Effects of stad and intelligence type cooperative learning method toward english hospitality study result in academy of tourism in medan Abdul Kadir Ritonga, Amat Mukhadis, Syamsul Hadi, and Dany M. Handarini Citation: AIP Conference Proceedings 1778, 030054 (2016); View online: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4965788 View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/apc/1778/1 Published by the American Institute of Physics Articles you may be interested in Various aspects affecting work quality of medan tourism academy graduates AIP Conference Proceedings 1778, 030055 (2016); 10.1063/1.4965789 Blended cooperative learning with nano lesson study model for the improvement of pedagogic and teaching innovation of prospective teacher AIP Conference Proceedings 1778, 030041 (2016); 10.1063/1.4965775 Implementation of project based learning model in mechanical machining skills package of vocational high school AIP Conference Proceedings 1778, 030024 (2016); 10.1063/1.4965758 Hotel system learning for SMK students of hospitality accommodation study program AIP Conference Proceedings 1778, 030056 (2016); 10.1063/1.4965790 Transforming engineering education institutions to be learning organizations AIP Conference Proceedings 1778, 020004 (2016); 10.1063/1.4965734 Pneumatic control system simulation based a PLC micro in mechatronics courses AIP Conference Proceedings 1778, 030035 (2016); 10.1063/1.4965769
Effects of Stad and Type Cooperative Learning Method Toward English Hospitality Study Result in Academy of Tourism in Medan Abdul Kadir Ritonga 1,a), Amat Mukhadis 2, Syamsul Hadi 2, and Dany M. Handarini 3 1 Medan Tourism Academy 2 Mechanical Engineering Department, Universitas Negeri Malang, East Java, Indonesia 3 Faculty of Education, Universitas Negeri Malang a) corresponding author: ritonga07abk@yahoo.co.uk Abstract. STAD cooperative learning method is one method that is effective in achieving the goal of learning the English language, especially for hospitality students who are required to master English for Specific Purposes (ESP) in accordance with their needs. This study design using 2x3 factorial versions of non-equivalent control group design. The subjects were students of MDK III/5 A and MDK III.5 B Rooms Division study program department of hospitality 2015/2016 Academic Year at the Medan Tourism Academy. The samples are saturated samples. Data were collected through a pre-test, post-test, and raw intelligence were statistically analyzed using variance with significance level of 0.05%. The results showed that: (1) there are differences in the English study result of subject using STAD and expository type cooperative learning methods, (2) there are differences in the English study result of students who have high intelligence and low intelligence, (3) there are differences in the English study result of students who have high intelligence and medium intelligence, (4) there are differences in the English study result of students who have medium intelligence and low intelligence, (5) there is interaction between the learning methods and intelligence on the English Study Result, (6) there is an interaction between STAD and expository type cooperative learning methods on English study result. PREFACE Vocational education embraces open systems (multi-entry-exit system) and the systemic (oriented acculturation, empowerment, the formation of character and personality, as well as a variety of life skills (Kemendiknas Strategic Plan 2010-2014). Implications for the selection of reliable human resources in this era of globalization is the mastery of an international language, namely English. One of the requirements of the working world that is able to communicate verbally. As the opinion Graddol (1997: 7) English is one of the important things that we have to know that we have to know. Because in this globalization era, there is much information written down in English. Hutchinson & Waters (1987: 10) emphasizes "That was one significant discovery in the ways that spoken and written English vary." Furthermore, according to Hutchinson and Waters (1987: 10) that the emergence of ESP is not only related to linguistics but also related to psychology. ESP is not only related to the method of language learning but also how students acquire language in all forms of cultural background differences, for example, social, and even economic. It is inseparable from the characteristics of the ESP itself, as expressed by Dhieni (2008: 123) language has characteristics that make it a typical form of communication, namely: (1) systematic (2) arbitrary, (3) Flexible (4) diverse, and (5) complex. Hutchinson and Waters (1987: 21) states "ESP is an approach to language teaching Which is Aimed to meet the needs of particular learners". Hutchinson and Waters (1987) argues the advent of ESP begin with the answers to the question why does the learner need to learn a foreign language? ESP Proceedings of the International Mechanical Engineering and Engineering Education Conferences (IMEEEC 2016) AIP Conf. Proc. 1778, 030054-1 030054-10; doi: 10.1063/1.4965788 Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1440-2/$30.00 030054-1
