THE COMPARISON OF GROUP INVESTIGATION AND

THINK PAIR SHARE WITH ASSESSMENT FOR LEARNING

VIEWED FROM STUDENTS’ SELF CONFIDENCE EIGHTH
GRADE STUDENTS OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL

Ummu Salamah1, Mardiyana2, Dewi Retno Sari Saputro3

1,2,3
Post Graduate of Mathematics Education, SebelasMaret University
(ummu.moo@gmail.com1), (mardiyana@staff.uns.ac.id2), (dewi.rss@gmail.com3)

Abstract : This research was a quasi-experimental research with a factorial design 2×3 which
aimed to determine the comparison of GI with AfL throught peer-assessment and TPS with AfL
throught peer-assessment viewed from self confidence for student’s achievement mathematics.
The population of this research were all of Junior High School students 8 th grade in Karanganyar
Regency school in academic year 2016/2017. The sampling technique was taken by using
stratified cluster random sampling. The data was collected by using methods of documentation,
students’ self confidence questionnaires, and mathematics achievement test. Data analysis
technique used two way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with unequal cell. According to research
result, it could be concluded that: (1) students’ mathematics achievement which applied GI with
AfL throught peer-assessment better than TPS with AfL throught peer-assessment, (2)
mathematics achievement of students with high self confidence better than students’ with medium
and low self confidence, and mathematics achievement of students’ with medium self confidence
as good as students with low self confidence, (3) for each category of self confidence, students’
mathematics achievement which applied GI with AfL throught peer-assessment better than TPS
with AfL throught peer-assessment, (4) for each learning model, mathematics achievement of
students’ with high self confidence better than students’ with medium and low self confidence, and
mathematics achievement of students’ with medium self confidenceas good as students’ with low
self confidence.

