very 
important and it is hoped that the teacher has good techniques, strategies, or teaching models 
and can choose the right learning model and in accordance with the characteristics of the 
subjects to be delivered (Arends, 2018). 

To improve the quality of learning, teachers need to understand the components that affect 
student learning processes, both those that hinder and support them. In addition, teachers must 
understand effective learning models, techniques, and strategies that can help students learn 
optimally and be able to increase student activity in the learning process (Isjoni, 2016). There are 
various types of learning models, each of which has advantages and disadvantages, so the 
selection of models with certain techniques that are suitable with the topic or subject to be 
taught must be considered by the teacher who will deliver the learning material. Every student 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1586183902
http://u.lipi.go.id/1587708325
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT
mailto:silet@scie-journal.com
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT
https://doi.org/10.46627/silet


Make A Match Techniques in Cooperative Learning: Innovations to Improve Student Learning Outcomes, Student 

Learning Activities, and Teacher Performance 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i2.74 

 

36 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

entering the first course in physics subject has a belief system and intuition about physical 
phenomena that originate from extensive personal experience (Lin et al., 2015). 

The results of initial observations made by researchers on chemistry learning carried out in 
class X KI 2 Vocational School 1 Cerme Gresik which were carried out with lectures, questions, 
and answers, and assignments showed that student learning activities were still lacking, some 
students became bored in learning. This is thought to have caused the not yet optimal 
understanding of the concept of learning material which has an impact on learning outcomes 
that are still below the Minimum Completeness Criteria (MCC) (Dirmenjur, 2018). Table 1 
shows the real conditions obtained where the average value of conceptual understanding is 70. 

 
Table 1. Students' Initial Value Data Before Action 

No. Value Interval Frequency Percentage 

1 36-45 1 3% 
2 46-55 3 9% 
3 56-65 10 29% 
4 66-75 4 12% 
5 76-84 12 35% 
6 85-100 4 12% 

Sum 34 100% 
Classical completeness 47% 
Lowest Value 40 
The highest score 92 
Average Value 70 
Students finish studying 16 (47%) 
Students do not finish 
studying 

18 (53%) 

 

Based on Table 1, students who scored below the MCC (76) were 18 students or 53%, and 
students who scored the same as or above the MCC were 16 students or 47%. This can be 
interpreted that classical completeness of 47% is still below the specified learning mastery of 
85% with students getting a score of 76, in other words, student learning outcomes are still low. 

The low value of learning outcomes or incompleteness is caused by the low understanding 
of concepts by students. In addition, there are several factors causing students' low 
understanding of concepts, including: (1) The subject matter that must be completed is very 
large which confuses students to understand, thus making students regard it as a scourge; (2) 
Teachers in conducting learning are still conventional, meaning that teachers have not used 
innovative learning models and interactions that can attract students' interest and activity to 
learn. (3) Teacher performance is not optimal. 

Therefore we need a learning innovation that can improve learning outcomes. by applying 
the cooperative learning model of the make a match technique. Learning outcomes are the most 
important part of learning which is essentially a change in behavior covering the cognitive, 
affective, and psychomotor fields (Sudjana, 2016). Learning outcomes are the result of an 
interaction between the act of learning and the act of teaching. The teaching act ends with the 
process of evaluating learning outcomes (Dimyati and Mudjiono, 2016). 

The problems to be solved: 1). Learning outcomes still need to be improved through the 
application of the cooperative learning model of the make a match technique. 2). The low 
activity of students in the learning process in class. 3). Teacher performance in the classroom is 
not optimal. While the research objectives: 1). Describe improving learning outcomes. 2). 
Describe student activities. 3). Describe the teacher's performance. 

Cooperative learning model is a learning model that requires the active involvement of 
students to work together in heterogeneous groups with learning success determined by 
working together with groups, the purpose of forming groups in cooperative learning models is 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i2.74
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT


Make A Match Techniques in Cooperative Learning: Innovations to Improve Student Learning Outcomes, Student 

Learning Activities, and Teacher Performance 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i2.74 

 

37 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

to provide opportunities for all students to be actively involved. active in the process of 
thinking and learning activities. (Lie, 2015; Isjoni, 2016; Rusman, 2016; Trianto, 2011). This 
learning model is centered on students to further activate students and to be able to learn and 
interact with their friends, develop attitudes, values, and behaviors that allow them to 
participate in learning (Ardana, 2013). 