characteristics is absolute and always changing according to the needs, as proposed by Strevens (1988: 32) that ESP is determined by identifying the of the absolute and arbitrary characteristics. Furthermore, Hutchinson & Waters (1987: 10) defines: "ESP is an approach to language teaching in the which all decisions as to content and method are based on the learner's reason for learning". ESP is English for Special Purpose. Robinson (1990) said "It (here ESP) is generally used to refer to the teaching and learning of a foreign language for a clearly utilitarian purpose of which there is no doubt." the same thing also said by Mc Donough (1984) about the definition and concept of ESP. He stated, ESP courses are those where the syllabus and materials are determined in all essentials by prior analysis of the communication. STAD is one of the simplest methods of cooperative learning which consists of five components (Slavin, 1986), namely; class presentations, group, quiz, scores of individual improvement. Meanwhile, Killen (1998) says that the expository method is a direct method of instruction between educators and learners. Theories on intelligence then developed along the times. Gardner (1983.1999) which is famous for the theory of multiple intelligences (multiple intelligence), one of which is the theory of linguistic intelligence allowing everyone to be intelligent in language. RESEARCH METHODS Research subjects are students MDK III5/A and MDK III5/B Hospitality Department in Medan Tourism Academy. The total sample of 47 students who are determined by the saturate sampling technique. The research instrument consisted of pre-test, post-test, and raw intelligence CF test. Questions of pre-test and post-test are the same. Sort of question consists of seven essay questions and 32 multiple choice questions. There are six essay questions and 26 multiple choice questions that are valid with the reliability coefficient of 0.791 and 0.965, respectively. Data analysis techniques used were Anova with SPSS version 17.00. The research procedure includes the experimental preparation phase, the implementation phase of the experiment and post-experiment stage. The procedure of the investigation during the implementation phase, namely: (a) provide pre-test, (b) provide a standard intelligence test, (c) carry out the treatment, and (d) provide post-test. Data Normality Test using analytical exploration techniques. Data Homogeneity test using ANOVA analysis techniques, paired sample t-test to see the average difference between the two paired samples. The difference analysis tests with the independent samples t-test. This study used quasi-experiment with non-equivalent control group design (Creswell, 2010), the factorial design presented in Table 1. TABLE 1. Factorial experimental design IQ Learning Mehod T S R T S R T S R STAD (MS) Expository (ME) Remarks: T=High, S=Medium, R=Low, MS=STAD Learning Method, ME= Expository Learning Method, = High, = Medium, = Low With the factorial design, the data will be determined the main effect and interaction effect of the independent variable and moderator variable. The primary effect is the influence of the independent variables, namely (1) a method of learning, and (2) the effect of moderator variables, i.e., intelligence (IQ). In the first main influence will be seen the effect of the application of STAD cooperative learning and the influence of expository learning without seeing the influence of intelligence (IQ). Moreover, the second main influence will be seen a high IQ, medium IQ and IQ low regardless of the effect caused by the method of learning variable. The research subjects are grouped as shown in Table 2. 030054-2
