The improvement of Self-Efficacy and Student’s Concept Mastery through STAD

Cooperative Learning Model on Solubility Topic and Solubility Multiple Result

Ismi Nurlatifah1, a), Wawan Wahyu 1 and Wahyu Sopandi 1

1
Chemistry Education Study Program, Postgraduate School, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Dr. Setiabudi St.
No 229 Bandung 40154, Indonesia

ismiismi@student.upi.edu
a)

Abstract. The purpose of this research is to identify the difference of the improvement of self-efficacy
and student’s concept mastery between experimental class which applied STAD cooperative learning
model and control class which applied cooperative conventional learning model as well as to identify the
correlation between self-efficacy and concept mastery on solubility topic and solubility multiple result.
The research method which is used is quasi experiment with nonequivalent control group design which
involves two research classes which are experimental class and control class. The questionnaire which
was adapted from College Chemistry Self-Efficacy Scale (CCSS) and written test are used as the
instrument of the research. The result of the research shows that there is difference of the improvement
of significant concept mastery (p<0,05) between experiment class (<g> = 0,71) and control class (<g> =
0,54). Same as concept mastery, there is difference of significant self-efficacy improvement (p<0,05)
between experiment class (<g> = 0,55) and control class(<g> = 0,35). There is significant correlation
(p<0,05) between self-efficacy and concept mastery on experiment class and control class. It is
suggested that STAD cooperative learning model can be implemented in some learning process because
this learning model can improve the self-efficacy and concept mastery. The development of self-efficacy
is as important as the development of concept mastery.

INTRODUCTION

Up to this days there are still many students who cannot participate actively in the learning
process. It is shown from the way of students who do not want to ask or to answer the questions. The
condition where the student is not active shows uncertainty attitude of their own capability. This
condition shows how low the self-efficacy of that student is. One with a low self-efficacy is shown by low
aspiration and not having strong commitment to chase their goals. (Bandura, 1994).

However, self-efficacy is very important because it relates with someone’s motivation. A person
who has low self-efficacy must be having low motivation, too. For example, student who has low self-
efficacy does not care with the purpose of learning process. The learning process will be useless because
the student does not have certain targets such as being brave to state his/her opinion and also brave to
ask when he/she does not understand the material. However, self-efficacy which is owned by somebody
will influence his/her academic achievement (Ferrel and Barbera, 2015). Besides, self-efficacy has a great
role to predict achievement (Zimmerman, 2000). Person who has a high self-efficacy tend to succeed in
finishing his/her assignments. Based on Bandura in Kurbanoglu and Akim (2010), self-efficacy is a good
predictor in determining student’s academic achievement.

Self-efficacy can be developed through learning process. Learning target encompasses the
development of manner, knowledge, and creativity which are elaborated for every education standard.
Those three aspects (manner, knowledge, and creativity) help a lot in considering the manner on a
subject (Xu and Lewis, 2011). The learning process is entirely directed to the development of those
aspects holistically (Kemendikbud, 2013). Therefore, learning process entirely produces the quality of
personality which reflects the integrity of manner, knowledge and creativity mastery.

The previous research about self-efficacy and academic achievement have been done many
times. (Kurbanoglu and Akin, 2010; Gencosman and Dogru, 2012; Akomolafe, Ogunmakin, and Fasooto,
2013; Mari and Gumel, 2015; Hasheminasab, Zarandi, Azizi, 2014; Ferrel and Barbera, 2015; and Baanu,
Oyelekan, and Olorundare, 2016). In the research of Ferrel and Barbera (2015), an equipment was
arranged to assess student’s self-efficacy and it was suggested to be used by anyone who will investigate
about self-efficacy any further. For example, investigating the effect of a learning process to students’
self-efficacy.