The advantages of cooperative learning can improve students' cognitive and affective skills. 
In addition, cooperative learning also provides benefits: (1) Increasing social sensitivity and 
solidarity; (2) enabling students to learn from each other about attitudes, skills, information, 
social behavior, and views; (3) make it easier for students to make social adjustments; (4) 
enabling the formation and development of social values and commitments; (5) eliminate 
selfishness or selfishness; (6) build friendships that can continue into adulthood; (7) the various 
social skills needed to maintain mutually beneficial relationships can be taught and practiced; 
(8) increase mutual trust in humans; (9) improve the ability to view problems and situations 
from various perspectives; (10) increasing willingness to use other people's ideas that they feel 
are better; (11) increasing fondness for making friends regardless of differences in ability, 
gender, normal or disabled, ethnicity, social class, religion and task orientation (Sugiyanto, 
2014; Slavin, 2013). 

There are 14 cooperative learning techniques that are often applied in the classroom. The 
fourteen techniques are: (1) Make a match; (2) Exchange of Partners; (3) Think-Pair-Share); (4) 
Sending Greetings and Questions; (5) Numbered Heads Together; (6) Structured Numbered 
Heads; (7) Two Stay Two Stray; (8) Group Tour; (9) Rattling Buttons; (10) Class circumference; 
(11) Inside-Outside Circle; (12) Bamboo Dance; (13) Jigsaw; (14) Paired Story Telling (Huda, 
2011; Slavin, 2014). 

Cooperative learning with make a match technique is an active, effective, and fun learning 
model that prioritizes cooperation and speed among students to achieve learning objectives so 
that students are actively involved in participating in learning. This technique can be used in all 
subjects and for all age levels (Isjoni, 2016; Sani. 2013). 

RESEARCH METHOD 
Research procedure. 
This classroom action research procedure is carried out in the form of an iterative cycle that will 
take place through 2 cycles, where each cycle consists of 2 meetings. At the end of the meeting, 
it is hoped that the goals that have been set can be achieved, namely increasing student learning 
outcomes, student activities, and teacher performance. Classroom Action Research consists of 
the following four steps: 1). Planning, namely formulating problems, determining objectives 
and research methods, and making action plans. 2). Implementation (acting), namely the 
implementation of the planning carried out together with observations on the impact of actions, 
especially changes in group dynamics in learning. 3). Observation, carried out systematically to 
observe the results or the impact of actions on the teaching and learning process. 4). Reflecting, 
namely reviewing or considering the results or impacts of the actions taken (Arikunto, 2012). 

Research Subject, Place, and Time 
The research subjects were students of Chemistry Class X KI 2 Vocational School 1 Cerme 
Gresik for the 2019/2020 academic year in September-December 2019, with a total of 34 
students with different backgrounds who could be subjected to a treatment (Arikunto, 2012). 

Performance Indicator 
Performance indicators are performance formulations that will be used as references or 
benchmarks in determining the success/effectiveness of research (Suwandi, 2011). The 
performance indicators in this study are sourced from documentation, observation results, 
interviews, and tests based on the MCC (Minimum Completeness Criteria) 76. The performance 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i2.74
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT


Make A Match Techniques in Cooperative Learning: Innovations to Improve Student Learning Outcomes, Student 

Learning Activities, and Teacher Performance 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i2.74 

 

38 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

indicator is if the understanding of concepts in student learning increases. The increase was 
seen from the students' conceptual understanding before applying cooperative learning with 
the low make a match technique and after applying the cooperative model the make a match 
technique students' understanding of the concept increased. This research will end after 85% of 
students have experienced an increase in understanding based on student evaluation test 
scores. If the minimum completeness limit has been reached, it means that the cycle can be 
stopped and the research is said to have met the standards that have been determined or set by 
the researcher. Conversely, if it does not meet the specified standards, the next cycle will 
continue by correcting the deficiencies in the previous cycle. 

