p–ISSN: 2723 - 6609 e-ISSN: 2745-5254
Vol. 5, No. 5 May 2024 http://jist.publikasiindonesia.id/
Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 5, No. 5 May 2024 2410
The Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning-Jigsaw Model to Enhance
Students’ Speaking Ability: An Experimental Study at XI Grade of
MAN 1 Mataram
Ilham Rahmatullah
1
,
Muhammad Amin
2
,
Dewi Satria Elmiana
3
Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Mataram, Mataram
1,2,3
Email: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Keywords: Cooperative
Learning, Jigsaw Model,
Speaking Ability
Studying English is something that is mandatory in many
countries including Indonesia since English is one of the
most generally spoken languages in the world today.
However, mastering English is not easy, especially for
Speaking. This study focuses on seeing the effect of the
Jigsaw on speaking ability since it reflects the performance
of the students in order to provide provisions to face a real-
world circumstance. This study aims to offer valuable
insights for future researchers and teachers focusing on
enhancing speaking skills or conducting research utilizing
the Cooperative Learning-Jigsaw Model. This study used the
Pre-experimental design, so the sample that was used was
only one class. The use of Jigsaw influences students'
involvement in speaking and increases their communication
skills as indicated by significant differences in the pre-test
and post-test scores tested using SPSS 23. In the result of
the pre-test, only one student managed to reach “very good”
category and no student was able to reach the "excellent"
category. In contrast to the results of the post-test, there were
11 students who succeeded in achieving the "good" category,
9 students achieved the "very good" category and 1 student
succeeded in achieving the "excellent" category which
shows a significant improvement. Based on the results of
hypothesis testing using the Paired T-Test, the Sig was
known, namely 0.000 < α (0.005), which means the Null
Hypothesis was rejected and the Alternative Hypothesis
(Ha) was accepted. Therefore, the Jigsaw model was
effective in enhancing students’ speaking ability.
Introduction
Studying English is something that is mandatory in many countries including
Indonesia since English is one of the most generally spoken languages in the world today
(Nurhairati et al., 2021). In this globalization era, everyone needs to be able to
communicate in English orally and in writing to access all news and information in all
aspects of life since the majority of news, books, and journals are published in English
The Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning-Jigsaw Model to Enhance Students’ Speaking
Ability: an Experimental Study at Xi Grade of MAN 1 Mataram
Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 5, No. 5 May 2024 2411
and as a result, many people who do not speak English will have difficulty accessing
information and fall behind (Adawiyah et al., 2023). Proficiency in English will facilitate
effective communication across borders in various fields such as business, science,
technology, and diplomacy. It provides access to a wealth of global resources, literature,
and information, fostering international understanding, collaboration, and cultural
exchange. Moreover, it enhances employability in a global job market and promotes
inclusivity by enabling individuals to connect and interact with people from diverse
linguistic backgrounds (Pangestika & Ratnaningsih, 2018). There are four skills that exist
in English, namely Listening, Reading, Writing, and Speaking. Teaching English at
school contexts both at junior and senior high schools in Indonesia requires students to
master the receptive skills (listening and reading) and the productive skills (speaking and
writing) (Nurhalizah et al., 2021).
This study focuses on the productive skill since it reflects the performance of the
students. Performance is related to the ability to perform language well which is a
benchmark of success in language or achievement of English learning outcomes. From
the productive skills, speaking skill is chosen since the ability to speak is very important.
According to (Febiyanti et al., 2020) speaking is the ability to talk fluently, which requires
both knowledge of language features and the ability to process information quickly. For
non-native speakers like in Indonesia, especially English learners, mastering speaking
skill is difficult. The problem appears since the students have difficulty in arranging
words into sentences, lack self-confidence and tend to memorize the text (Sari, 2017).
This is an obstacle to enhance English language skills. With this difficulty, students are
unable to convey their ideas and information so that students tend not to improve in
speaking as happened at one of the schools in West Nusa Tenggara, namely MAN 1
Mataram.