It was explained before that high school students’ self-efficacy is quite low. This contradicts the
demand of curriculum so it is a need to have a way to anticipate that discrepancy. The step that can be
done is by applying suitable learning model to improve students’ self-efficacy. Cooperative learning
model is a learning model which adjusts the students to work in group and discussing. Students who are
involved in the group discussion have tendency to learn the material any further and they are able to
master the material longer compared to when the same material is given through another instructional
formats (Burke, 2011). Many students face the difficulty at school not because they cannot be succeed
but because they cannot trust their capabilities to do something successfully (Mari and Gumel, 2015).
The certain feeling towards their capabilities relates to the self-efficacy.

One of the types in cooperative learning model is Student Teams-Achievements Divisions. The
activity through STAD learning supports the students to work together and help each other in solving a
problem, but at last they can be responsible independently for their group. Each member of the group
has the same contribution in achieving the group success. Based on the characteristics of cooperative
learning type STAD, it is suitable for improving the self-efficacy and concept mastery of the students. The
learning process which is based on STAD technic has a great influence towards students’ self-efficacy,
academic achievement, and it can decrease students’ fear (Adesoji and Ibraheem, 2009; Gencosman and
Dogru, 2012; and Fiandi, 2015).

Through the STAD learning, teacher gives presentation which can make the students pay
attention before they work in group which is useful for having test through the quiz which is done in the
end of meeting. By having reward for the excellent group can motivate the students to do the next tests.
Based on Nichols (1996) and Vaughan (2002) in Gencosman and Dogru (2012), learning with STAD
technic is also positively can influence psychology unsure such as motivation and manner as well as the
perception of students’ self-efficacy. In implementing the learning model, a teacher also needs to
consider the right method which will be used. Teacher needs an effective method in the learning process
because chemistry is a study about the universe and its contents (Otor and Achor, 2013)
 The material which is selected in this research is solubility and solubility multiple result. Beside
of this material is knowledge, in this material an experiment can be done also. The experiment which
can be done for example is experiment of the correlation between Ksp value and sedimentation. By
doing the experiment, the psychomotor aspect of students will be cultivated. Moreover, solubility
material is very close with daily life so that material is applicative. Therefore, the three aspects of
capability such as knowledge, psychomotor and the capability to apply in the daily life can be seen.
Those three aspects are the subscale of self-efficacy (Uzuntiryaki and Aydin, 2009) which will be
measured in this research. Therefore, it can be said that the material of solubility and solubility multiple
result is suitable to be chosen in this research.

STAD learning is begun with the instruction from the teacher, group working, quiz, and end with
reward giving for the superior group. Superior group is a group with the highest score. Each member of
group contribute their score in quiz for their group score (Shih and Chem, 2002). The optimal teamwork
is really needed to be the superior group. The process to be optimal is not easy happened in a meeting.
There will be few meetings needed in order to develop teamwork process in a group. The material of
solubility and solubility multiple result consist of few sub materials such as: solubility (s); solubility
multiple result (Ksp), the relation of Ksp and sedimentation; and factors which affect solubility, few
meetings are needed to learn about these all. Besides that, through the STAD learning the students will
get used to discuss.

This research investigates the improvement of self-efficacy and student’s concept mastery
through STAD cooperative learning model on solubility topic and solubility multiple result. Therefore,
the questions of research are formulated as below:

1. How is the difference of students’ self-efficacy improvement which apply STAD cooperative
learning and conventional cooperative learning on solubility topic and solubility multiple result?
2. How is the difference of students’ concept mastery improvement which get STAD cooperative
learning and conventional cooperative learning on solubility topic and solubility multiple result?
3. How is the correlation between self-efficacy and concept mastery on solubility topic and
solubility multiple result?