Data analysis technique 
a. Student learning outcomes 

Student learning outcomes data in the form of evaluation sheets were analyzed using the 
formula below. 

 
Information: 
M = Mean (the average grade of MCC achievers) 
fx = The total number of students who reach the MCC 
N = Number of students who reach MCC 

(Indarti, 2014) 
 
To calculate student learning completeness, the researcher uses a formula. 

 

Then the success criteria are consulted in Table 3 below. 

Table 3. Criteria for the level of success (completeness) of student learning 

No Percentage Range Information 

1 86%  -  100% Very good 
2 76%  -  85% Well 
3 60%  -  75% Enough 
4 55%  -  59% Not enough 
5 <54% Very less 

(Kunandar, 2015) 

b. Student activity and teacher performance 
To analyze student activities when participating in learning and the performance of teachers 
who apply the cooperative model of the make a match technique uses the following formula. 

 
(Pramonoadi et al., 2020) 

Information: 
P = Percentage of activity frequency that appears 
f = Number of activities that appear 
N = The total number of activities that appear (Kunandar, 2015) 

  

P = (f/N) x 100% 

% Completeness = (Number of students completed / Total number of students) x100% 

M = (f.x)/N 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i2.74
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT


Make A Match Techniques in Cooperative Learning: Innovations to Improve Student Learning Outcomes, Student 

Learning Activities, and Teacher Performance 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i2.74 

 

39 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

The level of activity and the success of the learning implementation is determined by the 
assessment criteria as shown in Table 2 below. 

Table 2. Criteria for Teacher Activities and Performance 

No. Percentage Range Information 

1 91% - 100% Very good 
2 71% - 90%   Well 
3 61% - 70%   Enough 
4        < 61%          Not enough 

     (Kunandar, 2015) 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 
Student Learning Outcomes 
The results of the evaluation in cycle 1 and cycle 2 in learning using the make a math technique 
for class X KI 2 Vocational School  1 Cerme Gresik students obtained the results as shown in 
Table 4 below. 

Table 4. Learning Evaluation Results Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 

No 
Student Name 

(Initial) 

Cycle 1 Cycle 2 

Value 

Information 

Value 

Information 

Complete Not 
Complete 

Complete Not 
Complete 

1 E A P 52  √ 64  √ 
2 F A V 100 √  96 √  
3 F  D M  70  √ 76 √  
4 F  J A  65  √ 80 √  
5 F H  R  60  √ 80 √  
6 G P  90 √  82 √  
7 G F  A 68  √ 88 √  
8 H D F  60  √ 88 √  
9 H  D P  76 √  72  √ 
10 H  S 74  √ 92 √  
11 H F N 78 √  80 √  
12 H H 76 √  88 √  
13 I P S 88 √  88 √  
14 I R W 88 √  92 √  
15 I S R 92 √  100 √  
16 I L F 76 √  88 √  
17 I A 80 √  88 √  
18 J Y P 80 √  84 √  
19 K S  80 √  84 √  
20 K L  K  85 √  88 √  
21 K  A  60  √ 88 √  
22 M  84 √  92 √  
23 M  P K 78 √  88 √  
24 M  A M  95 √  84 √  
25 M  L  C 90 √  92 √  
26 M D S  88 √  88 √  
27 M R A  88 √  88 √  
28 M  W  W 78 √  84 √  
29 M A Z  78 √  92 √  
30 M  A Y  85 √  88 √  
31 M  A  F 65  √ 68  √ 
32 M  E  N  A  95 √  96 √  
33 M  R  A   85 √  100 √  
34 M R  B I 85 √  92 √  

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i2.74
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT


Make A Match Techniques in Cooperative Learning: Innovations to Improve Student Learning Outcomes, Student 

Learning Activities, and Teacher Performance 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i2.74 

 

40 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

 Sum of value 2692      
 Average 79      
 Classical 

completeness 

74%      

 Lowest Value 52 64 
 The highest score 100 100 
 Average Value 79 84 
 Students finish 

studying 
26 students (73%) 31 students (91%) 