TABLE 2 Classes Grouping as Research Subject NO Class Treatment Amount explanation 1 X2 STAD 26 IQ (CF Test) 2 X3 Expository 21 IQ (CF Test) Sum 47 From these two learning groups, each given the same intelligence tests (IQ), so it turned into 12 groups: (1) high-iq STAD cooperative learning group, (2) medium-iq STAD cooperative learning group, (3) low-iq STAD cooperative learning group, (4) high-iq expository learning method learning group, (5) medium-iq expository learning method learning group, (6) low-iq expository learning method learning group. RESULTS AND DCUSSION Pre-test and Post-test Data Description of English Study Result TABLE 3 Pre-test and Post-test Data Description of English Study Result Experimental Class Pre-test Control Class Pre-test Experimental Class Post-test Control Class Posttest N Valid 26 21 26 21 Missing 0 0 0 0 Mean 66,35 64,33 75,08 71,57 Median 68,00 66,00 75,00 73,00 Std. Deviation 5,535 6,894 3,554 4,308 Variance 30,635 47,533 12,634 18,557 Minimum 53 47 68 62 Maximum 75 75 85 78 TABLE 4 Data Description Experimental Class Control Class N Valid 26 21 Missing 0 0 Mean 94,65 90,71 Med. 91,00 94,00 S.D 12,753 11,350 Var. 162,635 128,814 Min. 81 65 Max. 131 110 Table 4 shows the test results of students who have low intelligence with the score of 81 and highest is 131. The score distance of highest and low intelligence quite varied. test results showed that students who have low intelligence with the score of 65 and highest is 110. The intelligence of experimental class is higher than the control class. The difference of the minimum value reached 14 points, while the maximum value is 21 points. However, the difference in the average value of the experimental class with the control class is only 4 points. 030054-3
Category Data Description Low intelligence category valued (80-89), medium (90-109), and high (110 and above). Accordingly, the frequency of intelligence can be seen in Table 5. TABLE 5 Category Description Category Experimental Class Control Class Low 10 6 Medium 12 13 High 4 2 Sum 26 21 Table 5 shows that the number of experimental class and control class respondents that has low, medium and high intelligence are not so much different. Therefore it can be said that the intelligence between experimental class control class is balanced and dominant in the low and medium categories. Testing Assumptions normality and homogeneity of Research Data Normality Testing TABLE 6 Post-test normality test Experimental Control Class Class Post-test Post-test N Valid 26 21 Missing 0 0 Mean 75,08 71,57 Std. Deviation 3,554 4.308 Skewness,487 -,675 Std. Error of Skewness,456,501 Kurtosis 1,347 -,278 Std. Error of Kurtosis,887,972 Range 17 16 Minimum 68 62 Maximum 85 78 Sum 1952 1503 Table 6 Mean or average post-test experimental class students using STAD cooperative method of 75.08 and 75.08 is considered good. Mean or average control class student post-test using expository method is 71.57. The average value of 71.57 categorized as good. Deviation standard of the experimental class is 3.554 with the English study result lowest value of 68 and 85. While the highest deviation standard of English study results post-test results of expository learning method is 4.308 with the highest 78 and lowest 62. It shows that the English study result of control class is also quite varied. Skewness of experimental class is 0.487/0.456 = 1.067. Used Criteria if it s -2 to 2 the data is normally distributed. Therefore the value obtained is 1,067. It can be said English study result is normally distributed. skewness value of control class divided by standard error of skewness value. skewness of control class is - 0.675/0.501 = 1.347. Used Criteria if it s -2 to 2 the data is normally distributed. Therefore the value obtained is 1,347 it can be said English study result is normally distributed. Kurtosis value with an error of kurtosis standard is 1.347/0.887= 1.518. Used criteria if it s -2 to 2 then the data is normally distributed. Therefore, the kurtosis ratio obtained is 1.518 it can be said English study result is normally 030054-4
distributed. Kurtosis value with error of kurtosis standard is -0,278/0,972 = -0,286. Used Criteria if it s -2 to 2 then the data is normally distributed. Therefore the kurtosis value obtained is -0,286 it can be said english study result is normally distributed. Data normality test using the Kolmogorov-Smirnova with the criteria of the test if the significance of> 0.05, then the data are normally distributed; and when significance <0.05, then the data are abnormally distributed. The result of normality test Kolmogorov-Smirnova it is normally distributed or not can be seen at Table 7. TABLE 7. Post-test Significance Analysis Normality Test Kolmogorov-Smirnov a Statistic Df Sig. Experimental Class Post-test,116 26,200 * Control Class Post-test,157 21,189 a. Lilliefors Significance Correction Tests conducted by 0.05 significance. From the results of Kolmogorov-Smirnova experimental class post-test, it can be seen that the experimental class post-test significant value > 0.05. Kolmogorov-Smirnova results can be seen that the post-test significant value > 0.05. The significance of post-test data analysis English study result has a significance of 0.200 > 0.05. Thus, English study result data post-test results by using STAD cooperative distributed normally. The significance of the English study result data post-test results by using of expository