Preliminary observation was conducted at MAN 1 Mataram, Nusa Tenggara
Barat. According to the information delivered by one of the English Teachers, the students
there mostly had a problem in their speaking ability especially at XI grade since the XI
grade has the lowest speaking ability among the other two grades seen from the way of
presenting a material and the discussion in the class. Also, the author made the second
observation in order to ensure the teacher's information regarding the lack of speaking
ability by observing the speaking activity in the class. The author saw that there was a
problem in speaking ability especially at XI grade that was characterized by a lack of
ability to make a sentence, tend to memorize the text and have low self-confidence.
Therefore, the author decided to conduct a study which aims to focus on Students'
speaking ability especially at XI grade students of MAN 1 Mataram.
There are basically many solutions to solve the speaking problem such as Content-
Based Approach, Audience-Centric Approach, Cooperative Learning, and so forth. This
study chooses Cooperative learning as a problem-solving since the author believes that in
order to solve an issue related to a speaking ability, the approach which focuses and forces
collaborative learning is needed. Cooperative Learning (CL) refers to a teaching method
that allows students to work together on research projects (Namaziandost et al., 2020).
Ilham Rahmatullah, Muhammad Amin, Dewi Satria Elmiana
Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 5, No. 5 May 2024 2412
Cooperative learning comes in various forms. According to Fauzati (Suwartono
et al., 2020), Cooperative learning consist of Student Achievement Division (STAD),
Jigsaw, Investigation Group, Structural Approach, Team Game Tournament, Team
Accelerated Instruction (TAI), and Cooperative Integrated Author Reading and
Composition (CIRC).
From the various forms of Cooperative Learning, the Jigsaw model is chosen to
see its effectiveness in enhancing students' speaking ability. Aronson & Bridgeman
(1979) defined the Jigsaw model as a cooperative learning strategy that enables each
student in a "home group" to specialize in one aspect of a learning unit. Students then
meet with other members from other groups who are assigned the same aspect, called
"expert groups," to master the material. Afterward, students return to their "home group"
and teach or explain the materials to their group members. This method is effective
because each student's part is essential for the completion and full understanding of the
final product, making the Jigsaw strategy a powerful tool for promoting collaboration and
understanding among students. The students should push themselves to speak and to talk.
Besides, by using a jigsaw learning strategy, the students can create their own ideas
related to the topic of the material. Students have to discuss the topic with their
classmates, and they have to deliver their idea by speaking. The advantages of the jigsaw
learning strategy according to (Sukarta & Gunamantha, 2012) are exercising students to
speak, discuss, and understand the material concept.
Moreover, the Jigsaw model is chosen since it has a concept of an expert and home
group in which students are encouraged to be responsible in solving any specific task. As
explained by Aronson & Bridgeman in the step of conducting Jigsaw model (1979),
students will be the teacher of an expert group in order to discuss the material given. If
the students are not able to explain in an expert group and only be a listener, they have to
be responsible to explain the information in order to complete the separated task and try
to get the maximum score. Here, the role of the teacher is very important in which the
teacher should be a supervisor, provider and need to ensure that the students use English
as the only language during the class. At the end of the activity, students are asked to
present the things they get orally that make them used to explain the material without
seeing the text. Hopefully, problems such as lack of self-confidence, lack of ability to
make a sentence and tendency to memorize the text will be solved.
Based on the description above, this study is, thus, set at MAN 1 Mataram to
investigate the effectiveness of cooperative learning using the Jigsaw model in enhancing
the students' speaking ability for XI grade. And, this study chooses to conduct research
entitled "The Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning-Jigsaw Model to Enhance Students’
Speaking Ability: An Experimental Study at XI-grade of MAN 1 Mataram."
Research Methods
The study utilized a Pre-experimental design, which aims to compare the result of
after and before the test. Specifically, this study used One-Group Pretest-Posttest design
in Pre-experimental. This design involves measuring a single group’s behavior before and
The Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning-Jigsaw Model to Enhance Students’ Speaking
Ability: an Experimental Study at Xi Grade of MAN 1 Mataram
Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 5, No. 5 May 2024 2413
after treatment. Pre-experimental also was utilized since this study used the group that
had already been formed and only sought the difference before and after the sample was
given the treatment.