 Students do not 
finish studying 

9  students (27%) 3  students (9%) 

 
From the recapitulation data on the value of understanding the concept of Chemical 

Properties, it can be seen that in cycle 1, the value of students' conceptual understanding in the 
Basic Chemical Analysis subject is still not good, because there are still some students who do 
not meet the Minimum Completeness Criteria (MCC) of 76. Based on the data above, students 
who scored below 76 (MCC) were 8 students or 24%, and students who scored above MCC 
were 26 students or 76%. 

Based on the results of the analysis and reflection above, the actions taken in the first cycle 
have not reached the expected success indicators, this research is said to be successful if the 
success indicators for student achievement reach 85%, but the results obtained have not 
achieved maximum results because there are still students whose grades are at under MCC and 
there are still shortcomings in the implementation of cycle 1, it is necessary to continue 
improvements in the research cycle 2 (Ariyanti et al, 2013). 

From these data, it can be seen that in cycle 2, the value of students' understanding of 
concepts in Basic Chemistry Analysis material is very good, because only 3 students out of 34 
students have not met the Minimum Graduation Criteria (MCC) of 76. In cycle 2, students are 
already familiar with the model. cooperative learning makes a match and students already 
understand the material Properties of Chemicals. From the recapitulation data on the 
understanding value of cycle 2, students who scored below 76 (MCC) were 3 students or 9% 
and students who scored above MCC were 31 students or 91%., it can be said that learning Basic 
Chemical Analysis through the application of the cooperative model of the make a match 
technique in cycle 2 has been successful because it has achieved the target performance 
indicator of achievement (Kristiawan, 2013). Thus, researchers do not need to continue research 
in the next cycle. It can be concluded that the research carried out for two cycles with four 
meetings succeeded in improving student learning outcomes. 

Observation of Student Learning Activities 
This observation activity is carried out during the learning process. Observation is done by 
observing the activities of teachers and students. This observation was carried out to obtain data 
regarding the suitability of the implementation of learning and student activities during the 
learning process. In this observation, the researcher collaborated with other teachers who acted 
as observers and colleagues to document the learning. Observations are not only focused on 
student activities, but are also carried out on teacher activities during learning so that 
observations are carried out thoroughly on all aspects, both from aspects of student activities 
and teacher performance (Primarinda et al, 2012). A description of the observations that have 
been carried out during learning in cycle 1 and cycle 2 is presented in Table 5 below. 
  

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i2.74
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT


Make A Match Techniques in Cooperative Learning: Innovations to Improve Student Learning Outcomes, Student 

Learning Activities, and Teacher Performance 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i2.74 

 

41 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

Table 5. Observation of student activities in cycle 1 and cycle 2 

No 
Form of student 

activity 

Cycle 1 Cycle 2 

Sum of 
students 

Percentage Information 
Sum of 

students 
Percentage Information 

1 Answering 
questions during 
apperception 

18 53% Not good 24 71% good 

2 Pay attention to the 
teacher's lessons 
and instructions 

22 65% good 30 88% good 

3 Collaboration 
between students 
in groups 

21 62% good 28 82% good 

4 The activity of 
conducting 
experiments 
observing chemical 
label packaging 

24 71% good 24 71% good 

5 Ability to express 
opinions in good 
language 

21 62% good 24 71% good 

6 Find a partner on 
time 

20 59% Not good 20 60% good 

7 Presenting a 
presentation with a 
partner 

24 71% good 24 71% good 

8 Q&A discussions-
presentations 

22 65% good 26 76% good 

9 Doing evaluation 
questions with tips 

25 74% good 32 94% Very good 

10 Work on 
evaluation 
questions on time 

26 76% good 30 88% good 

Percentage < 60% = not good 
Percentage 60% - 90% = good 
Percentage > 90  = very good 

 
The results of observations in Table 5 regarding student activities/activities in learning 

