Teaching Personal Social Responsibility and Cooperative Learning
Models on the Students Responsibility in Physical Education
Dupri Dupri and Rices Jatra
Prodi Penjaskesrek, Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Islam Riau
Keywords: Physical Education.
Abstract: The purpose of this research is to determine the effect of Teaching Personal Social Responsibility with
Cooperative Learning Model in improving student's responsibility on learning Physical education. The
method used in this research was Quasi Eksperiment with nonequivalent control group design. The
sampling technique was cluster random sampling. The intrument for collecting the data was responsibility
questionnaires and the data was analyzed using Paired Samples Test and Independent Samples Test. The
result showed that there is significant influence of Teaching Personal Social Responsibility model on
students’ responsibility and there is also significant influence of Cooperative Learning on students’
responsibility and there is significant difference between Teaching Personal Social Responsibility and
Cooperative Learning models in improving students’ responsibility in physical education.
1 INTRODUCTION
There has been a great development in the affective
domain of physical education learning, To mention,
there are Teaching Personal Social Responsibility
(TPSR) from Hellison (2003), physical education
model from Siedentop (2004), Cooperative learning
from Dyson (2001), Teaching Values from Lumpkin
(2008) and Teaching Respect from Sellect (2006)
and so on.
One of the character building at schoo is through
physical education. In learning physical education at
school also inculcates the same value as said from
some literature, there are at least six moral values
that need to be possessed by individuals, namely:
respect, responsibility (Lickona, 1991); caring,
honesty (YMCA of the USA, 2004); fairness, and
citizenship (Martens, 2004).
Teaching Personal Social Responsibility model
was designed by Donald Hellison in the 1970s, with
the aim of making youth with the risk of social
exclusion experience support and development of
their personal and social responsibility skills both in
sports and in life (Escartí et al. 2005; Hellison et al.,
2000; Hellison, 2011).
Relating to the ffectiveness of Teaching Personal
Social Responsibility model that may change
attitudes and responsibilities. previous studies have
found that Teaching Personal Social Responsibility
model cantributed to children and yout positive
development (responsibility, social skill, social
environment status development and etc) Caballero,
Delgado, Escartí. (2013:433). In terms of helping
others, teamwork and cooperation (key elements of
social responsibility), improvements have been
identified in several studies (Georgiadis, 1990;
Hayden, 2010; Hayden et al., 2012; Martinek et al.,
1999, 2001; Mulaudzi , 1995; Schilling, 2001;
Walsh, 2007).
Based on the some literatures, the learning model
that is considered to develop the students' stages,
among others, is a cooperative learning model. This
is in accordance with the opinion of Cotton 2001; in
Exquisitw Learning, 2001: 2 which suggests that
some class strategies and program designs are likely
to improve responsibility and pro-social behavior.
Cotton's recommended activity that can be united as
part of learning in Exquisite Learning is cooperative
learning. Through cooperative learning, students
work with other group members with different races,
gender and learning competences. As a result,
students gave more respects to other and have more
responsibilities in their learning. Students can also
develop more experienced skill to view from other
people’s perspective.
The level of attitude development in Teaching
Personal Social Responsibility model is Level 1:
Respect, Level 2: Participation and Effort, Level 3:
Self-direction, Level 4: Caring and Helping Each
Other, Level 5: Outside Of the Gym (Hellison,
2011).
Dupri, D. and Jatra, R.
Teaching Personal Social Responsibility and Cooperative Learning Models on the Students Responsibility in Physical Education.
In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education (ICSSHPE 2017) - Volume 1, pages 239-242
ISBN: 978-989-758-317-9
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
239

The Cooverative Learning model always meets
the five conditions of Cooverative scenes: 1)
positive dependence, 2) student interaction, 3)
individual and group responsibilities, 4)
interpersonal relationship skills, and 5) group
processing (Roger and David in Rusman, 2012: 212)
2 METHODS
The method used in this study was quasi
experimental. The treatment administered to the
research sample includes:
Group A was the group that use Teaching
Personal Social Responsibility model and Group B
was with Cooperative Learning.
The research design was Quasi Experimental
design with Nonequivalent control group which is
almost similar to pretest-posttest control group
design. in this case, the control and experimental
groups were not selected randomly. The decision in
choosing the current design was that each group was
determined based on its own characteristics. As a
result, this study fails to be a true experimental study
which in turn has led this study to be Nonequivalent
control group design. Teaching Personal Social
Responsibility and cooperative learning model were
the independent variables and responsility as the
dependent variable.