Table 1. The research design
Pre-test
Treatment
Post-test
Y1
X
Y2
There were two variables in this research, independent variable and dependent
variable. The independent variable is the treatment of Cooperative Learning-Jigsaw
Model. The dependent variable is Speaking Ability.
Y1 = Pretest
Y2 = Poesttes
X = The Implementation of Jigsaw Technique
Population and Sample
1. Population
The population of this study was the XI-grade students of MAN 1 Mataram.
2. Samples
The sample was 39 students from one class; XI MIPA 1 of MAN 1 Mataram.
Technique of Data Collection
In this study, one class was taken as a sample. The class was treated by using a
Jigsaw model. Before the teaching activity, the pre-test was given to the sample. In this
study, the material that was utilized was about unit 4; Environmental Awareness. In order
to conduct the pre-test, a narrative text was provided consisting of 5 paragraphs and the
students were given a time to prepare for an oral test. The author decided to make a text
in Indonesian Language in order to measure their ability in constructing a sentence into
English and assure that the students did not copy the same sentence from the text. The
oral test was held for the achievement of 5 criteria in speaking such as pronunciation,
grammatical range and accuracy, lexical resource and range, fluency and coherence &
interaction (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2004). After the pre-test, the class was taught using
the Jigsaw model as well as utilizing the material on the module to adjust the treatment
and the material that should be learned.
After the teaching process, a post-test was given by using an oral test. It was a
similar test to a pre-test. It aimed to find out whether or not the students’ speaking ability
was enhanced after applying the Jigsaw model. Finally, the result of the individual scores
between pretest and posttest scores was administered as the data of research.
Technique of Data Analysis
To analyze the data, the author used statistical analysis as the method for data
analysis following the data collection phase. Scoring classification involves the process
of organizing student scores into predefined categories. In this particular investigation,
Ilham Rahmatullah, Muhammad Amin, Dewi Satria Elmiana
Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 5, No. 5 May 2024 2414
students' scores are categorized into several groups, including excellent, very good, good,
satisfactorily, and poor based on the scoring rubric as follows:
Table 2. The classification of student scoring categorization from Brown &
Abeywickrama (2010).
No
Category
Rating
Score
1
Excellent
5
81 – 100
2
Very Good
4
71 – 80
3
Good
3
56 – 70
4
Satisfactorily
2
41 – 55
5
Poor
1
0 – 40
Results and Discussion
The Result of Pre-test and Post-test
In this section, the result of the pre-test and post-test, gathered from the speaking
measurement of class XI MIPA 1 student, were assessed and compared by applying a
scoring rubric adapted from Brown & Abeywickrama (2010). Once these scores were
calculated, they were subsequently categorized into several groups, including excellent,
very good, good, satisfactorily, and poor. The result of students’ speaking pre-test and
post-test showed in the tabulation score as follows:
Table 3. The result of the students’ pre-test and post-test score categories
No
Name
Scores
Categories
Pre-test
Post-test
Pre-test
Post-test
1
Student 1
32
48
Poor
Satisfactorily
2
Student 2
31
50
Poor
Satisfactorily
3
Student 3
57
56
Good
Good
4
Student 4
40
35
Poor
Poor
5
Student 5
69
80
Good
Very good
6
Student 6
60
71
Good
Very good
7
Student 7
40
42
Poor
Satisfactorily
8
Student 8
55
55
Satisfactorily
Satisfactorily
9
Student 9
60
75
Good
Very good
10
Student 10
65
69
Good
Good
11
Student 11
32
45
Poor
Satisfactorily
12
Student 12
55
53
Satisfactorily
Satisfactorily
13
Student 13
57
78
Good
Very good
14
Student 14
45
55
Satisfactorily
Satisfactorily
15
Student 15
45
69
Satisfactorily
Good
16
Student 16
65
78
Good
Very good
17
Student 17
40
65
Poor
Good
18
Student 18
45
50
Satisfactorily
Satisfactorily
The Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning-Jigsaw Model to Enhance Students’ Speaking
Ability: an Experimental Study at Xi Grade of MAN 1 Mataram
Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 5, No. 5 May 2024 2415