Basic Chemical Analysis of Material Properties of Chemicals in cycle 1 for 2 meetings by 
applying a cooperative model of make a match technique can be obtained an overview of 
student activities in learning as follows. a) The willingness of students to learn has shown an 
increase. This can be seen from the students who are willing to answer questions during the 
apperception. b) The attention of some students is quite good in paying attention to the lessons 
delivered by the teacher, but still needs to be improved. c) Some students are enthusiastic and 
happy in participating in learning using the make a match cooperative learning model, this is 
shown by the cooperation between students which has slightly increased. However, there are 
also those who are less enthusiastic about participating in learning (Bubin, 2012). d) The 
activeness of students in participating in learning is still low, this is evident when the teacher 
offers students to conduct experiments observing the packaging of chemical labels, there are 
still many embarrassed students. e) Some students still talk alone with their friends and disturb 
their friends. f) Some students can do the evaluation questions well and on time. 
In cycle 1 it can be concluded that student learning activities are quite good, but teachers need 
to motivate to increase student learning activities so that the results obtained by students 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i2.74
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT


Make A Match Techniques in Cooperative Learning: Innovations to Improve Student Learning Outcomes, Student 

Learning Activities, and Teacher Performance 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i2.74 

 

42 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

increase. Therefore, it is necessary to make improvements in learning activities by actively 
involving students through the application of a cooperative model of make a match technique. 
       The results of details regarding student activities in learning Basic Chemical Analysis of 
Material Properties of Chemicals in cycle 2 for 2 meetings, by applying a cooperative model of 
make a match technique can be obtained an overview of student activities in learning as 
follows. a) Most students listen and pay attention to the teacher's explanation seriously. b) Most 
students are enthusiastic and happy in participating in learning by using the make a match 
cooperative learning model. c) Student cooperation in participating in learning has increased, 
this is evident when applying the make a match cooperative learning model, many students are 
active and not shy when looking for make a match cards and pairs they get. d) The effectiveness 
of the application of the cooperative model of the make a match technique is optimal because 
many students are actively participating in learning and are not shy when they come forward to 
read question cards and answer cards with their friends. e) Most students can do the evaluation 
questions well and on time. Overall, based on the results of observations of students' activities 
in learning Basic Chemical Analysis of Chemical Properties by applying a cooperative model of 
make a match technique in cycle 1 to cycle 2, it can be concluded that students' attention, 
activity, and enthusiasm for learning have increased. 

Teacher Performance Observation Results 
In this study, the researcher acts as a teacher and collaborates with lecturers from 2 state 
universities as observers to observe the learning process and discussion partners in reflection. 
The results of the observations in cycle 1 and cycle 2 are shown in Table 5 below. 
 

Table 5. Teacher Performance Observation Data Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 

No Observed aspects 

Cycle  1 Cycle 2 

Score 
Information 

Score 
Information 

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 

1 Material Mastery:     
  

      
A. Fluency in explaining 
material 

    3 
 

good    4 Very good 

B. Ability to answer questions     3 
 

good    4 Very good 
C. Diversity presents an 
example 

    3 
 

good    4 Very good 

2 Systematic presentation:     
  

      
a. Completeness of material 
description 

    3 
 

good   3  good 

b. The material description 
leads to the goal 

    
 

4 Very good    4 Very good 

c. The order of the material is in 
accordance with the curriculum 

    
 

4 Very good    4 Very good 

3 Application Method:     
  

      
a. The accuracy of the selection 
of the method according to the 
material 

    3 
 

good    4 Very good 

b. Syntax order compatibility 
with the method used 

    3 
 

good    4 Very good 

c.Easy for students to follow     3 
 

good   3  good 
4 Media Usage:     

  
      

a. Accuracy of media selection 
with material 

    3 
 

good   3  good 

b. Skills using media     3 
 

good    4 Very good 
c. The media clarifies the 
material 

    
 

4 Very good    4 Very good 

5 Performance:     
  

      

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i2.74
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT


Make A Match Techniques in Cooperative Learning: Innovations to Improve Student Learning Outcomes, Student 

Learning Activities, and Teacher Performance 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i2.74 

 

