a Students who have low academic ability will indirectly
depends on students who have high academic ability. b
There is no competition between groups. c
Some of the members of the group are passive and do not want to try to be active, they just rely on their friends in group.
d If the classroom management that is done by the teacher is not
good, the learning process is also not going well. e
If this model is a new learning model that is already known, the students may be feel confused, some of them was lost their
self-confidence, and the other were disturbing their friends in group.
B. Relevant Researches
1. Research conducted by Ika Budiarti 2013 which is entitled
“Implementasi Model Cooperative Learning Tipe TAI Team Accelerated Instruction dalam Peningkatan Aktivitas dan Hasil Belajar Siswa pada
Kompetensi Dasar Menyusun Laporan Keuangan Perusahaan Jasa pada Siswa Kelas X Ak 4 Program Keahlian Akuntansi SMK YPKK 2 Sleman
Tahun Ajaran 20122013 ”. The results of this research showed an
increase in students learning outcomes in cycle I and cycle II. This is shown in the average score of the pre-test and post test on the first cycle
which increased by 16.55 from 69.31 to 85.86. Similarly, the average score of the pre-test and post-test on the second cycle increased
by 18.69 from 73.72 to 92.41. In addition, the increase also occurred in the percentage of students learning activities from 55.00 in
the first cycle to 78.20 in the second cycle. The similarity of research conducted by Ika Budarti with this research lies in the learning model that
is used and the subject of research, namely accounting learning activities. But besides accounting learning activity, Ika Budiarti also took subject of
accounting learning outcomes. While the difference lies in the object, time, and place of study.
2. Research conducted by Dian Ayu Larasati 2013 entitled “Implementasi
Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Team Accelerated Instruction TAI untuk Meningkatkan Interaksi Belajar Akuntansi Siswa Kelas X AK 1
SMK Batik Perbaik Purworejo Tahun Ajaran 20122013 ”. The results of
this research showed an increase in students accounting learning interaction from 69.94 in the first cycle to 84.05 in the second cycle.
The improvement of students accounting learning interaction is 14.11. The similarity of this research with the research conducted by Dian Ayu
Larasati is the learning model that is used. While the difference is on the subject, object, time, and place of study.
3. Research conducted by Nuansa Ayu Febrina 2012 entitled “Peningkatan
Aktivitas Belajar Akuntansi melalui Implementasi Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Student Teams Achievement Divisions STAD pada
Siswa Kelas X Akuntansi 3 Program Keahlian Akuntansi SMK Batik Perbaik Purworejo Tahun Ajaran 20112012
”. The results showed that
there is an increase in all of the indicators of accounting learning activity, from cycle I to cycle II of 16.88 from 73.89 in the first cycle to
90.77 in the second cycle. The similarity between the research conducted by Nuansa Ayu Febriana with this research lies in the research
subject, namely the accounting learning activity. While the difference is located on an object, the learning model that is used, time, and place of
study. 4.
Research conducted by Herlina Permatasari 2012 entitled “Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe TAI Team Assisted
Individualization untuk Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar Akuntansi Siswa Kelas XI Ak 1 SMK Abdi Negara Muntilan Tahun Ajaran 20122013
”. The results of this research showed an increase in learning outcomes of
cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domain of the cycle I and cycle II. This is shown by an increase in students learning outcomes of cognitive
domain by 21.20 in the first cycle with the average score of 68.62 in the pre-test and 89.82 in the post-test, as well as the percentage obtained
by classical completeness is 93.11 followed by the improvement of students learning outcomes in the affective and psychomotor domains
with classical average score of 84.17 and 79.17. In addition, an increase in cognitive learning outcomes also occurred on the second cycle
that is equal to 7.66 with an average score of pre-test 80.67 and 88.33 in the post-test, then obtained classical percentage of 83.33
followed by the improvement of students learning outcomes in the
affective and psychomotor domains with the classical average of 90.56. The similarity of the research conducted by Herlina Permatasari with this
research lies in the learning model that is used. While the difference lies in the subject, object, time, and place of study.
C. Research Framework