METHODOLOGY
The research method which is applied is mixing method with nonequivalent control group
design. This research design is chosen since in this research the students’ self-efficacy and concept
mastery improvement of two different treatments towards two different classes will be compared.
The classes are experimental class and control class. The experimental class applies STAD
cooperative learning model and the control class applies conventional cooperative learning. The
instrument which is used is questionnaire of self-efficacy which was adapted from College Chemistry
Self-Efficacy Scale (CCSS) which was arranged by Uzuntiryaki and Aydin (2009) and written test
which was arranged by Farina (2014). The self-efficacy questionnaire consists of three indicators and
the written test consists of twelve indicators. Since what is investigated is about the improvement of
self-efficacy and concept mastery, therefore the score (<g>) in each value will be counted. The
criteria of N-Gain Score according to Hake (1999) are in the Table 1.
TABLE 1. N-Gain Score Classification
 N-Gain Score Interpetation
N-Gain > 0.70 High
0.30 < N-Gain > 0.70 Medium
N-Gain < 0.30 Low

To figure out the correlation between self-efficacy and concept mastery is counted correlation
coefficient score (r). The interpretation of the r score based on Evans (1996) is presented in Table 2.
TABLE 2. Criteria of Coefficient Correlation
Coefficient Corelation Interpetation
Score
0.00 – 0.19 Very weak
0.20 – 0.39 Weak
0.40 – 0.59 Medium
0.60 – 0.79 Strong
0.80 – 1.00 Very Strong

The first step in this research is pretest giving as well as the self-efficacy questionnaire to the
experimental class and control class before the learning process. After the learning with different
learning model in two different class has been done, posttest and self-efficacy questionnaire are also
given to the students. The item of questions both in pretest and posttest and the questions in self-
efficacy questionnaire which are given before and after the learning is the same in order to identify the
improvement of self-efficacy and concept mastery in the two classes.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The average score of self-efficacy as well as pretest and posttest in the experimental class and
control class in the beginning and in the end of learning is on Table 3 and 4. In the table it shows that the
average score of the postself-efficacy and posttest is significantly different between experimental class
and control class. It can be seen from the significance score of the post self-efficacy and the posttest
which is lower than 0.05. Based on that fact, it indicates that the STAD cooperative learning model can
improve the students’ self-efficacy and concept mastery compared to conventional cooperative learning.
It is needed to have statistic test on the N-gain average score of self-efficacy and concept mastery to
prove it.
TABLE 3. Student’s self-efficacy score and Statistic Test Result

Data Pre Self-Efficacy Post Self-Efficacy

Experiment Class Control Class Experiment Class Control Class
N 33 32 33 32
Average 77.88 74.53 115.45 100.81
SD 20.376 17.804 13.685 10.684
Normality (Sig.) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Homogeneity (Sig.) 0.277 0.124
t Test (Sig.) 0.488 0.000

TABLE 4. Student’s self-efficacy score and Statistic Test Result

 Data Pretest Posttest
Experiment Class Control Class Experiment Class Control Class
N 33 32 33 32
Average 27.07 26.04 79.09 66.67
SD 14.62 13.48 12.56 13.89
Normality (Sig.) 0.2 0.092 0.054 0.051
Homogeneity (Sig.) 0.624 0.66
t Test (Sig.) 0.77 0.000

The average of post self-efficacy score in entirely indicators is highly achieved by students of
experimental class. As well as the average of posttest score tend to be highly achieved by experimental
class. The graphic of the average of post self-efficacy score and posttest in each indicator is shown in
Figure 5 (a) and (b).

7.5 1.2
Average of Post Self-Efficacy Score

Average of Posttest Score

1
7
0.8
6.5 0.6
0.4
6
0.2
5.5 0
1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Self-Efficacy Indicators Competence Achievement Indicators

Kelas Eksperimen Kelas Kontrol Kelas Eksperimen Kelas Kontrol

(a) (b)

FIGURE 1. (a) Graphic of Post Self-Efficacy Average Score ; (b) Graphic of Posttest Average Score

The highest score of post self-efficacy in the experiment class is in the first indicator which is
related to knowledge aspect. The students of experimental class feel certain towards their capabilities in
understanding the material about solubility and solubility result. It is proven by the high score which is
obtained by the students in the quiz. The average quiz score of the students in experimental class is
79,09. For senior high school students, self-efficacy is a good predictor towards the students’
achievement (Kuperminty, Lau & Roeser, and Lodewyk & Winne in Baanu, Oyelekan, and Olorundare,
2016). Self-efficacy influences academic and some behavior and psychology variables (Bandura in
Kurbonaglu and Akim, 2010). Related to behavior, it is true that behavior can affect their understanding
about subject (Asabe, 2013).