Keywords: GI, TPS, AfL, peer-assessment, students’ mathematics achievement, self

confidence

INTRODUCTION
Science and technology are absolute requirements to increase the quality
of human resources. Education is being the main means to organize and to create
qualified human resources, both in formal institutions (school) or informal ones.
The government has made a lot of efforts in order to enhance the quality of
education in several ways including teacher’s training, teacher’s education
qualification, curriculum renewal, and learning facilities allocation.
Education in fact has not been fully successful as expected. Many
students are not able to absorb to the maximum the material presented by the
teacher, sometimes even only a fraction of students are able to understand the
teacher’s explanations. Usually most people assume that the success of education
is only seen from achievement of average results of the exam that generated the
student. However at this time there are still many problem which occurred in
education in Indonesia, namely the still low quality of education. Based on the
report of Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) in
2015 put Indonesia in the position 36 of the 49 countries in the level of
mathematics.
Moreover, one of subjects which has become the focus of quality
education enhancement conducted by the government is mathematics.
Mathematics is one of compulsory subjects in which the learning is undertaken
from Elementary School to Senior High School. The importance of mathematics
learning has been established in school curriculum as the manifestation on its
critical role in contemporary society (Olojo and Ojo, 2011: 36).
Generally, students from any levels perceive that studying is an
unpleasant activity, particularly mathematics learning. This is too asserted by
Peker (2008: 21), students’ low success level in mathematics has been a worry for
a long time ini many countries. There are a lot of factors affecting success in
mathematics. One of these factors in students’ mathematical anxiety, in other
words, their mathematical fear. One of the problems often experienced by
students in mathematics is understanding the concept of function. This is in
mutual accord with the results of the study Dede dan Soybas (2011) state that,
some of the students at each level have some difficulties in algebraic equations as
in understanding the concept of function and determine the relationship between
these equation and the concept of function.
The low mathematics achievement of students is caused by not only
internal factor (self ability) but also external factor including the less effective and
interesting learning process. Education practitioners, nowadays, tend to suggest
applying learning process which follows constructivism school. Constructivism is
a philosophy school which emphasizes that self knowledge is the key of self
construct. Related to constructivism, Cooperstein and Weidinger (2004: 145)
assert, “constructivist learning usually begins with a question, a case, or a
problem”. From this kind of matter, students are stimulated to find out or build
certain knowledge by optimizing their own ideas. The activities in constructivism
are emphasizing on student-centered activity.
One of learning models that is appropriate with constructivism is
cooperative learning model. Zakaria dan Iksan (2007: 35-39) state that
“Cooperative learning is generally understood as learning that takes place in
small groups where students share ideas and work collaboratively to complete a
given task”. This is in mutual accord with the results of the study abrami in
simsek et al. (2013: 5), explained that learning cooperative will be effective is
made to group members will fire discuss. There are several types of cooperative
learning that have been developed in learning process in schools. One of them is
Group Investigation (GI) and Think Pair Share (TPS).
Simsek et al. (2013 : 8) explained that in the learning GI, students set into
groups of an investigation where they discussion with them group, make a plan to
an investigation, during the discussion they use his book to identify the problem
and teacher gives the freedom on the students to choose topics that students want.
Knight and Bohlmeyer in Okur and Doymus (2014: 110) assert that the group
investigation technique was developed by Sharab and Sharan in 1989. in this
technique, the class in divided into several groups that study in a different phase
of a general issue. The study issue is then divided into working sections among
the member of the groups, students pair up the information, arrangement, analysis,
planning and integrate the data with the students in other groups. In this process,
the teacher must be the leader of the class and ensure that students comprehend
the explanations. Research conducted by Doymus et al. (2009) conluded that
students in the Group investigation scored significantly higher than those in the
jigsaw after instruction”.
Another type of cooperative learning is PS learning model. This learning
model gives students chances to work independently and work cooperatively..
According to Millis and Cottel in Kitaoka (2013), “In a think-pair-share activity,
each student is asked individually to consider a problem first; then, students
discuss the problem in pairs; finally each group develops a single answer”.
Through those three main stages, it is expected that TPS learning model can make
positive influences toward learning process. Research conducted by Bowering et
al. (2007) conluded that learning model TPS give a positive influence, thus
providing good study achievements. Another research conducted by Ofodu and
Raheem (2011) conluded that learning mathematics by using TPS learning model
provide the learning achievement better than conventional learning model.
In learning process which uses those two types, students can discuss,
observe other students in understanding concepts, and deliver their opinions and
knowledge regarding the materials they are learning through several different
ways. From these different techniques, teachers can observe the mathematics
achievement of students based on those two types of learning model. Besides that,
the researcher is interested to modify GI and TPS learning models with scoring
process called Assessment for Learning (AfL) in order to optimize the applying of
those learning models. Ronnie (2011: 95) explains that AfL has become an
integral part from learning process in schools, and has found out the effective and
efficient way to give feedbacks. AfL can be carried out by giving training to
students individually after doing discussion. Further, as stated by Nick (2010: 67),
”in the context of student assessment, innovation aims to produce students who
are ‘deep’ rather than ‘surface’ learners, highly motivated, equipped with a range
of transferable skills, active and reactive participants in the learning process”. It
is parallel with what Crooks (1988) says in Lu and Law (2011: 257), “Assessment
has an important influence on the strategies, motivation, and learning outcomes of
students”.
One way to actualize AfL is by doing peer-assessment. Assessment and
feedback providing from the result of a student’s work are done by other students.
Thus, peer-assessment is able to give a deeper understanding about the subject
material. Bostock (2005: 1) through his research expresses that both asserter and
asserted students acquire numbers of benefit in positioning themselves as life-long
leaning. Peer-assessment process encourages in creating student autonomy and
higher level skills that can develop learning quality. Falchikov in Thomas (2010 :
3) state that “peer-assessment includes processes which require students to
“provide either feedback or grades (or both) to their peers on a product, process,
or performance, based on the criteria of excellence for that product or event
which students may have been involved in determining”.
This research used GI and TPS learning models which are modified with
AfL through peer-assessment. By this modification, students are expected to
understand the material more deeply, be able to apply what they have learned
during discussion, and also be able to give assessment to their mates with their
knowledge.
Students’ learning achievement is influenced by both internal and
external factors. Learning model is one of external factors which influence the
success of learning process. Besides that, students’ learning achievement is also
influenced by internal factor. Internal factor is a factor coming from the inside of
students including self confidence.
Goel and Aggarwal (2012: 89) explain that “self confidence refers to a
person’s perceived ability to tackle situations successfully without learning on
others and to have a positive self-evaluation. A self confidence person perceives
himself to be socially competent, emotionally mature, intellectually, adequate,
successful, satisfied, decisive, optimistic, independent, self reliant, self-assured,
forward moving, fairly assertive and having leadership qualities.” Waini et al.
(2014) in their research state that self confidence toward the learned subject is
needed so that students can achieve success in any subjects. The most important
of psychological factor related to mathematics achievement is being confident in
mathematics. According to social cognitive theory, students’ confidence in
completing their academic assignments will determine their further qualification.
The role of self confidence is to show the potentials in a person.
Student’s self confidence is needed in mathematics learning, both in learning by
GI with AfL through peer-assessment and by TPS with AfL through peer-
assessment.
According to Hannula et al. (2004: 17), mathematics learning is
influenced by mathematics related to students’ certainty, particularly in self
confidence. Students’ self confidence is needed to find out and solve problems.
Students with different level of self confidence in learning mathematics will result
in different results. This research tries to discover how students’ self confidence
influences the success of students’ mathematics achievement, particularly in
relation and function material.
The purposes of this research are to determine, (1) which learning model
does result in better mathematics achievement between GI with AfL through peer-
assessment and TPS with AfL through peer-assessment in learning relation and
function material; (2) which students do accomplish best mathematics
achievement among students with high self confidence, average self confidence,
and low self confidence in learning relation and function material; (3) from each
levels of students’ self confidence, which one does result in best mathematics
achievement between students given material by GI learning model with AfL
through peer-assessment and students given material by TPS learning model with
AfL through peer-assessment in learning relation and function material; (4) from
each learning models, which one does result in best mathematics achievement
among students with high self confidence, average self confidence, and low self
confidence in learning relation and function material.