learning have significance of 0.189> 0.05. Thus, the data post-test results of English study result by using the expository method is normally distributed. Based Normality Test TABLE 8. based normality test Low Medium High Mean 70,69 74,20 78,17 Median 71,00 74,00 77,00 Variance 21,162 7,000 14,967 Std. Deviation 4,600 2,646 3,869 Minimum 62 70 75 Maximum 77 79 85 Skewness -,353,103 1,303 Std. Error Skewness,564,464,845 Kurtosis -1,087 -,965 1,296 Std. Error Kurtosis 1,091,902 1,741 Table 10 shows that the number of samples of 47 people with an average value of English study result at a low intelligence is 70.69, medium intelligence 74.20, and high intelligence 78.17. From the average value, high intelligence have a highest average value of English study result. Similarly, the medium average value higher than the average value of the low intelligence. It shows that intelligence plays a role in study result. Deviation standard or size of data distribution of low intelligence students is 4.6 with the lowest value in English study result is 62 and the highest is 77. While the deviation standard of low intelligence students is 3.949 indicates the English study result less varied. Deviation standard of medium intelligence was 2.65 with the lowest score was 70 and the highest is 79 and the data less varied. Deviation standard of medium intelligence was 2.65 with the lowest score was 70 and the highest is 79 and the data less varied. Deviation standard of high intelligence is 3,869 with the lowest score is 75 and the highest is 85 and the data less varied Skewness or data distribution measurement. Skewness of English study result in terms of high intelligence is 1,303/0,845 = 1,54. Used Criteria if it s -2 to 2 the data is normally distributed. Therefore the value obtained is 1,54 it can be said English study result is normally distributed. Skewness of English study result in terms of medium intelligence 0,103/0,464 = 0,221, the data is normally distributed. Skewness of English study result in terms of low 030054-5
intelligence is 1.087/1.091 = 0.996, therefore, the data is also normally distributed. then data normality test is conducted using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov as table 9. TABLE 9. Based English Study Result Significance Test Kolmogorov-Smirnov a Statistic Df Sig. English Study result Low.139 16.200 * Medium.155 25.124 High.212 6.200 * a. Lilliefors Significance Correction *. This is a lower bound of the true significance. The test conducted by 0.05 significance. From the results of Kolmogorov-Smirnov a can seen that the significance of study result based on low intelligence is 0.200> 0.05. significance of study result based on medium intelligence 0.124> 0.05. significance of study result based on high intelligence 0.200> 0.05. Thus the data of English study result with low, medium, and high intelligence are normally distributed Homogeneity test of English study results based on Learning Method and TABLE 10. Homogeneity test of English study results based on Learning Method and Variable Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. Learning method Post-test value 1.515 1 45.225 Intelegence post-test value 4.551 2 44.066 Levene's test or the homogeneity test is used to determine whether the data groups is the same. The criteria used is if significance < 0.05, we conclude that the data group variance is different; conversely, if the significance > 0.05, we conclude that the data group variance is the same. Table 10 shows that the significance of post-test value based on research method is 0,225 due to > 0.05 (0.225> 0.05) significance, it can be concluded that the data group variance is the same or homogeneous. The significance of intelligence based posttest value is 0.066 due to > 0.05 (0.066> 0.05) significance, it can be concluded that the data group variance is the same or homogeneous. Experimental Class Pre-test Experimental Class Post-test Research Hypothesis Test Experimental class Paired Sample t Test Analysis TABLE 11. Experimental class Paired Sample t Test significance Analysis Paired Differences Mean SD SEM - 8.731 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper T Df Sig. (2-tailed) 6.582 1.291-11.389-6.072-6.764 25.000 The analysis results of Paired sample t-test pre-test and post-test with the provision that the results of the analysis of the t value is -6.764 and significant. T table can be seen in the statistics table at significance of 0.05: 2 = 0.025 (2 sides test) with degrees of freedom (df) n-1 or 26-1 = 25 The results obtained for t table of -2.064. Because the value of t <0.05 (0.00 <0.05), then Ho is rejected. Because the value of - t count < -t table (-6.764 <-2.064) and significance < 0.05 (0.00 <0.05), then Ho is rejected. Thus, it can be concluded that there is a difference between pre-test and post-test scores in the experimental 030054-6