No
Name
Scores
Categories
Pre-test
Post-test
Pre-test
Post-test
19
Student 19
60
68
Good
Good
20
Student 20
35
65
Poor
Good
21
Student 21
38
78
Poor
Very good
22
Student 22
38
43
Poor
Satisfactorily
23
Student 23
40
50
Poor
Satisfactorily
24
Student 24
55
51
Satisfactorily
Satisfactorily
25
Student 25
67
55
Good
Satisfactorily
26
Student 26
50
72
Satisfactorily
Very good
27
Student 27
75
88
Very good
Excellent
28
Student 28
30
41
Poor
Satisfactorily
29
Student 29
46
55
Satisfactorily
Satisfactorily
30
Student 30
52
67
Satisfactorily
Good
31
Student 31
52
58
Satisfactorily
Good
32
Student 32
52
73
Satisfactorily
Very good
33
Student 33
40
65
Poor
Good
34
Student 34
38
75
Poor
Very good
35
Student 35
20
34
Poor
Poor
36
Student 36
45
68
Satisfactorily
Good
37
Student 37
51
55
Satisfactorily
Satisfactorily
38
Student 38
33
48
Poor
Satisfactorily
39
Student 39
46
61
Satisfactorily
Good
TOTAL
1866
2344
MAX
75
88
MIN
20
34
MEAN
47.84
60.10
STANDARD
DEVIATION
12.32
13.39
Table 4. The frequency and percentage of the students’ pre-test and post-test score
Pre-test
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
0-40
15
38.5
38.5
38.5
41-55
14
35.9
35.9
74.4
56-70
9
23.1
23.1
97.4
71-80
1
2.6
2.6
100.0
Total
39
100.0
100.0
Post-test
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
0-40
2
5.1
5.1
5.1
41-55
16
41.0
41.0
46.2
56-70
11
28.2
28.2
74.4
71-80
9
23.1
23.1
97.4
81-100
1
2.6
2.6
100.0
Total
39
100.0
100.0
Ilham Rahmatullah, Muhammad Amin, Dewi Satria Elmiana
Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 5, No. 5 May 2024 2416
Table 3 presents the result of pre-test and post-test along with the categorization.
In the pre-test, the lowest score was 20, the highest score was 75 and the mean score of
pre-test was 47.84. Also, there were 15 students that were categorized “poor”. In contrast
to the result of post-test in which the lowest score was 34, the highest score was 88, the
mean score of post-test was 60.10 and only 2 students were categorized “poor”, which
means there was a significant difference between pre-test and post-test score result.
Moreover, based on table 4 above, there were only 9 students who succeeded in
reaching the "good" category (namely 23.1% of the total sample) and only one student
who succeeded in reaching the "very good" category (only 2.6% of the sample), which
means there were only 25.7% from 100% sample succeeded to gain a good score. Also,
in the pre-test, there was no student that was able to reach "excellent" categories. In
contrast to the results of the post-test, there were 11 students who succeeded in achieving
the "good" category, 9 students achieved the "very good" category and 1 student
succeeded in achieving the "excellent" category which shows a significant improvement.
In the result of the post-test, the majority of the sample succeeded in passing the good
classification of the speaking ability, namely 53,9% from 100% of the sample.
The increase in the difference between the mean scores of the students on the pre-
test and post-test indicates preliminary results suggesting that the use of the Jigsaw model
in enhancing students’ speaking ability was effective. However, it is important to note
that these initial findings cannot be considered as conclusive results of the study.
Therefore, the author must proceed to conduct further analysis to obtain more
comprehensive and accurate results. To accomplish this, the author utilized a 2-tailed test
using the SPSS program to see the effectiveness of the Jigsaw in enhancing students’
speaking ability.
Normality Test
Prior to understanding the paired sample test, it is imperative to assess the data for
normality. The purpose of the normality test is to ascertain whether the data derived from
the students’ pre-test and post-test results were normally distributed or not.
Table 5. Normality Testing
Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
a
Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic
df
Sig.
Statistic
df
Sig.
Pretest
.097
39
.200
*
.988
39
.945
Posttest
.110
39
.200
*
.976
39
.544
According to the information provided in table 5, the significance value for all
data in both the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests exceed a > 0,05 which
means it can be inferred that the variance within the data were normally distributed.