The population of the study was the students of
SMA Pintar Teluk Kuantan consisting of: The
sample is described in table 1.
Table 1. The research sample distribution.
No Class
Gender
Total
M F
1 X A 15 10 25
2 X B 12 13 25
Total 27 23 50
The instrument of this study was questionnaire in
the forms of likert-scale statements. After the
validity and reliability test, the total number of
statement used was 43 statement. T test analysisi
using Excel and SPSS 20 was used to perform the t
test in order to analyze the difference between
independent and dependent variables.
3 RESULTS
Table 2: Paired Sampel Test Model Teaching Personal
Social Responsibility.
Mean t df
Sig. (2
tailed)
Corel
ation
Pretest-
Posttest
4.36 9.842 24 .000 .959
From the descriptive statistics, the means score
in Teaching Personal Social Responsibility model
group was higher than the experimental group. The
means score on the experimental class posttest is
117,680 while the means in the Pretest Teaching
Personal Social Responsibility model is 113.320. It
means that there are different students’
responsibility before and after the implementation of
Teaching Personal Social Responsibility model in
physical education learning.
On the other hand, the result from paired sample
test is described in table 2 stating that the
significance value was 0.000 which is lower than α =
0.05. The result indicatesd that there is a
Responsibility improvement in the students as a
result of the implementation of Teaching Personal
Social Responsibility model.
While to prove Teaching Personal Social
Responsibility model influence students’
responsibility, It can be seen in column correlation
Table 2. The value is 0.959 with sig. 0.000 and the
influence is 91.9% so the conclusion is that H0 is
rejected. There is significant influence of TPSR
model on student responsibility attitude through
physical education.
Table 3: Paired Sampel Test Cooverative Learning Model.
Mean t df
Sig. (2
tailed)
Corel
ation
Pretest-
Posttest
1.96
4.43
9
24 .000 .807
From the descriptive statistics, the means score
in Cooperative Learning model group was higher
than the experimental group. The means score of
Cooperative Learning model posttest was 111,320
and the means for the pretest was 111,360. It means
that there is a responsibility difference as a result of
the implementation of Cooperative Learning model
in physical education.
On the other hand, the result from paired sample
test is described in table 3 stating that the
significance value was 0.000 which is lower than α =
0.05. The result indicatesd that there is a
Responsibility improvement in the students as a
ICSSHPE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education
240

result of the implementation of Cooperative
Learning model.
While to prove Teaching Personal Social
Responsibility model influence students’
responsibility, It can be seen in column correlation
Table 3. The value is 0.807 with sig. 0.000 and the
influence is 65.12% so the conclusion is that H0 is
rejected. There is significant influence of
Cooperative Learning model on student
responsibility attitude through physical education.
Table 4: Paired Sampel Test Cooverative Learning Model.
F Sig t df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
9.034 .004 4.122 48 .000
The result of the Independent Samples test in
table 4 showed that the gain of Teaching Personal
Social Responsibility and Cooperative Learning
models was 0,000 The (sig.) was 0,000 and α = 0,05.
The sig. value was higher than α = 0,05. It means
that Ha was accepted and H0 was rejected. It can be
concluded that there is significant difference
between TPSR and Cooperative learning model in
improving students’ responsibility in physical
education.
The descriptive statistic indicates that the means
of Teaching Personal Social Responsibility model
outscore that of cooperative learning. It leads to the
conclusion that Ha was accepted Further, it can be
concluded that Teaching Personal Social
Responsibility model outperformed Cooperative
Learning in improving students’ responsibility in
physical education.
4 DISCUSSION
The finding of the study has revealed that students’
responsibility with Teaching Personal Social
Responsibility model outperformed those with
cooperative learning model. As a result, Teaching
Personal Social Responsibility model may be used
as an alternative learning model in physical
education in order to improve students’ resonsibility.
Character building is not a process of discovering a
variety of settings and good qualities, but a process
that requires changes in cognitive structure and
stimulation of the social environment (Martens,
2004; Lickona, 1991 in Winarni 2012: 265). This
result is also in line with the assertion that a person's
character is formed not only because it mimics
through observation, but can also be taught through
sporting situations, exercises, and physical activities
(Weinberg and Gould, 2003: 533). Thus,
participating in sporting activities does not in itself
constitute individual values as the views of the
theory of internalization, but what are regarded as
the values of the characters must be organized,
constructed and transformed into the basic structure
of the reasoning of the individuals who participate in
it (Strornes and Ommundsen, 2004 ; Stuntz and
Weiss, 2003 in Winarni, 2012: 266).