Students in experiment class work together in a group in order to complete their group task. It is
seen from the fact that there is ask and answer activity among the students. The students who have
understood can explain to their friends in the group. Student’s appetency in explaining the material to
their friend is the manner entity which is shown by the student. Student’s manner towards knowledge
can be improved by a targeted study activities (Cheung, 2009). The important result of junior high school
education is manner, which is the same as academic achievement (Khan and Ali, 2012). With the
existence of students who ask and the other students who answered shows that the students can
measure their own capability. It can make the students estimate the capability of themselves in
performing specific tasks or actions that need to be done to achieve the desired result which is a form of
self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997).

The average of the second-highest self-efficacy score in experimental class contained in the
second indicator. The second indicator relates to laboratorial activities. Students’ performance is
affected by many factors but the most highlighted is on how good of what students can do during the
practicum (Festus and Ekpete, 2012). Practicum is one means of student experience. Students' learning
experiences can influence attitudes, increase their motivation to learn about science and as the result
students can obtain higher achievement.

Unobserved groups with each other interfere even students cheat although the same practicum
is conducted by two groups in one class. It shows that students’ confident in selecting tools and
materials as well the way they use and implement practical procedures which becomes statements
about self-efficacy indicator related to practicum. Self-efficacy has a strong impact on efforts to
undertake an activity, perseverance to face their difficulties and successful experiences (Bandura,
Britner & Pajares, Zeldin & Pajares in Kurbonaglu and Akim, 2010).

The average score on the lowest posttest in experiment class and control class that is about the
competence achievement indicator numbers 11 and 12. Questions with these indicators is a matter
related to acid-base. Acid-base of chemistry is one of the basic concepts of chemistry because most of
the reactions are acid-base reactions (Cetingul and Geban, 2005). The number of students who could
not answer the question shows that students actually do not understand yet about the acid-base
material. Acid-base concept is recognized as a difficult concept at the high school level (Demirciolu,
Ayas, and Demirciolu in Artdej, Ratanaroutai, Coll, and Thongpanchang, 2005). The maximum average
score on the posttest experiment class and control class lies in the problem which is derived from the
questions in indicator 9. Cognitive level in that question is C-1. Students can easily answer that question.

Based on Figure 1 it is clear that the experimental class students is superior compared to the
control class. Experimental class through the cooperative learning model type STAD owns better concept
mastery about solubility and solubility result also self-efficacy. At the time of learning, experimental
class students firstly formulate the problem in a group to find their own answers based on the
formulation of the problem they made. Effective teaching and learning process is most likely to happen
when students can analyze problems, think critically and communicate about their findings (Mahdi,
2014). In solving the problem, knowledge base which is qualified is truly necessary (Frazer in Overton
and Potter, 2011).

Each student in the experimental class also wants to become a superior group so that each
group compete to be the best. Each group works together, interact actively, help each other so that the
students’ social aspects will develop. STAD cooperative learning model is able to create a good
interaction between students, to increase positive attitude toward the subject, and to improve
interpersonal skills (Khan and Inamullah, 2011). Attitude is about like or dislike, positive or negative
evaluation of some aspects (Hilgard in Dara and Charles, 2011). Having a positive attitude toward the
subject will involve behaviors as well as a willingness to participate in lessons (Ozcelik in Onen and
Ulusoy, 2012). Learning has to be well-arranged so that each student can learn in order to be able to get
their achievement based on their own capabilities (Damavandia and Kashani, 2010). Student-centered
learning technic is preferred if it is compared with the other teacher-centered learning technic (Hofstein
and Kempa in Hofstein and Naaman, 2011).

In completing the task group to be effective, each member of the group divides the tasks. Of
course, when sharing the task, each student measures his/her ability to be able to determine which
tasks the student can solve. At the time of the task sharing is not necessarily one-sided from one
member, but everything is discussed and socialized. In cooperative learning lines of communication will
be opened (Quinn, 2006).