Hypothesis Test
Based on the result of the data test by using Paired Sample T-test on SPSS Statistic
23 is as follows:
Table 6 Paired Sample T-test
The Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning-Jigsaw Model to Enhance Students’ Speaking
Ability: an Experimental Study at Xi Grade of MAN 1 Mataram
Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 5, No. 5 May 2024 2417
Paired Differences
t
df
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
Mean
99% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
Pair
1
Pretest
-
Posttest
-12.25641
10.60218
1.69771
-
16.85984
-
7.65298
-
7.219
38
.000
Where:
M: Mean
SD: Standard Deviation
SEM: Standard Error Mean
Sig: Significance
It can be seen from the output based on the table above, the result of statistics
using the Paired t-test, the significance (sig) = 0.000, that can be inferred that the value is
less than α (0.005). According to that value obtained, it can be concluded that the null
hypothesis (H0) is rejected, which means the alternative hypothesis is accepted. It was a
sign that the use of the Jigsaw model to enhance students’ speaking ability was effective
and there were significant differences in using the Jigsaw model in enhancing speaking
ability.
Descriptive Statistic
The following is a descriptive statistical table of the experimental group pretest
and post-test scores, which have been calculated using SPSS 23.
Table 7 Descriptive statistic pre-test and post-test
Descriptive Statistics of Pre-test
N
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Sum
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Variance
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Std.
Error
Statistic
Statistic
Pretest
39
55.00
20.00
75.00
1866.00
47.8462
1.97438
12.32998
152.028
Valid N
(listwise
)
39
Descriptive Statistics of Post-test
N
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Sum
Mean
Std.
Deviatio
n
Variance
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Std.
Error
Statistic
Statistic
Posttest
39
54.00
34.00
88.00
2344.00
60.1026
2.14482
13.39441
179.410
Ilham Rahmatullah, Muhammad Amin, Dewi Satria Elmiana
Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 5, No. 5 May 2024 2418
Valid N
(listwise
)
39
In the table above, there are 10 columns. Column N statistics shows the amount
of data processed; the statistical range is the difference between the data with the largest
value and the data with the smallest value; the minimum statistical value is the lowest
value of the entire data. The maximum statistic is the highest value of the entire data; the
sum statistical value is obtained from the total score of the experimental group pre-test or
post-test, and the mean shows the average pretest or post-test score of the experimental
group students.
Standard Deviation Statistics is used to determine the data distribution in a sample
and see how close the data is to the mean value. Variance statistics measures the variation
or statistical dispersion of data; the variance value is obtained by dividing the results of
the Sum of squares (Sum of squares) with data size (N).
Based on Table 7 above, the descriptive statistic of the pre-test, the total number
of the group was 39 students (N= 39), range score = 55.00, minimum score = 20.00, and
maximum score = 75.00. In addition, the total score or Sum = 1866.00, and the average
score of student learning outcomes mean 47.8462 with Std. The error of mean = 1.97438.
The total standard deviation is 12.32998, and the total data variance is 152.028.
For the descriptive statistics of the post-test shown in table 7, the total number of
the group was 39 students (N= 39), range score = 54.00, minimum score = 34.00, and
maximum score = 88.00. In addition, the total score or Sum = 2344.00, and the average
score of student learning outcomes mean 60.1026 with Std. The error of mean = 2.14482.
The total standard deviation is 13.39441, and the total data variance is 179.410.
Discussion
Several processes were carried out to maximize experimental research in
improving the speaking skills of class XI MIPA 1 MAN 1 Mataram students, such as; a
pre-test which aims to measure students' initial abilities, treatment which aims to apply
the Jigsaw model in learning and finally a post-test, to see whether there are a changes
that focus on the development of students' speaking abilities. In the treatment process, the
students did the activity in accordance with the processes selected such as; selecting
material, discussion with an expert group and home group, Q&A section and also
discussion.
