Comparative Effects of the Numbered Heads Together and Two Stay Two Stray Models on Higher-Order Thinking Skills: The Moderating Role of Adversity Quotient in Learning Number Patterns
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to examine the comparative effectiveness of Numbered Heads Together (NHT) and Two Stay Two Stray (TSTS) cooperative learning models on students' Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS), investigate the influence of Adversity Quotient (AQ) types (Climbers, Campers, Quitters), and explore the interaction effect between learning models and AQ on HOTS.
Methodology – This research employed a quasi-experimental 3x2 factorial design with stratified cluster random sampling among 8th-grade students in junior high schools. Data were collected through HOTS tests and AQ questionnaires and analyzed using two-way ANOVA.
Findings – The statistical analysis revealed no significant main effect regarding the effectiveness of the NHT versus TSTS models on HOTS overall. However, a significant interaction was found between the learning models and students' Adversity Quotient (AQ). Specifically, the findings indicate that the NHT model is more effective for students with higher resilience (Climbers and Campers), whereas the TSTS model offers greater benefits for students with lower resilience (Quitters). This demonstrates that the effectiveness of cooperative learning strategies on HOTS is moderated by students' psychological resilience profiles.
Novelty – This study uniquely integrates cooperative learning models with students' psychological resilience levels, offering insights into differentiated instructional strategies tailored to learners' AQ profiles.
Significance – This study provides practical benefits for educators and curriculum designers in selecting learning models that align with students' psychological characteristics to optimize HOTS. The findings are also significant for school counselors in developing intervention programs to enhance students' learning resilience.
Article Details
References
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. Pearson.
Arends, R. I. (2012). Learning to teach (9 th). Mcgraw-Hill.
Arif, N., Eko Soetjipto, B., & Nyoman Sudana Degeng, I. (2016). The Implementation of Carousel Feedback and Two Stay Two Stray Learning Models to Enhance Students' Self-Efficacy and Social Studies Learning Outcomes. IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS, 21(5), 99–104. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-21050399104
Aris Shoimin. (2014). 68 model pembelajaran inovatif dalam kurikulum 2013. Ar-Ruzz Media.
Brookhart, S. M. . (2011). How to Assess Higher-Order Thinking Skills in Your Classroom. Hawker Brownlow Education.
Diana, N. (2008). Studi Deskriptif Adversity Quotient pada Siswa Akselerasi pada SMU I Negeri Malang. Universitas Islam Indonesia.
Gunawan, A. W. (2004). Genius Learning Strategy: Petunjuk Praktis untuk Menerapkan Accelerated Learning (2 nd). Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
Hudoyo, H. (2005). Teori belajar untuk pengajaran matematika. Depdikbud.
Ibnu Badar Al-Tabany, T. (2017). Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif, Progresif, Dan Konteksual. Prenada Media.
Irawan, A., Mardiyana, & Sari Saputro, D. R. (2017). Experimentation of cooperative learning model Numbered Heads Together (NHT) type by concept maps and Teams Games Tournament (TGT) by concept maps in terms of students' logical mathematical intelligence. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 855, 012019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/855/1/012019
Isjoni H. (2009). Cooperative Learning: Efektivitas Pembelajaran Kelompok. Alfabeta.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An Educational Psychology Success Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057
Kaharuddin, A., & Hajeniati, N. (2020). The effect of the combination of numbered heads together and the two-stray learning model on mathematical learning outcomes and the activeness of senior high students. International Journal of Educational Best Practices (IJEBP), 4(2). https://doi.org/10.32581/ijebp.v4n2.p78-87
Kemendikbudristek. (2022). Keputusan Menteri Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi Nomor 56/M/2022 tentang Pedoman Penerapan Kurikulum dalam Rangka Pemulihan Pembelajaran.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Lie, A. (2002). Cooperative learning. Grasindo.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and Standards - National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. https://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Principles-and-Standards/
OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and Can Do – Student Performance in Mathematics, Reading and Science.
Parvathy, D. U., & M, P. (2014). Relationship between Adversity Quotient and Academic Problems among Student Teachers. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 19(11), 23–26. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-191172326
Phoolka, E. S., & Kaur, N. (2012). Adversity Quotient: A new paradigm in Management to explore. International Journal of Contemporary Business Studies, 3(4), 67–78.
Purwanto. (2003). Strategi Belajar Mengajar Matematika. UNS Press.
Puspendik. (2022). Laporan Hasil Ujian Nasional Berbasis Komputer (UNBK) SMP Tahun 2014-2019.
Rahayu, S., & Cahyadi, R. (2019). Experimentation of NHT And TPS Learning Model Using CTL Approach Towards Mathematics Learning Outcomes Viewed from Student Learning Styles. International Journal of Trends in Mathematics Education Research, 2(4), 215–218. https://doi.org/10.33122/ijtmer.v2i4.140
Rofiah, E., Aminah, N. S., & Ekawati, E. Y. (2013). Penyusunan Instrumen Tes Kemampuan Berpikir Tingkat Tinggi Fisika Pada Siswa SMP. Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika, 1(2), 120699.
Safitri, A. N., Juniati, D., & Masriyah. (2018). Students’ Relational Understanding in Quadrilateral Problem Solving Based on Adversity Quotient. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 947, 012039. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/947/1/012039
Sardiman. (2008). Interaksi & Motivasi Belajar Mengajar. PT Raja Grafindo.
Sari, M., & Surya, E. (2017). Improving the Learning Outcomes of Students using Numbered Heads Together Model in the Subjects of Mathematics. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research, 33(3), 311–319.
Slavin, R. E. . (2012). Educational psychology : theory and practice. Pearson Education.
Stoltz, P. Gordon. (2007). Adversity quotient : turning obstacles into opportunities = Adversity quotient : mengubah hambatan menjadi peluang. Grasindo.
Sudrajat, A., Iasha, V., & Femayati, F. (2018). The Influence of the Use of Cooperative Learning Model Jigsaw & Two Stay Two Stray and the Learning Interest Result on 5 th Grade Social Science. Prosiding Konferensi Internasional Pertama Tentang Penilaian Dan Kebijakan Pendidikan, 2, 28–33.
Suherman, E. (2003). Strategi pembelajaran matematika kontemporer. JICA - UPI.
Sukmawati, I., Purwaningsih, W. I., & Yuzianah, D. (2023). Analisis berpikir kritis siswa dalam pemecahan masalah matematika ditinjau dari gaya kognitif. JUMLAHKU: Jurnal Matematika Ilmiah STKIP Muhammadiyah Kuningan, 8(2), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.33222/jumlahku.v8i2.2412
Suprijono, A. (2012). Cooperatif Learning: Teori dan Aplikasi PAIKEM. Pustaka Pelajar.
Sutama. (2010). Metode Penelitian Pendidikan: Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, PTK, dan R&D. Fairuz Media.
Suwangsih, E., Budiarti, M. R., Ruskandi, K., Hendawati, Y., & Majid, N. W. A. (2019). Two-stay two-stray model on improving mathematical communication skill of elementary school students. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1318(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1318/1/012127
Yenni, R. F. (2016). Penggunaan Metode Numbered Head Together (NHT) dalam Pembelajaran Matematika. https://doi.org/http://doi.org/10.30870/jppm.v9i2.1006.