METHODOLOGY
 Based on the observed problems, research type used in this research is
quasi experimental research with factorial design 2x3 which is served in Table 1.

Tabel 1. Research Design

Self Confidence
Learning Model
High (b1) Medium (b2) Low (b3)
GI-AfL- peer (a1) (ab)11 (ab)12 (ab)13
TPS-AfL-peer (a2) (ab)21 (ab)22 (ab)23

The population in this research included all students of State Junior High
School (JHS) in Karanganyar district. Research sampling was carried out using
stratified cluster random sampling technique. After sampling process, it was
obtained State JHS 1 Kebakkramat represented upper group schools, State JHS 2
Jaten represented average group schools, and State JHS 3 Gondangrejo
represented lower group schools.
There were two variables in this research; independent variable
consisting of learning model and self dependence, and dependent variable which
was mathematics achievement of students. The technique used to collect data was
test method, questionnaire method, and documentation method. Test method was
used to evaluate students’ learning result after conducting learning process to
determine students’ mathematics achievement, questionnaire method was used to
discover the level of students’ self confidence, while documentation method was
used to analyze students’ initial ability taken from students’ daily exams scores
from the previous chapter.
Before the research was conducted, the researcher firstly committed
prerequisite treatments which were equivalence test on students’ initial ability by t
test. t test would only be conducted if normality test on population by Lilliefors
method and homogeneity test on population variance by Bartlett test were
completed. After obtained that the initial ability of students in a balanced state,
followed by a test the hyphotesis. Test on research hyphotesis used two way
analysis of variance with unequal cell consisting of 2 rows and 2 columns.
Previously, prerequisite test for anava which were normality test by Lilliefors
method and homogeneity test by Bartlett test must be undertaken. If H 0 was
declined, further test must be carried out by using furthered test post variance
analysis by Scheffe method.

FINDING AND DISCUSSION

After normality test was taken, it was obtained samples from normal-
distributed population. The result of homogeneity test was that the samples were
from homogenous population. After that, equivalence test was taken, and it was
obtained that samples on experiment group 1 and experiment group 2 were equal
(having similar ability). Later, research hypothesis test was taken. The average of
each cells and marginal average can be seen in Table 2.
 Table 2. Each Cells Average and Marginal Average
Self Confidence (B) Marginal
Learning Model (A)
High (b1) Medium (b2) Low (b3) Average
GI-AfL- peer (a1) 71.0000 65.2632 65.6216 67.2949
TPS-AfL-peer (a2) 70.2857 61.2245 56.2105 62.5736
Marginal Average 70.6429 63.2438 60.9161