class. The results of the analysis can also note that the post-test average value is higher than the pre-test value, in other words, learning methods have contributed in improving English study result. Pretes Kelas Kontrol - Postes Kelas Kontrol Control Class Paired Sample t Test analysis TABLE 12. Control class Paired Sample t Test significance Analysis Paired Differences Mean SD SEM 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper t df Sig. (2- tailed) -7.238 6.722 1.467-10.298-4.178-4.934 20.000 Analysis result of table 12 shows the value of - t count < -t table (-4.934 <-2.086) and significance < 0.05 (0.00 <0.05), then Ho is rejected. Thus, it can be concluded that there is a difference between pre-test and post-test scores. The results of the analysis can also note that the post-test average value is higher than the pre-test value Test Analysis of English Study Result Differences based on the implementation of STAD and Expository Cooperative Learning Methods English Study Result TABLE 13. English Study Result Differences based on the implementation of STAD and Expository Cooperative Learning Methods Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means Equal variances Assumed Equal variances not assumed F Sig. T Df Sig. (2- tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Low Up 1.515.225 3.058 45.004 3.505 1.146 1.197 5.814 2.995 38.685.005 3.505 1.170 1.138 5.873 From the output obtained assumed equal variance t value is 3.058, t table can be seen in the statistics table on the 0.05: 2 = 0.025 (2 sides test) with degrees of freedom (df) n-2 or 47-2 = 45. Results obtained for t table of -2.014. Because the value of -t count < -t table (-3.058 <-2.014) and significance < 0.05, (0.04 <0.05), then Ho is rejected. Thus, we can conclude that there are differences between the test scores of study result using STAD and expository method. From the average value, the experimental class that implements the STAD method is higher than the control class that implements the expository method. Thus we can say STAD cooperative method is better applied in English study than the expository method. 030054-7
Test Analysis of English Study Result Differences based on TABEL 14 English Study Result based on Anova ANOVA b Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 408.240 1 408.240 34.100.000 a Residual 538.738 45 11.972 Total 946.979 46 a. Predictors: (Constant), 1 b. Dependent Variable: English Study Result from Table 14 obtained F count (Combined) is 34.100. F table can be seen in Table F statistic at the 0.05 level; df 1 (the number of variables -1) df = 2 and 2 (n-2) or 47-2 (df) = 45 the results obtained from the F table is 2.812. F count> F table (34.100> 2.812) and significance count <0.05 table (0.00 <0.05), then Ho is refused or Ha is accepted. There are differences in English study result by intelligence. Higher intelligence has higher result than medium and low intelligence. Learning Method and Interaction to English Study Result TABLE 15. Average results for English study result based on Learning Method and Dependent Variable: English study result Learning Method Mean Std. Deviation N STAD cooperative Learning Method Expository cooperative Learning Method Low 73.50 2.799 10 Medium 75.08 2.968 12 High 79.00 4.546 4 Sum 75.08 3.554 26 Low 66.00 2.683 6 Medium 73.38 2.103 13 High 76.50 2.121 2 Sum 71.57 4.308 21 Sum Low 70.69 4.600 16 Medium 74.20 2.646 25 High 78.17 3.869 6 Sum 73.51 4.247 47 Table 15 shows the average value of study result in the low intelligence experimental class is 73.50 and the control class is 66.00 so that the medium intelligence experimental class is 75.08 and control class is 73.38, high intelligence experimental class is 79.00 and control class is 76.50. Therefore, in terms of intelligence, there is a difference of English study result between the experimental class with control class at low intelligence which is the difference more than 7 points. Based on the intelligence, the results of an experimental class higher than the control class. The average value of low intelligence is 70.69, medium intelligence is 74.20, and high intelligence is 78.17. The average value of the english study results based on intelligence in the experimental class is 75.08, and the control class is 71.57. Nearly 4 points difference between experimental class and control class. 030054-8
