The Implementation of Small Group Discussion and Cooperative

Learning in Real Analysis 2

Haripamyu

, Jenizon

, and Shelvi Ekariani

Department of Mathematics and Natural Science, Universitas Andalas, Padang, Indonesia

Keywords: Classroom Action Research, Small Group Discussion, Cooperative Learning, Real Analysis 2, Simple Jigsaw.

Abstract: This Classroom Action Research is done to repair and improve the teaching method that is done by Lecturers

that is to combine Small Group Discussion (SGD) Method and Cooperative Learning (CL) Method on subject

Real Analysis 2. The concept in this subject has a very high level on abstraction so that Simple Jigsaw model

in the CL method can be applied to specific topics that are considered easy to understand. We will show that

this research can be implemented well even though has not provided a significant change in the final student

grades compared to the previous year.

1 INTRODUCTION

Real Analysis 2 is one of compulsory course in the

4th term in the Department of Mathematics of

Andalas University. Based on the position of the Real

Analysis 2 course in the curriculum structure of the

Indonesian Mathematics study program and from the

learning achievement, it can be seen that this course

has a significant role in the competence or

performance of learning in the study program

curriculum. Students who take this course are

expected to have the ability to think critically and

analyze, which is an ideal achievement for a

mathematics scholar so that they can quickly adapt to

different environments.

In recent years, the team teaching applied the

Teacher Centered Learning and combined with small

group discussions conducted in tutorial classes.

Based on an evaluation of the learning process and

results in the previous year, there are several

disadvantages; namely the final grade of assessment

showed that most students could not answer well and

could not answer in their language because they only

memorized what the lecturer gave, the division of the

discussion group is not well managed yet.

Based on the problem above, it is necessary to

revise and develop the learning method used so far.

This method accomplished by choosing or combining

the effective learning method.

The purpose of this research is to apply the Small

Group Discussion (SGD) Method and Cooperative

Learning (CL) Method on subject Real Analysis 2.

There are several strategies in the student-

centered learning approach, one of which is

Cooperative Learning (CL). This CL method is part

of learning techniques where students interact with

others to obtain and practice elements of lecture

material and find general learning outcomes (Saborit

et.al., 2016; Azizan et.al., 2018; López-Mondéjar,

2017).

Elliot Ariston originally introduced the jigsaw

instructional procedure and first used in 1971 in

Austin, Texas (Aronson, 2008). With this approach,

the content of the lesson is classified into several parts

of information, just like in a jigsaw puzzle (Evcim

and Ipek, 2013; Şengül and Katranci, 2014; Pozzi,

2010). The students are divided into small and

heterogeneous ‘home’ groups, where they are each

given a specific subtopic in the group. In the next step,

students break out of their ‘home’ groups and form

the ‘expert’ groups. In this group, students focus on

one subtopic, researching and discussing it and

become an expert on the subtopic that they have been

assigned. Then, the students from all of the ‘expert’

groups return to their ‘home’ groups and teach their

peers based on their discussions in the expert group.

Eventually, all the members of the ‘home’ groups will

have learned from each expert group discussion and

will have benefitted from each other. In this method,

lecturer acts as a motivator, facilitator and assess

students activity.

Haripamyu, ., Jenizon, . and Ekariani, S.

The Implementation of Small Group Discussion and Cooperative Learning in Real Analysis 2.

DOI: 10.5220/0008680601010104

In Improving Educational Quality Toward International Standard (ICED-QA 2018), pages 101-104

ISBN: 978-989-758-392-6

101

Small group discussion allows presenters to

announce a topic or idea for group discussion among

participants. A small group discussion follows

democratic guidelines and allows everyone to

contribute many ideas for others to discuss and reflect

upon. Discussion also allows for an interchange of

ideas within the context of a group under the direction

of a presenter.

In cooperative learning, a small group of

participants works together to achieve a common

goal. Cooperative learning operators are based on the

premise that participants achieve more when they

work together. The goals of cooperative learning are

positive interdependence, face-to-face interaction

among participants, individuals.