The computation summary of two way analysis of variance with unequal

cell is shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Summary of Two Way Analysis of Variance with Unequal Cell
Source SS df MS Fobs Fα Decision
Model (A) 984.5742 1 984.5742 5.6081 3.8911 H0A declined
Self. conf (B) 3038.3148 2 1519.1574 8.6530 3.0437 H0B declined
(A*B) 567.0740 2 283.5370 1.6150 3.0437 H0AB accepted
Error 33181.4739 189 175.5634
Total 37771.4369 194

Based on Table 3, it can be concluded that (a) there are different

mathematics achievements between students given material by GI learning model
with AfL through peer-assessment and students given material by TPS model with
AfL through peer-assessment, (b) there are different mathematics achievements
among students with high self confidence, average self confidence, and low self
confidence, (c) there is no interactions between learning models and students’ self
confidence toward mathematics achievement of students.
Based on the result of anava calculation, it can be determined that H 0A
was declined. It means that there were different mathematics achievements of
students between the two learning models. Thus, by concerning on marginal
average in Table 2, it can be concluded that GI learning model with AfL through
peer-assessment is better that TPS learning model with AfL through peer-
assessment regarding the result of students’ mathematics achievement. Such a
result was supported by Nasrudin dan Azizah (2010) which state that “Several
studies have shown that the GI has a potential to improve thinking skills and
scientific attitude”. Other things were also expressed by Crooks in Lu and Law
(2011: 257) that “assessment has an important influence on the strategis,
motivation, and learning out comes of students”.
Based on the calculation of anava, the H0B was declined. It means that
there were different mathematics achievements of students in terms of self
confidence level. Therefore, furthered anava test was needed to conduct by
Scheffe method. The calculation of furthered anava inter-column average test is
shown in Table 4.
Tabel 4. Result of Inter-Column Average Multiple Comparison Test

Comparison Fobs Fα Decision of test

μ1 ∙ =μ 2 ∙ 10,1490 6,0874 H0 declined
μ1 ∙ =μ 3 ∙ 14,5302 6,0874 H0 declined
 μ2 ∙ =μ3 ∙ 1,0515 6,0874 H0 accepted
Based on Table 4 and b concerning on Table 2, it was obtained that (a)
mathematics achievement of students with high level of self confidence was better
than students with average level of self confidence, (b) mathematics achievement
of students with high level of self confidence was better than students with low
self confidence, (c) mathematics achievement of students with average self
confidence was as good as students with low self confidence. This corresponded
with the opinion Hannula et al. (2004: 17), mathematics learning is influenced by
mathematics related to students’ certainty, particularly in self confidence.
Students’ self confidence is needed to find out and solve problems. Students with
different level of self confidence in learning mathematics will result in different
results.
Based on the calculation of anava, it was obtained that H0AB was
accepted, so there was no interaction between learning models and students’ level
of self confidence. Therefore, furthered anava inter-cell test was unnecessarily
carried out. In each level of self confidence, the conclusion can be determined
from the characteristics of its marginal average or inter-cell main effect. In each
level of self confidence, cooperative learning model type GI with AfL through
peer-assessment resulted in better mathematics achievement than cooperative
learning model type TPS with AfL through peer-assessment, TPS learning model
with AfL through peer-assessment resulted in as similar mathematics achievement
as direct learning, and cooperative learning model type GI with AfL through peer-
assessment resulted in better learning achievement than direct learning. In each
learning models, the conclusion can be drawn from the characteristics of its
marginal average or inter-column main effect. In each learning models, students
with high level of self confidence managed to accomplish better learning
achievement than students with average level of self confidence, students with
average self confidence accomplished learning achievement which was as good as
students with low level of confidence, and students with high self confidence
managed to accomplish better learning achievement than students with low self
confidence.

CONCLUSION
Based on the results of the research and data analysis from the research
that had been conducted, it can be concluded that: (1) students’ mathematics
achievement which applied GI with AfL through peer-assessment better than TPS
with AfL through peer-assessment, (2) mathematics achievement of students with
high self confidence better than students’ with medium and low self confidence,
and mathematics achievement of students’ with medium self confidence as good
as students with low self confidence, (3) for each category of self confidence,
students’ mathematics achievement which applied GI with AfL through peer-
assessment better than TPS with AfL through peer-assessment, (4) for each
learning model, mathematics achievement of students’ with high self confidence
better than students’ with medium and low self confidence, and mathematics
achievement of students’ with medium self confidence good as students’ with low
self confidence.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akcay, O. & Doymus, K. (2014). The Effect of Different methods of Cooperative
Learning Model on Acamedic Achievement in Physics. Journal of Turkish
Science Education, 11 (40), 17-30.