Some research shows that young leaders, among
other aspects, increase their own likelihood of
confidence, improve their social skills and ability to
help others, acquire skills to resolve conflicts,
increase motivation to continue learning and to
continue training they acquired the didactic
experience to teach and apply the Teaching Model
Personal Social Responsibility (Cutforth and
Puckett, 1999; Hammond-Diedrich and Walsh,
2006; Martinek et al., 2001, 2006; Schilling et al.
2007; Walsh, 2007, 2008) in (Caballero and Escartí
2013: 433). Along the same line, Caballero, (2012):
Escart'et al, (2010b); Llopis-goig et al, (2011);
Pascual et al,(2011) a; Vizcarra, (2004) said that the
hellison model is also capable of developing the
development of autonomy, empathy and social
skills.
Teaching Personal Social Responsibility model
is actually a model that initially developed personal
and social responsibility. The phenomenon of
research findings that occur among current students
is the disfusion of responsibility. For example, when
students are instructed to strap the ropes on the net
of the volley and attach the hoop to the rope.
Actually, two people were willing to do, despite the
fact that 34 students were in the class. Lack of help
is attributed to the diffusion of responsibilities. The
fact that there are many people who potentially help
there encourages individuals to feel the loss of
personal responsibility (Rogers and Eftimiades,
1995; Rosenthal, 2008 in (Feldman, 2012: 384).
Another study in the cooperative model has
demonstrated the effectiveness of physical education
packed with individual, competitive and cooperative
objectives in measuring the four components of
physical fitness and social interaction in children
(Grineski, 1996). This study showed that students
who participated in cooperative groups showed an
increase in physical fitness and showed higher levels
of positive social interaction of students who
participated in individual and group groups. In
another study, co-operative physical education
activity resulted in more positive social interaction
than individual activity in children 8-12 years with
emotional irregularities and behavior (Grineski,
Teaching Personal Social Responsibility and Cooperative Learning Models on the Students Responsibility in Physical Education
241

1996). Similarly, yoder (1983, in Grineski, 1996)
reported using cooperative learning in dance can
enhance group work, social interaction and learning
for all.
5 CONCLUSIONS
Character building on students through physical
education learning needs an appropriate strategy in
applying the process in situ. This research found that
Teaching Personal Social Responsibility and
Cooperative Learning Models are able to improve
student's responsibility attitude but in this case
Teaching Personal Social Responsibility Model is
better in improving student responsibility.
REFERENCES
Caballero, Delgado, Escartí. 2013. Analysis of Teaching
Personal and Social Responsibility model-based
programmes applied in USA and Spain. Journal of
Human Sport & Exercise.
Escarti A, Pascual C, Gutiƒrrez M. 2005. Responsabilidad
personal y social a traves de laeducaci—n f’sica y el
deporte. Barcelona: Gra.
Feldman Robert S. 2012. Pengantar Psikologi
Undestending. Psikologi. Jakarta.
Weinberg and Gould, 2003. Foundation of Sport and
Exercise Phsychology, 3nd Edition. Champaigh, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Georgiadis, N. 1990. Does basketball have to be all W's
and L's? An alternative program at a residential boys'
home. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and
Dance, 8, 42-43.
Grineski, Steve. 1996. Cooperative Learning In Physical
Education. Champaiga Illinois. Human Kinetics.
Hellison D. 2011. Teaching responsibility through
physical activity (3er ed.). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Hellison DR. 2003. Teaching Personal and Social
Responsibility Through Physical Activity. Second Edi.
Champaign: Human Kinetics.
Lickona, T. 1992. Educating For Character, How Our
Schools Can Teach Respect and Responsibility. New
York: Bantam Books.
Martinek, T., McLaughlin, D., Schilling, T. 1999. Project
Effort: teaching responsibility beyond the gym.
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance,
70, 59-65.
Marten, R. 2004. Successful Coaching. USA: Human
Kinetic
Rusman. 2012. Model-Model Pembelajaran. Jakarta: PT.
Raja Grafindo Persada.
Siedentop, D. 2004. Sport Education, Quality PE Through
Positive Sport Experience. USA: Human Kinetics.
Winarni Sri, 2012. Model Cooperative dan Individual
Learning dalam Pendidikan Jasmani untuk
Mengembangkan Empati dan Toleransi. Bandung.
UPI
Walsh, D. 2007. Supporting youth development outcomes:
An evaluation of a responsibility modelbased program.
The Physical Educator, 64, 48-56.
YMCA of the USA, 2004.
ICSSHPE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education
242