2 METHOD

The classroom action research is conducted in this

study (Afriza et.al., 2014; Kunandar, 2012). Learning

strategy used is a combination of a teacher-centered

learning approach and one of the cooperative learning

approach, i.e., jigsaw strategy.

2.1 Population, Sample, and Participant

Population in this study is all student that took Real

Analysis 2 course in academic year 2017/2018. The

students are grouped into three classes A, B, and C,

consisting 33, 34 and 30 students respectively. All

population member is included as a participant in this

study.

2.2 Study Design

This classroom action research is carried out during

the even semester of 2017/2018 school year. This

classroom action research was done through two

cycles. Each cycle consists of four steps, i.e

Step 1 Planning

At this stage, a strategy is designed to achieve the

learning objectives, starting from identifying the

problems that arise in learning Real Analysis 2,

analyzing the causes and then developing an action

plan through the development of the Semester

Learning Plan, student worksheets for lectures and

tutorials. In this activity, an indicator of the success

of the action was also determined, and the instrument

used to measure the success rate of the action. This

step is conducted through week 1-5.

Step 2: Implementation

At this stage, actions that have been planned are

implemented. The learning approach used is

cooperative learning using the Jigsaw strategy. This

strategy is applied to some specific topics, i.e.,

Properties of Expectation, Special Discrete

Distribution and in tutorial class. This step is

conducted through week 6-10.

Step 3. Observation

At this stage, observations of the events encountered

in the implementation of the action included obstacles

faced and activities carried out by students during the

learning process. This activity is carried out in

conjunction with the implementation of the action.

Step 4. Reflection

The last stage of this class action research is an

evaluation of the results of actions taken based on

predetermined indicators.

2.3 Data collection and analysis

Data were collected during the implementation step.

The assessment of the student responses is held by

distributing questionnaires to all students

participating in the Real Analysis 2 course. The

response measured is the students' perception of the

effect of this learning method on the active

involvement of students, motivation to learn material

independently, improve teamwork, questionnaires

using a Likert scale. Data were analyzed by

descriptive statistics (central tendency and variability

measures) as well as statistical table and graph.

2.4 Performance Indicators

The indicator used to assess the success of teaching

methods and assessments developed in this Class

Action Research activity, that are:

a. Learning Outcomes. Learning outcomes will be

measured from independent assignments,

quizzes and exams, UTS and UAS. This activity

is considered successful if the percentage of

students who get a score below B is reduced

from the previous teaching year. Student

responses to the development of learning

methods and assessments applied.

b. This learning method is concluded successfully

if more than 75% of students give a good

perception of this learning method.

ICED-QA 2018 - International Conference On Education Development And Quality Assurance

102

3 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Here we will describe the development of a learning

method and assessment method as a solution of

problems faced in Real Analysis 2 course. We will

also discuss the result of the action done.

As mentioned before, it is necessary to make

various efforts towards improving quality and the

learning process that has been carried out. Some of

the material in the Real Analysis 2 course still

requires an explanation from the subject lecturer

because of its position as an advanced course that still

requires assistance from the lecturer as a source in

explaining the material. For this reason, the learning

method applied to some of the material in this course

is a combination of student-centered learning (SCL)

in the form of small group discussions and

cooperative learning and lecture methods for other

materials.

The following are activities conducted at the first

and second meetings of the lecture: 1) explanation of

the description of the course, the relevance of the

material with the material in the previous course, Real

Analysis 1. This description can be seen in the RPS

(also available on the Department of Mathematics

Unand). 2) question and answer/discussion about

functions (definition of functions, rational functions,

polynomials, operations on functions, limited

functions) by the way the lecturer gives questions and

the students give responses where the answers can be

responded again by other students, 3) Pre-test about

the function of 41 students. The result is 14.6% of the

value 70 and above, 48.8% of the value from 55 to 70,

and 36.6% less than 55 down (Figure 1), 4). Based on

the pre-test results students are divided into seven

discussion groups consisting of 5 -6 students. Each

group has a person who is considered an expert who

is responsible for helping other group members in

understanding the material/topic given. This "expert"

student previously discussed with the lecturer on the

subject.