After the division of tasks completed, each student at least shows his/her effort and
perseverance to complete the task which becomes his/her part. If someone is certain in his/her ability to
get something done, his/her efforts will be great to achieve the expected goals (Bandura in Pervin,
1984). Despite sharing the task, it is not impossible that there is discussion between one student with
the other students in one group. Students who are less confident in their ability, are motivated by their
group mates. Self-efficacy can grow through verbal persuasion (Bandura, 1997). At the time of the first
meeting was closed with the presentation. Teachers provide opportunities for all groups to give their
presentation. The first time the teacher provides an opportunity, there is only a few groups who raise up
their hands. After one group performs and teachers give another chance to the other group's
presentation, the entire group raised her hand. It seems that students' self confidence towards their
ability is more awakened when they saw their friend's success. Beside through verbal persuasion, self-
efficacy can grow through the experience of others (Bandura, 1997).

There are differences of the significant improvement of self-efficacy and concept mastery
between experimental class and control class. This is shown by the t test average score of N-Gain self-
efficacy and concept mastery where the significance value is less than 0.05. The data is shown in Table 5.

TABLE 5. Score average of Self Efficacy and Control Concept N-Gain

Data Experimental Control Class
Class
N 33 32
The Average of Self-Efficacy N-Gain 0.55 0.35
The Average of Concept Mastery N-Gain 0.71 0.54
t Test (Sig.) Self-Efficacy 0.000
t Test (Sig.) Concept mastery 0.000

Based on Table 5, STAD cooperative learning model could further enhance self-efficacy and
concepts mastery better if it is compared to the conventional cooperative learning model. The
advantages of STAD cooperative learning model is able to make the students develop a more positive
attitude towards themselves, friend, an adults and learning in general (Adesoji and Ibraheem, 2009).
Students who learn through STAD have high self-efficacy after a treatment is conducted (Wichadee and
Orawiwatnakul, 2012). Thus, it can be said that STAD positively improve students’ self-efficacy
(Gencosman and Dogru, 2012).

Students who learn through the process of STAD cooperative learning have a better score on the
posttest and delay test than students who learn through conventional learning technics (Tran, 2014).
STAD cooperative learning model has the potential to improve learning outcomes of chemistry in high
school and it should be used as a learning technic until the 12th grade level (Khan and Inamullah, 2011).
STAD cooperative learning model is effective in improving students’ achievement (Joshi and Bhatnagar,
2015). In addition, cooperative learning is suitable for learning math and science (Doymus, 2008).

In the experimental group, there is a significant relationship between self-efficacy with concept
mastery and it is unlikely with the control class. It can be seen from the significant value of the
experimental class which is less than 0.05 and the control class significance value is more than 0.05.
Correlation test results are in Table 6.

TABLE 6. Correlation Test Result of Self Efficacy and Concept Mastery

Data Experimental Control Class

Class
N 33 32
Coefficient Correlation (r) 0.82 0.30
Corelation Test (Sig.) 0.000 0.092

Based on Table 6, the value of r in the experimental class is +0.82 which indicates a very strong
relationship (Evans, 1993) between self-efficacy and mastery of concepts. In experimental class,
students with high self-efficacy tend to have high academic achievement as well. Students who have
high self-efficacy willing to face the challenges and attempts to resolve these challenges (Tenaw, 2013).
During the three meetings of a total of four meetings, the experimental class students learn in groups.
Because it will be chosen a superior group, each group competes to be the superior group. Each student
in the group works together and having a target not to get any student in the group who does not
understand. If all students understand, then it is possible to be able to obtain great quiz or posttest
scores. With a great score of each student in the group, it allows the group becomes a superior group. In
the experimental class, between one students and the other students in one group allows them to
motivate each other. Through motivation can increase their interests towards something. Interest about
science can be used as predictors in a score improvement of science score itself (Adesoji, 2008).