TABLE 16. Analysis of F test English study result based on learning method implementation and intelligence Dependent Variable: English Study result Source Type III Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig. Corrected Model 506.751 a 5 101.350 12.865.000 Intercept 167099.979 1 167099.979 2.1214.000 Method 116.286 1 116.286 14.761.000 315.574 2 157.787 20.029.000 Method * 81.060 2 40.530 5.145.010 Error 322.994 41 7.878 Total 254809.000 47 Corrected Total 829.745 46 a. R Squared =,611 (Adjusted R Squared =,563) Table 16 indicating the interaction significance with the learning method and study result is 0.00. Because of the significance is 0.00 < 0.05, then Ho is rejected. So we can say that there are differences in the average value English study result among experimental class and control class. In other words, learning methods affect the study results of students. interaction with the study results Significance is 0.00. Because significance < 0.05, then Ho is rejected. So we can conclude that there are differences in the average value of English study result is based on intelligence. In other words, intelligence has significant effect on English study result. interaction with the learning outcomes Significance is 0,010. Because of the count significance is 0.010 < 0.05, then Ho is rejected. So we can conclude that there are differences in the average value of English study result in experimental class with control class between low, medium, and high. in other words, the average value of English study result in the experimental class and control class is different between medium, low and high intelligence. The results experimental class that has low intelligence different from the control class, that is by 6 points.the average value of the experimental class of low intelligence was 73.50 in control class was 66.00, and the medium intelligence in the experimental class is 75.08, medium intelligence in the control class is 73.38 and high intelligence in the experimental class is 79.08, high intelligence in control class is 76.50. From the average value, it can be said that the average value of study result between low, medium, and high intelligence on the experimental and control class is different. Interaction between STAD and Expository Cooperative learning method Table 17. Analysis of F test English study result based on STAD and Expository Cooperative learning method Dependent Variable: English study result Source Type III Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig. Corrected Model 142.756 a 1 142.756 9.351.004 Intercept 249832.628 1 249832.628 1.6364.000 Metode 142.756 1 142.756 9.351.004 Error 686.989 45 15.266 Total 254809.000 47 Corrected Total 829.745 46 a. R Squared =.172 (Adjusted R Squared =.154) 030054-9
Table 17 shows the significance of learning methods is 0.004 <0.05, then Ho is rejected. the average value of English study result Higher in the experimental class that implements the STAD method than the control class that implements the expository method. Thus, the learning method significantly affect the results of English for hospitality study result. CONCLUSION Based on the research result and discussion, the effect of STAD cooperative learning methods and intelligence to English for hospitality study result in Medan Tourism Academy the following conclusions is obtained. 1. There are differences in English for hospitality study result between the STAD cooperative learning methods with the expository method. There are significant differencesenglish for hospitality study result given STAD and expository cooperative learning methods. 2. There are differences in English for hospitality study result which has high intelligence with low intelligence. There are significant differences between the test scores of English for hospitality study result in terms high and low intelligence. 3. There are differences in English for hospitality study result which has high intelligence with medium intelligence. There are significant differences between the test scores of English for hospitality study result in terms high and medium intelligence. 4. There are differences in English for hospitality study result which has medium intelligence with low intelligence. There are significant differences between the test scores of English for hospitality study result in terms medium and low intelligence. 5. There are differences in English for hospitality study result based learning methods and intelligence. In other words, there are differences in the average value of study result in experimental class with control class between low, medium, and high intelligence. 6. There are difference in the average value of English study result between the application of STAD cooperative learning method with the expository cooperative learning method. The average value in the experimental class that implements the STAD method is higher than the control class that implements the expository method. To test the effectiveness of STAD and expository cooperative learning methods should be held research by involving other variables. 030054-10