Figure 1: Distribution of Initial Grade

Figure 2: Distribution of UTS Grade

Figure 3: Distribution of Quiz Grade

Figure 4: Distribution of Final Grade

From the distribution of grades obtained by students,

it can be seen that students' understanding of real

analysis two-course material has not increased. There

are 24% of students whose grades are above C +, 50%

of students only have enough value (C +, C) and the

rest are D. This is consistent with the results of the

questionnaire data distributed to students after the

UTS ends. The results are obtained that the level of

satisfaction, activity, seriousness, and understanding

of students from week to week on the method of the

lecture is not so high. They admit that they are less

serious in group discussions both in the lectures and

outside the lectures. This undoubtedly results in their

lack of understanding of lecture material, which has

an impact on their low grades. Students who get

grades above C + are indeed students who are

categorized as diligent and willing to learn a lot. From

N>=70

55=<N<70

N< 55

N>=70

55=<N<70

N<55

N>=70

55=<N<70

N<55

The Implementation of Small Group Discussion and Cooperative Learning in Real Analysis 2

103

the supervision of lecturers in the class, they have

tried to share knowledge and explain to their friends

who are not good at the value of group assignments.

However, because other students lack self-learning to

master the concept of Real Analysis 2, yet the way

their friends explain they will be difficult to

understand.

4 CONCLUSIONS

Application of Small Group Discussion Learning

Methods and Cooperative Learning in Real Analysis

Course 2 in even 2017/2018 semester it turned out

that it had not provided satisfactory results. This is

seen from the final score obtained by students, which

is the acquisition of C + and C is 50% while the

acquisition of scores above is 24%. This

unsatisfactory result might be because they are not

familiar with the SCL method. Some students who are

considered "experts" have tried to help their friends

who do not understand the material or are unable to

learn independently but some are still not used to

explaining what they have understood to their friends.

Other conditions are that in some groups discussions

have not been well established because there are still

group members who have not been motivated to learn

in groups even though their ability to learn

independently is still lacking. In addition to the

factors that have been explained, the weak value may

also be due to the selection of topics that are

inappropriate for the application of the SCL method.

Based on the results of this evaluation, it will need to

be further developed and appropriately conditioned

the implementation of the SCL method that is more

appropriate for the Real Analysis 2 course.

REFERENCES

Saborit, Jose Antonio Prieto, Javier Fernández-Río, José

Antonio Cecchini Estrada, Antonio Méndez-Giménez,

David Méndez Alonso. Teachers' attitude and

perception towards cooperative learning

implementation: Influence of continuing training.

Teaching and Teacher Education, Volume 59, 2016,

Pages 438-445,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.07.020.

Azizan, M.T., N. Mellon, R.M. Ramli, S. Yusup, Improving

teamwork skills and enhancing deep learning via

development of board game using cooperative learning

method in Reaction Engineering course. Education for

Chemical Engineers, Volume 22, 2018, Pages 1-13,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2017.10.002.

López-Mondéjar, Loida M., Lina M. Tomás Pastor,

Development of Socio-emotional Skills through

Cooperative Learning in a University Environment.

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume

237, 2017, Pages 432-437,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2017.02.086.

Aronson, E., 2008. Jigsaw classroom. Texas: Austin

Evcim, Hüseyin, Ömer Faruk İpek. Effects of Jigsaw II on

Academic Achievement in English Prep Classes.

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 70,

2013, Pages 1651-1659.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.236.

Şengül, Sare, Yasemin Katranci. Effects of Jigsaw

Technique on Mathematics Self-efficacy Perceptions of

Seventh Grade Primary School Students. Procedia -

Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 116, 2014,

Pages 333-338,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.217.

Pozzi, Francesca. Using Jigsaw and Case Study for

supporting online collaborative learning. Computers &

Education, Volume 55, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 67-75,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.003.

Afrizal et.al. 2014. Panduan Praktis Pelaksanaan SCL.

LP3M Universitas Andalas

Kunandar. 2012. Langkah Mudah Penelitian Tindakan

Kelas. Rajagrafindo Persada.

ICED-QA 2018 - International Conference On Education Development And Quality Assurance

104