Graphic of relationship between the self-efficacy and concept mastery in experimental class and
control class contained is in Figure 2 (a) and (b).
 150 130

Post Self-Efficacy Score

Post Self-Efficacy Score

140 120
130 110
f(x) =120
0.893468529284882 x + 44.2751764560373 f(x) =100
0.232649278511221 x + 85.3148591235732
R² = 110
0.671954718000273 R² = 0.0914715725339055
100 90
90 80
80 70
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10 0 11 0
Posttest Score Posttest Score

FIGURE 2. (a) Relationships Graphic of Self-Efficacy and Concept Mastery in Experimental Class;

(B) Relationships Graphic of Self-Efficacy and Concept Mastery in Control Class

Experimental class students conducted the learning process through a STAD cooperative
learning model. Through the model lesson, each student in the group has the same contribution to the
achievement of the group. Achievement of the group is determined by the quiz or posttest score. Each
group prepared to carry out a quiz well in order to obtain the maximum score. Scores of each student in
the group determines whether that group is a group that is superior compared to other groups.

The process of self-preparing for the quiz with a variety of learning activities involves the self-
efficacy. Students with high self-efficacy tend to prefer more challenging tasks, show more efforts, do
not give up easily, and able to explain why students with similar capabilities can have different academic
achievement (Bandura in Baanu, Oyelekan, and Olorundare, 2016). It is clear that there is a positive
relationship between self-efficacy with achievement (Tippins in Tenaw, 2013; Linner, Bank and Pintrich
in Akomolafe, Ogunmakin, and Fasooto, 2013; Andrew (1998), Bandura (1997), Chemers, Hu, & Garcia
(2001), Greene & Miller (1996), Miller, et al. (1996), Multon, Brown, & Lent (1991), Pajares (1996),
Pintrich & DeGroot (1990), Silver, Smith, & Greene (2001 ) in Rose, 2003).

Students’ self-efficacy determines the level and achievement of chemistry learning because the
students’ self-efficacy will be able to plan actions, to show new behavior, to respond actively and
creatively and able to provide a solution or to solve the problem about life’s matter which is being
experienced by students as well as the tasks which is assigned by teachers (Harahap, 2009). A teacher
should be aware that academic achievement is influenced by several factors such as self-efficacy and
motivation which is actually proved to be a fundamental component (Akomolafe, Ogunmakin, and
Fasooto, 2013). There is a relationship between self-efficacy and academic achievement at secondary
school level and college (Kocakaya and Gonen, 2013).

Students in the control class who have high self-efficacy do not show good academic
achievement. Conversely, students who have low self-efficacy do not show poor academic achievement.
Learning in the control class is different from learning in the experimental class. Although both the
learning process are carried out by the groups but the control class lets the absence of motivation each
other. In experimental class students allows the motivation each other because the groups want to be
superior.
 CONCLUSION
The Conclusion of this research is that the improvement of students' self-efficacy in
experimental class that implements cooperative learning model STAD significantly different from the
control class that implements the conventional cooperative learning model. The average score of N-Gain
self-efficacy which is obtained by the experimental class students is 0.55 while the control class score is
0.35. Not only efficacy on improving students' concept mastery in experimental classes that implements
cooperative learning model STAD also significantly different from the control class that implements the
conventional cooperative learning model. The average score of N-Gain concept mastery which is
obtained by the experimental class students is 0.71 while the control class score is 0.54. Based on the
average score of N-Gain concept mastery of experimental class students, it is included into the high
category and control class students belong to medium category. In the experimental class, students who
have high self-efficacy scores obtained high posttest results.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to show my gratitude to my thesis advisors, Dr. Wawan Revelation, M.Pd., and Dr.
Revelation Sopandi, M.A Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia. I would also like to thank to the chemistry
teacher and students of SMAN 1 Cikalongwetan who have taken part on this research project.