43 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

a. Clarity of spoken voice     
 

4 Very good    4 Very good 
b. Communicating between 
teachers and students 

    3 
 

good    4 Very good 

c. The flexibility of the teacher's 
attitude with students 

    3 
 

good    4 Very good 

6 Giving Motivation:     
  

       
a. Teacher enthusiasm in 
teaching 

    3 
 

good    4 Very good 

 
b. The teacher's concern for 
students 

    3 
 

good    4 Very good 

 
c. Accuracy of reward and 
punishment 

    3 
 

good   3  good 

7 Evaluation and Closing     
  

       
a. Appropriateness of the 
number of questions and time 

    3 
 

good    4 Very good 

 
b. Order of evaluation     

 
4 Very good    4 Very good  

c. Final conclusion of learning     3 
 

good   3  good  
d. Assignment for the next 
meeting 

    3 
 

good   3  good 

 
Score     51 20    18 64  

Total score 71 82 
Maximum score 88 88 
Percentage = (78/88) x 100% = 89% 81% 93% 

4 = very good 
3 = good 
2 = not good 
1 = very not good 

 
Observation of teacher performance in learning cycle 1 was carried out for 2 meetings. 

Based on the observations of the teacher's performance in making the Learning Implementation 
Plan and the implementation of learning in cycle 1 was good. However, it is necessary to make 
improvements in teaching so that there is a significant increase (Riski, 2012). 

These problems include: 1) The teacher is not able to condition the class so that there are 
still busy students in the class, and there are still some students who are passive towards the 
lesson. 2) The teacher in guiding and explaining to the students about the application of the 
make a match model is still unclear. 3) During the cooperative learning of the make a match 
technique, there were still some students who did not want to pair the question and answer 
cards. 4) There are still some students who are shy when paired with male and female friends. 
5) At the time of taking the cards students should be left to take them alone, so that students are 
more interested in the cards they get and are challenged to pair them. So learning is more fun. 
(Dwikoranto, 2020). Based on the problems above, it can be reflected that the learning of Basic 
Chemical Analysis of the Material Properties of Chemicals by applying the cooperative model 
of the make a match technique is still not optimal (Kristiawan, 2013). So researchers must find 
solutions to overcome problems that hinder the smooth process of learning Basic Chemical 
Analysis of Chemical Properties by applying a cooperative model of make a match technique.  

Things that can be done are as follows. 1) The attention of the teacher in the classroom must 
be spread out so that students can listen to the teacher's explanation well and actively 
participate in learning. 2) The teacher provides an explanation of the steps for using the 
cooperative model of the make a match technique clearly and the teacher gives an overview of 
its use so that students are not confused. 3) During cooperative learning the make a match 
technique takes place, the teacher observes students one by one so that students are not busy 
themselves in looking for their partner cards. The teacher also always provides guidance to all 
students so that they want to work together with their friends, so that the results obtained can 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i2.74
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT


Make A Match Techniques in Cooperative Learning: Innovations to Improve Student Learning Outcomes, Student 

Learning Activities, and Teacher Performance 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i2.74 

 

44 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

be maximized. 4) The teacher gives direction so that students who get a male and female 
partner so that they are not ashamed and continue to carry out learning activities well. 5) 
Students who will get cards are given the freedom to take cards so that students are more 
interested in learning because learning to make a match is very interesting. In addition, the 
teacher also guides and observes each student to pair the cards he gets, the teacher also guides 
each pair of cards to convey the questions he has obtained. 

Cycle Action 2. a) The teacher has prepared and implemented the Learning Implementation 
Plan properly. b) The formulation of learning objectives/basic competencies is clear. c) The 
development of materials, learning media, learning resources, and the making of match cards 
are good. d) The teacher has opened the lesson, gave an introduction, and asked questions 
about the material being taught in order to improve student activity very well. e) The teacher's 
attention is evenly distributed to all students. f) The teacher provides guidance to all students to 
find pairs of make match cards. g) The teacher gives a firm warning to students who pay less 
attention to the lesson. h) In the closing activity, the teacher has reflected and followed up on 
the learning that has been carried out well (Harnoto et al, 2021). Based on the observations of 
the teacher's performance in making the Learning Implementation Plan and the implementation 
of learning in cycle 2, it has increased from cycle 1. 