In treatment, there were 4 meetings held. At the first meeting, students were
introduced to the Jigsaw learning model. The teacher divided students into small groups
and each group member was given a different part of the material to study. When
returning to their home groups, students were trained to share the information they had
learned. At this stage, most students were still awkward and lacked confidence in
speaking. They tend to read notes expressionlessly, with a limited vocabulary and often
repeating the same words. Grammatical errors were also common, indicating that they
still need time to adapt to the new learning format. Student engagement varied, with some
The Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning-Jigsaw Model to Enhance Students’ Speaking
Ability: an Experimental Study at Xi Grade of MAN 1 Mataram
Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 5, No. 5 May 2024 2419
students actively speaking, while others were more passive. Teachers force the students
to engage in learning activities by delivering a question and discussion.
By the second meeting, students were getting used to the Jigsaw format and
getting more opportunities to interact. Teachers rotated groups to ensure variety in
interactions between students. At this meeting, students' confidence in speaking
increased. They started to talk more without relying too much on notes and showed
initiative in expressing opinions and asking questions. There was increased engagement,
with more students actively participating. Their use of vocabulary and sentence structure
was also starting to improve, although there were still some grammatical errors.
The third meeting showed a more significant improvement in students' speaking
abilities. Students become more adept at sharing information and working together in
groups. They began to speak more fluently and use better intonation and facial
expressions. Engagement was almost even across all students, and they seemed more
enthusiastic in group discussions. Their vocabulary was more varied and grammatical
errors began to decrease. Students also start providing constructive feedback to their
peers, which helps correct mistakes collectively. At this stage, students were getting used
to conveying their ideas about a topic without referring to the text.
By the fourth meeting, students showed clear progress in their speaking abilities.
They appear more confident and able to speak. Even though there are still some students
who have errors in grammar and pronunciation, they still try to develop their skills
through discussion and collaboration activities. Discussions in groups become more
dynamic, with students interacting and working together more. The vocabulary used is
more diverse and structured compared to previous meetings. Grammatical errors became
less frequent, and when they arose, students were able to correct themselves or get help
from their peers. Students' involvement in speaking activities shows that the Jigsaw
learning model was effective in improving their speaking abilities. This is in line with the
previous statement from Aronson & Bridgeman (1979) in which students’ speaking
ability was enhanced because each student's part is essential for the completion and full
understanding of the final product, they used to speak and ask about the material actively
and intensively that made their progress developed.
Finally, this study used 2-tailed to measure the increase since the author did not
yet know whether using Jigsaw is effective in enhancing speaking ability or not before
the treatment. Analysis of the findings shows that the sig(significance) value was less
than 0.005, concluding the effectiveness of using the Jigsaw model in enhancing
speaking ability. The use of Jigsaw influences students' involvement in speaking and
increases their communication skills as indicated by significant differences in pre-test
and post-test scores seen from the mean and also the majority of the sample succeeded
in reaching a good category. Therefore, it can be concluded that the use of the Jigsaw
learning model can enhance students' speaking ability at XI MIPA 1 of MAN 1 Mataram
especially when the students have problems such as lack of confidence and tend to
memorize the text which makes them unable to speak and develop.
Ilham Rahmatullah, Muhammad Amin, Dewi Satria Elmiana
Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 5, No. 5 May 2024 2420
Conclusion
In conducting this research, it is necessary to know the effectiveness of the Jigsaw
model to enhance students’ speaking ability in MAN 1 Mataram that can be utilized as a
reference to solve the same issue especially related to speaking. This study's research
design was the Pre-experimental. This research design aims to determine the effectiveness
of the Jigsaw model in enhancing students’ speaking ability that can be seen by analyzing
data. Data were analyzed using SPSS Statistics 23.
Based on the research data, it was found that there was an increase after the
students were given treatment. In the pre-test, there were only 9 students who succeeded
in reaching the "good" category (namely 23.1% of the total sample) and only one student
who succeeded in reaching the "very good" category (only 2.6% of the sample), which
means there were only 25.7% from 100% sample succeeded to gain a good score. Also,
in the pre-test, there was no student that was able to reach "excellent" categories. In
contrast to the results of the post-test, there were 11 students who succeeded in achieving
the "good" category, 9 students achieved the "very good" category and 1 student
succeeded in achieving the "excellent" category which shows a significant improvement.