REFERENCES

1. F.A. Adesoji and T. Ibraheem, Effects of Student Teams-Achievement Divisions Strategy and
Mathematics Knowlegde on Learning Outcomes in Chemical Kinetics (The Journal of International
Social Research, 2009), pp. 15-25.
2. F.A. Adesoji, Managing Students’ Attitude towards Science through Problem–Solving Instructional
Strategy (Anthropologist, 2008), pp. 21-24.
3. M.J. Akomolafe, A.O. Ogunmakin and G.M. Fasooto, The Role of Academic Self-Efficacy, Academic
Motivation and Academic Self- Concept in Predicting Secondary School Students’ Academic
Performance (Journal of Educational and Social Research, 2013), pp. 335-342.
4. M.B. Asabe, A Study of Students Attitude towards the Three Categories of Questions in W.A.E.C.
Practical Chemistry Examination in Zaria Inspectorate Division of Kaduna State, Nigeria (Journal of
Applied Chemistry, 2013), pp. 1-4.
5. T.F. Baanu, O.S. Oyelekan and A.S. Olorundare, Self-Efficacy and Chemistry Students’ Academic
Achievement in Senior Secondary Schools in North-Central, Nigeria (The Malaysian Online Journal of
Educational Science, 2016), pp. 43-52.
6. A. Bandura, “Self-efficacy” (Academic Press, New York, 1994).
7. A. Bandura, “Self Efficacy the exercise of Control” (W.H Freeman and Company, New York, 1997).
8. P. I. Cetingul and O. Geban, Understanding of Acid-Base Concept by Using Conceptual Change
Approach (Journal of Education, 2005, pp. 69-74.
9. D. Cheung, Students’ Attitudes Toward Chemistry Lessons: The Interaction Effect between Grade
Level and Gender (Res. Sci. Educ., 2009), pp. 75-91.
10. A.O. Dara and U.N. Charles, Some Correlates of Students Attitude towards Chemistry in Government
Technical Colleges in Imo State (International Journal of Psychology and Counselling, 2011), pp. 90-
95.
11. K. Doymus, Teaching Chemical Equilibrium with the Jigsaw Technique (Res. Sci. Educ., 2008), pp.
249-260.
12. M. Evans, N. Hastings and B. Peacock, “Statistical Distributions” (Wiley, New York, 1993).
13. B. Ferrel and J. Barbera, Analysis of Students’ Self-Efficacy, Interest, and Effort Beliefs in General
Chemistry (Chem. Educ. Res., 2015), pp. 318-337.
14. C. Festus and O.A. Ekpete, Improving Students’ Performance and Attitude towards Chemistry
through Problem-Based-Solving Techniques (PBST) (International Journal of Academic Research in
Progressive Education and Development., 2012), pp. 167-174.
15. C.O. Fiandi, Penerapan Model Student Teams-Achievement Divisions Pada Pembelajaran IPA
Terpadu Tipe Shared untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan Kognitif Siswa Pada Tema Cahaya
(Simposium Nasional Inovasi dan Pembelajaran Sains, 2015), pp.. 277-280.
16. T. Gencosman and M. Dogru, Effect of Student Teams-Achievement Divisons Technique Used in
Science and Technology Education of Self-Efficacy, Test Anxiety and Academic Achievement (Journal
of Baltic Science Education, 2012), pp. 43-54.
17. R.R. Hake, “Analyzing Change/Gain Score” (American Educational Research Association’s Division
Measurement and Research Mehodology, 1999).
18. D. Harahap, Analisis Hubungan antara Efikasi-Diri Siswa dengan Hasil Belajar Kimianya (Jurusan
Pendidikan Kimia UMTS, 2009), pp. 42-53.
19. M. Hasheminasab, Z.G. Zarandi, J. Azizi and M.S. Zadeh, Investigating the Relationship between Self-
Efficacy with Academic Achievement, Discipline, Urban-Rural and Order Birth of High School
Students in Rafsanjan (International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Research, 2014), pp. 258-
264.
20. A. H. Hofstein and R.M. Naaman, High-School Students’ Attitudes toward nad Interest in Learning
Chemistry (Educacian Quimica, 2011), pp. 2-14.