CONCLUSION 
Based on the results of classroom action research carried out in two cycles, using the 
cooperative learning model of make a match technique in chemistry subjects for students of 
Class X KI 2 SMKN 1 Cerme Gresik, it can be concluded that the application of the cooperative 
learning model of the make a match technique can improve learning outcomes. This is evident 
in the average grade before the action was taken of 70. Students who scored above or equal to 
the MCC (76) were 16 students (47%) with the highest score of 92 and students who scored 
below the MCC were 18 students ( 53%) with the lowest score of 40. After taking action in cycle 
1 the average grade of 79. Students who scored above or equal to the MCC were 26 students 
(76%) with the highest score of 100 and students who scored below the MCC as many as 8 
students (24%) with the lowest score of 52. Cycle 2 the average grade of 84. Students who scored 
above the MCC (completed learning) were 31 students (91%) with the highest score of 100, 
while students who scored below the MCC (did not complete learning) as many as 3 students 
(9%) with the lowest score of 64. The students' attention, activity, and enthusiasm for learning 
increased. Teacher performance in learning has increased. This research can be used limited to 
subjects with similar characteristics, then it can be tested on other subjects. 

REFERENCES 
Ardana, I. K., Arnyana, I. B. P., & Setiawan, I. G. A. N. (2013). Studi komparatif penerapan 

model pembelajaran berbasis masalah dan model pembelajaran kooperatif tipe STAD 
terhadap keterampilan berpikir kritis dan kinerja ilmiah biologi SMA. Jurnal Pendidikan dan 
Pembelajaran IPA Indonesia, 3 (1). 

Arends, R. I. (2018). Learning To Teach Belajar Untuk Mengajar. Pustaka Pelajar. 
Arikunto, S. (2012). Prosedur penelitian suatu pendekatan praktik. Rineka Cipta. 
Ariyanti, N. W. P., Lasmawan, I. W., & Dantes, N. (2013). Pengaruh model pembelajaran 

kooperatif tipe jigsaw terhadap kemampuan berpikir kritis dan prestasi belajar siswa 
dalam pembelajaran IPS pada siswa kelas IV SD cipta dharma Denpasar. Pendasi: Jurnal 
Pendidikan Dasar Indonesia, 3(1). 

Harnoto, B. T., Setiani, R., Widuroyekti, B., Sambada, D., Dwikoranto, Lindsay, N., Bergsma. 
(2021). The implementation of the quantum teaching strategy with multiple intelligence 
approach at state senior high school. IJORER: International Journal of Recent Educational 
Research, 2(1), 73-85. https://doi.org/10.46245 /ijorer.v2i1.78 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i2.74
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT
https://doi.org/10.46245%20/ijorer.v2i1.78


Make A Match Techniques in Cooperative Learning: Innovations to Improve Student Learning Outcomes, Student 

Learning Activities, and Teacher Performance 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i2.74 

 

45 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

Bubin. (2012). Meningkatkan kemampuan pemecahan masalah matematik peserta didik melalui 
penggunaan model pembelajaran kooperatif tipe think pair share. 
http://journal.unsil.ac.id/jurnalunsil-197-.html. 

Dimyati & Mudjiono. (2016). Belajar dan Pembelajaran. PT Rineke Cipta. 
Direktorat Sekolah Menengah Kejuruan Direktorat Jendral Pendidikan Vokasi. (2018). 

Kompetensi inti dan kompetensi dasar mata pelajaran SMK. Standar No. 464/D.D5/KR/2018. 
Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. 

Dwikoranto, Setiani, R., Widuroyekti B., Tresnaningsih, S., Sambada, D., Setyowati, T., Rohman, 
A., Harnoto, B. T. (2020). The effectiveness of the Student Activity Sheet (SAS) on Teaching-
Learning and Creativity (TLC) model to increase creativity competence. Studies in Learning 
and Teaching, 1(3), 175-184. https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v1i3.36 

Huda, M. (2011). Cooperatif learning. Pustaka Belajar. 
Indarti, T. (2008). Penelitian Tindakan Kelas (PTK) dan penulisan ilmiah. FPBS Unesa. 
Isjoni, A. M. (2016). Pembelajaran kooperatif meningkatkan kecerdasan komunikasi antar peserta didik. 