In the result of the post-test, the majority of the sample succeeded in passing the good
classification of the score, namely 53,9% from 100% of the sample. Based on the results
of hypothesis testing using the Paired T-Test, the Sig is known, namely 0.000 < α (0.005),
which means the Null Hypothesis is rejected and the Alternative Hypothesis (Ha) is
accepted. Therefore, the Jigsaw model is effective in enhancing students’ speaking
ability.
In conclusion, the study demonstrated the effectiveness of the Jigsaw model in
enhancing students' speaking abilities at MAN 1 Mataram. Employing a pre-experimental
research design and analyzing data using SPSS Statistics 23, the research found
significant improvements in students' speaking performance after applying the Jigsaw
model. Pre-test results showed that only 25.7% of students had achieved a "good" or
higher score, with none reaching the "excellent" category. In contrast, post-test results
revealed a substantial increase, with 53.9% of students attaining at least a "good" score,
including notable gains in the "very good" and "excellent" categories. Hypothesis testing
using the Paired T-Test further confirmed the model's effectiveness, with a Sig value of
0.000 < α (0.005), leading to the rejection of the Null Hypothesis and acceptance of the
Alternative Hypothesis. Consequently, the Jigsaw model proved to be an effective
method for improving students' speaking skills.
The Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning-Jigsaw Model to Enhance Students’ Speaking
Ability: an Experimental Study at Xi Grade of MAN 1 Mataram
Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 5, No. 5 May 2024 2421
Bibliography
Adawiyah, Azza Rabiatul, Baharuddin, Baharuddin, Wardana, Lalu Ali, & Farmasari,
Santi. (2023). Comparing post-editing translations by Google not and Yandex not.
TEKNOSASTIK, 21(1), 23–34.
Aronson, E., & Bridgeman, D. (1979). Jigsaw groups and the desegregated classroom: In
pursuit of common goals. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 5(4), 438-
446.
Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2004). Language assessment. Principles and
Classroom Practices. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education, 20.
Brown, H. Douglas, & Abeywickrama, Priyanvada. (2010). Language assessment:
Principles and classroom practices (Vol. 10). Pearson Education White Plains, NY.
Febiyanti, Deswinta, Wibawa, I. Made Citra, & Arini, Ni Wayan. (2020). Model
Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Jigsaw Berbantuan Mind Mapping Berpengaruh
terhadap Keterampilan Berbicara. Mimbar Ilmu, 25(2), 282–294.
Namaziandost, Ehsan, Homayouni, Mina, & Rahmani, Pegah. (2020). The cooperative
learning approach's impact on EFL learners’ speaking fluency. Cogent Arts &
Humanities, 7(1), 1780811.
Nurhairati, Nurhairati, Thohir, Lalu, & Arafiq, Arafiq. (2021). The Online Learning And
Students'motivation In Learning English: A Case Study At Sman 1 Dompu In
Academic Year 2020/2021. Journal of English Education Forum (JEEF), 1(2), 40–
47.
Nurhalizah, Putri, Sujana, I. Made, & Wardana, Lalu Ali. (2021). Mind Mapping
Technique To Improve Students' Speaking Ability In Retelling Narrative Story.
Journal of English Education Forum (JEEF), 1(2), 48–54.
Pangestika, Rintis Rizkia, & Ratnaningsih, Arum. (2018). Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran
Kooperatif Tipe Jigsaw Pada Kemampuan Public Speaking Mahasiswa PGSD.
EDUKASI: Jurnal Pendidikan, 10(1).
Sari, A. Anditha. (2017). Dasar-dasar public relations teori dan praktik. Deepublish.
Sukarta, I. Nyoman, & Gunamantha, I. Made. (2012). Pembelajaran kooperatif tipe
jigsaw dalam mata kuliah teknologi air dan pengolahan limbah industri. Jurnal
Cakrawala Pendidikan, (1).
Suwartono, Tono, Eka Pertiwi, Wijiasih, & Nurhayati, Nurhayati. (2020). How tertiary
EFL learners dealt with problems in oral communication in the target language—
International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 29(4).