21. S.K. Joshi and S. Bhatnagar, Effect of Cooperative Learning Oriented Teaching on The Academic
Achievement of Secondary Level Students (Scholarly Research Journal for Interdiscplinary Studies,
2015), pp. 3015-3023.
22. Kemendikbud. “Lampiran IV Permendikbud No. 81 A Tentang Implementasi Kurikulum”
(Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, Jakarta, 2013).
23. G.N. Khan and A. Ali, Higher Secondary School Students’ Attitude towards Chemistry (Asian Social
Science, 2012), pp. 165-169.
24. G.N. Khan and H.M. Inamullah, Effect of Student’s Team Achievement Division (STAD) on Academic
Achievement of Students (Asian Social Science, 2011), pp. 211-215.
25. S. Kocakaya and S. Gonen, A Path Analytic Study: Effect of Affective Characteristics on Learning
Outcomes (Eurasian J. Phys. & Chem. Educ., 2013), pp. 11-38.
26. N.I. Kurbanoglu and A. Akim, The Relationship Between University Students’ Chemistry Laboratory
Anxiety, Attitudes, and Self Efficacy Belief (Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 2010), pp. 48-
59.
27. J.G. Mahdi, Student Attitudes towards Chemistry: an Examination of Choices and Preferences
(American Journal of Educational Research, 2014), pp. 351-356.
28. J.S. Mari and S.A. Gumel, Effects of Jigsaw Model of Cooperative Learning on Self-Efficacy and
Achievement in Chemistry among Concrete and Formal Reasoners in Colleges of Education in
Nigeria (International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 2015), pp. 196-199.
29. A.S. Onen and F.M. Ulusoy, The Effects of Academic Motivations of Secondary School Students on
Their Attitudes towards The Chemistry Course (Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012), pp.
5397-5400.
30. E.E. Otor and E.E. Achor, Effect Of Concept Mapping Strategy on Students’ Attitude In Difficult
Chemistry Concepts (European Journal of Educational Sciences, 2013), pp. 116-124.
31. T.L. Overton and N.M. Potter, Investigating Students’ Success in Solving and Attitudes towards
Context-Rich Open-Ended Problems in Chemistry (Chem. Educ. Res., 2011), pp. 294-302.
32. Pervin. “Personality:Theory and Research Fourth Edition”. Thesis downloaded from (John Wiley and
Sons, Inc, Canada, 1984).
33. P. Quinn, “Cooperative Learning and Student Motivation (2006). (Tesis, State University of New York
College, 2006, unpublished).
34. D.L.W. Rose, “Student Self-Efficacy In College Science: An Investigation Of Gender, Age, And
Academic Achievement” (University of Wisconsin-Stout, Amerika, 2003).
35. Y.A. Tenaw, Relationship Between Self-Efficacy, Academic Achievement And Gender In Analytical
Chemistry At Debre Markos College Of Teacher Education (AJCE, 2013, pp. 3-28.
36. V.D. Tran, The Effects of Cooperative Learning on the Academic Achievement and Knowledge
Retention (nternational Journal of Higher Education, 2014), pp. 131-140.
37. E. Uzuntiryaki and Y.C. Aydin, Development and Validation of Chemistry Self Efficacy Scale for
Collage Students (Res. Sci. Edu., 2009) pp. 539-551.
38. S. Wichadee and W. Orawiwatnakul, Cooperative Language Learning: Increasing Opportunities for
Learning In Teams (Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 2012), pp. 93-99.
39. X. Xu and J.E. Lewis, Refinement of a Chemistry Attitude Measure for College Students (J. Chem.
Educ, 2011), pp. 561-568.
40. B.J. Zimmerman, Self-efficacy: An Essential Motive to Learn (Contemporary Educational Psychology,
2000), pp. 82–91.
41. J. Farina, (2014). Pengaruh Penilaian Formatif dengan Feedback terhadap Proses dan Hasil Belajar
Pada Materi Kelarutan dan Hasil Kali Kelarutan (Tesis, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, 2014,
Unpublished).