Bostock., S. (2005). Student Peer Assessment. Northern Illinois University, 3 (3),

1-5.

Bowering, M., Britget, M.L., and Michael, H. 2007. “Opening up Thinking

Reflections on Group Work in a Bilingual Postgraduate Program”.
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education.
19(1): 77-83.

Cooperstein, S.E. & Weidinger, E.K. (2004). Beyond active Learning : A

Construkt ivist approach to Learning. Emerald Group Publishing Limited,
32 (2), 141-148.

Dede, Y. & Soybas, D. (2011). Preservice Mathematics Teachers’ Experiences

about Function and Equation Concepts. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics
and Technology Education, 7 (2). 89-102.

Doymus, K., Simsek, U., Karacop, A., & Ada, S. (2009). “Effects of Two
Cooperative Learning Strategies on Teaching and Learning Topics of
Thermochemistry”. Word Applied Science Journal, 7 (1), 34-42.

Goel, M. & Aggarwal, P. (2012). A Comparative Study of Self Confidence of

Single Child and Child with Sibling. Intenational Journal of Research in
Social Sciences, 2 (3), 89 – 98.

Hannula, M. S., Maijala, H., & Pehkonen, E. (2004). Development of Under-

standing and Self-Confidence in Mathematics; Grade 5 – 8. Proceedings
of 28th Conference of international group for the Psychology of Mathe-
matics Education, 3, 17-24.

Kitaoka, H. (2013). Teaching methods that Help Economics Students to be

Effective Problem Solves. International Journal of Arts and Commerce, 2
(1), 101-110.

Lu, J. & Law, N. ( 2012). Online Peer Assessment: Effects of Cognitive and
Affective Feedback. Faculty of Education, The University of Hongkong.
Instuctional Science, 40 (2), 257-275.

Nasrudin, H. & Azizah, U. (2010). Improvement Thinking Skills and Scientific

Attitude Using The Implementation of “Group Investigation Cooperative
 Learning” Contextual Oriented at Acid, Base and Salt Topic in Junior
High School. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Teacher
Education; Join Conference UPI & UPSI Bandung, Indonesia. 8-10
November 2010.

Nick, Z.Z. (2010). Innovative Assessment for Learning Enhancement

: Issue And Practices”.Technological Education, Institute of Piraeus, 3
(1), 61-70.

Ofodu, G.O. & Raheem, A.L. 2011. “Cooperative Instructional Strategies and
Performance Levels of Students in Reading Comprehension”.
International Journal Education Science. 3(2): 103-107

Olojo, O. J. & Ojo, A. A. (2011). Effects of Cooperative, Competitive and

Individualistic Instructional Strategies on Secondary School Students'
Attitude Towards Mathematics in Ondo State, Nigeria. Journal of
Research in Education and Society, 2 (3), 35-43.

Peker, M. & Mirasyedioglu, S. (2008). Pre-Service Elementary School Teachers’

Learning Style and Attitudes towards mathematics. Eurasia Journal of
Mathematics, Science & Technology education, 4 (1), 21-26.

Ronnie, A. (2011). Using a VLE to Enhance ‘Assessment For Learning’ Mathe-

matics In School Scector. International Journal of Managing Information
Technology, 3 (3), 93-103.

Simsek, U., Yilar, B. and Kucuk, B. 2013. “The effects of cooperative learning
methods On students’ academic achievements in social psychology
lessons”. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their
Implications. 4 (1), 5-9.

Thomas, G., Martin, Dona., & Pleasants, K. (2011). Using self- and peer-
assessment to enhance students’ future-learning in higher education.
Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 8 (1), 1-19.

Waini, I., Hamzah, K., Mohd, R.S., Miswan, N.H., Amira, N.Z., & Ahmad, A.
(2014). Self Confidence in Mathematics : A Case Study on Engineering
Technology Students in FTK, UteM. International Journal for innovation
Education and Research, 2 (11), 10-13.

Zakaria, E. & Iksan Z. (2007). Promoting Cooperative Learning in Science and

Mathematic. Eurasia Journal of Mathematic, Sciences & Technology Edu-
cation, 6 (2), 35-39.