Pustaka Pelajar. 
Kristiawan, M. (2013). The Implementation of cooperative learning in english class of favorite 

school of secondary high school 5 Batusangkar, West Sumatera. International Journal of 
Educational Administration and Policy Studies, 5(6), 85-90. 

Kunandar. (2015). Penilaian autentik suatu pendekatan praktis. PT Raja Grafindo Persada. 
Lie, A. (2015). Cooperative learning mempraktikkan cooperative learning di ruangruang kelas. PT. 

Grasindo Widia Sarana Indonesia. 
Pramonoadi, Tresnaningsih, S., Faqih, A., Setiani, R., Dwikoranto. (2020). The validity of 

concept attainment with multi representation as an alternative learning model to improve 
students' mastery of concepts and scientific consistency. Studies in Learning and Teaching, 
1(2), 122-132. https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v1i2.35 

Primarinda, I., Maridi, & Marjono. (2012). Pengaruh model pembelajaran cooperative learning 
tipe Group Investigation (GI) terhadap keterampilan proses sains dan hasil belajar biologi 
siswa kelas X SMA Negeri 4 Surakarta tahun pelajaran 2011/2012. Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi 
FKIP UNS, 4(2) 60-71. 

Riski, Y. E. (2012). Pengaruh penerapan model pembelajaran kooperatif tipe think-pair-share 
terhadap kemampuan komunikasi matematis siswa. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika Unila, 
1(1). 

Rusman. (2016). Model-model pembelajaran mengembangkan profesional guru. Raja Grafindo 
Persada. 

Sani, R. A. (2013). Inovasi pemelajaran.  PT Bumi Aksara. 
Slavin, R. E. (2014). Cooperatif learning. Nusa Media. 
Sudjana, N. (2016). Penilaian hasil proses belajar mengajar. PT Remaja Rosdakarya. 
Sugiyanto. (2018). Model-model pembelajaran inovatif. Yunus Pustaka. 
Suwandi, S. (2011). Penelitian Tindakan Kelas (PTK) dan penulisan karya tulis ilmiah. Yuma 

Pustaka. 
Slavin, R. E. (2013). Instruction based on cooperative learning. In R. E. Mayer, & P. A. Alexander 

(Eds.), Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction (pp. 344-360). Taylor and Francis 
Group. 

Setyowati T., Setiani R., Sambada D., Surasmi, W. A., Dwikoranto. (2020). Improving the quality 
of tutorials to create a quality culture through an integrative selection of tutors. Studies in 
Philosophy of Science and Education, 1(2), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.46627/sipose.v1i3.51 

Trianto. (2011). Pebelajaran inovatif terpadu konsep strategi implementasinya dalam kurikulum tingkat 
satuan pendidikan. Bumi Aksara. 

 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i2.74
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT
http://journal.unsil.ac.id/jurnalunsil-197-.html
https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v1i3.36
https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v1i2.35
https://doi.org/10.46627/sipose.v1i3.51


Make A Match Techniques in Cooperative Learning: Innovations to Improve Student Learning Outcomes, Student 

Learning Activities, and Teacher Performance 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i2.74 

 

46 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

Author (s): 

Viyayanti 
SMK Negeri 1 Cerme Gresik, 
Jl. Jurit  Cerme Gresik 61171, Indonesia 

Email: viyayanti.smkncerme@gmail.com 

 

* Dwikoranto (Corresponding Author) 
Department of Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, 
Universitas Negeri Surabaya, 
Jl. Ketintang, Surabaya 60231, Indonesia 
Email: dwikoranto@unesa.ac.id 

 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i2.74
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT
mailto:viyayanti.smkncerme@gmail.com
mailto:dwikoranto@unesa.ac.id

