DIFFERENCES IN USING THE TWO STAY TWO STRAY AND JIGSAW MODELS ON THE ABILITY OF WRITING EXPLANATION TEXTS FOR CLASS XI STUDENTS OF SMA PERBEDAAN PENGGUNAAN MODEL TWO STAY TWO STRAY DAN JIGSAW TERHADAP KEMAMPUAN MENULIS TEKS EKSPLANASI SISWA KELAS XI SMA

This research aims to describe the following. First, the ability to write explanation texts for class XI SMA Negeri 13 Padang students who are taught using the Two Stay Two Stray model. Second, the ability to write explanation texts for class XI SMA Negeri 13 Padang students who are taught using the Jigsaw model. Third, the difference in the ability to write explanation texts for class XI students of SMA Negeri 13 Padang who are taught using the Two Stay Two Stray and Jigsaw models. This type of research is quantitative with experimental methods in the form of quasi-experimental research. This research uses the Non-equivalent Control Group Design. Sampling was done by using simple random sampling technique. In this study, class XI IPA 2 was assigned as the experimental class I, which consisted of 26 people and class XI IPS 1 as the experimental class II, which consisted of 27 people. Data were collected by using an explanatory text writing performance test. The results of this study are as follows. First, the ability to write explanation texts for class XI SMA Negeri 13 Padang students taught using the Two Stay Two Stray model is 83,6. Second, the ability to write explanation texts for class XI SMA Negeri 13 Padang students who are taught using the Jigsaw model is 81,2. Third, there is no significant difference in the ability to write explanation texts of class XI SMA Negeri 13 Padang students who are taught with Two Stay Two Stray and Jigsaw models.. Keywords; Two Stay Two Stray, Jigsaw, Explanation Text Abstract Journal of Asian Studies: Culture, Language, Art and Communications Vol 2 No 1 (2021) (30-41)Journal of Asian Studies: Culture, Language, Art and Communications Vol 2 No 1 (2021) (30-41) Journal of Asian Studies: Culture, Language, Art and Communications Journal Homepage: https://journal.haqipub.com/index.php/jas/index


INTRODUCTION
In the 2013 Curriculum, the development of the Indonesian language curriculum uses a text-based language learning approach. Through this approach, students are expected to be able to produce and use texts according to their social goals and functions. Indonesian is taught not only as knowledge of the language, but as a text that carries out the function of being a source of self-actualization for its users in an academic socio-cultural context. The Indonesian language learning method at the junior high, high school, and vocational school levels consists of four stages, namely: 1) building context, 2) text modeling, 3) making texts together, and 4) making texts independently. In this case, students are required to be able to produce or write text appropriately.
One type of text that must be written by the rest of the class XI in senior high school students is explanation text. This is found in the 2013 Curriculum for class XI SMA/MA at KI-4 "Mengolah, menalar, dan menyaji dalam ranah konkret dan ranah abstrak terkait dengan pengembangan dari yang dipelajarinya di sekolah secara mandiri, bertindak secara efektif dan kreatif, serta mampu menggunakan metoda sesuai kaidah keilmuan" and KD 4.4 "Memproduksi teks eksplanasi secara lisan atau tulis dengan memerhatikan struktur dan kebahasaan". Explanation text is a text that explains the process of natural occurrence of a series of events and social events. According to Budi (2017:67), explanation is a text that contains processes related to natural, social, scientific, cultural, and other phenomena. Priyatni (2014:82) say, explanation text is a text that contains an explanation of processes related to natural, social, scientific, cultural, and other phenomena. An explanation text comes from the author's questions related to "why" and "how" a phenomenon occurs.
The explanation text has the following structure. First, Identify the phenomenon, this section contains the identification of something that is explained. This can be in the form of natural, social, cultural phenomena, and others. Second, describing a series of events, detailing the process of events that are relevant to the phenomena described as statements of 'how' or 'why'. Third, the review is in the form of comments or judgments about the consequences of the events described previously. The linguistic features of the explanation text are as follows. First, using conjunctions or connecting words that have chronological meaning. Second, using of causal conjunctions (Mulyadi et al, 2016:241). Students are required to be able to write explanation texts by paying attention to the structure and characteristics of this language.
However, there are problems with students' ability to write explanation texts. Based on observations made on exposition texts written by class XI students of SMA Negeri 13 Padang, it was found that most of the students were not able to write explanation texts. Students have not been able to understand the structure and linguistic features of the explanation text. This is also stated by Tarigan (2018:124) that Indonesian language learning material for writing explanation texts is classified as serious material and quite difficult for high school students because firstly, writing has not become a student habit so that students have difficulty when starting writing and developing writing into complete writing. This also has something to do with the level of students' interest in reading. Second, Explanation text writing material is non-fiction writing material that is very much bound to the rules of writing so students must be careful in writing. This different from writing literature, this seems looser to the rules of writing. Third, the explanation text must pay attention to the structure and linguistic features. This third point is the most important point because it is the structure and linguistic features that distinguish explanation texts from other texts.
Writing an explanation text is definitely not an easy matter. A person must be able to know the process of occurrence or formation of a natural or social phenomenon that is around him. For students who are just learning, writing an explanation text is certainly not an easy thing. They have to gather facts about the events they are going to write about. The quality of the explanation texts they write depends on the accuracy of the facts collected and the language rules used. Based on the results of observations made by Apriyani (2019:61) that at MAN 6 Tasikmalaya, learning to write explanation texts has not been able to be fully mastered by students.
One of the reasons why students have not been able to write explanation texts well is the teacher's selection of learning models/methods/techniques. Teacher-centered learning makes students less motivated to express their ideas in writing. The same thing is also stated by Jumadi (2021:243) that the low learning outcomes of writing explanation texts is due to the lack of effectiveness of the learning process in the classroom. Another factor is the low learning motivation of students. Indications of a lack of student activity, namely students are afraid to ask questions, the presentation of the material is not interesting. This is also supported by the statement of Dirman, et al (2019:252) that the cause of the low student learning outcomes is due to the dominance of the conventional learning process. When carrying out learning to write explanation texts, the classroom atmosphere tends to be teacher centered, causing students to be mostly silent (passive) and less active in asking and answering questions. Therefore, teachers need to choose a learning model that is suitable for the character of students so that learning objectives are achieved. This is in line with Zein's opinion (2016:277-278) that a teacher can choose which method is appropriate to use, considering its advantages and disadvantages, Learning models that can be chosen by teachers in learning to write explanation texts are Two Stay Two Stray and Jigsaw. The Two Stay Two Stray model is a cooperative learning model that provides opportunities for groups to share results and information with other groups. Learning with the Two Stay Two Stray model begins with group division after the group is formed the teacher gives assignments in the form of problems that they must discuss the answers to (Suprijono, 2012:92).
According to Siregar (2019:208), the Two Stay Two Stray model is a group learning system with the aim that students can work together, be responsible, help each other solve problems, and encourage each other to excel. This model also trains students to socialize well. Learning with this model begins with group division. After the group is formed, the teacher distributes tasks in the form of problems that they must discuss the answers to.
The Two Stay Two Stray learning model is expected to foster student activity. By using the Two Stay Two Stray model, it is easier for the teacher to convey the material because students have already looked for material related to the teacher's explanation. This learning model also divides the roles of students well. After they work together in their respective groups, they have to divide the tasks as the stay and stray parties. Two students who stay are tasked with sharing the results of their group work to two guests who come, while two students who are stray are tasked with finding additional information to solve the problems they face, in this case completing the tasks given by the teacher (Anizar, 2020:4). This is also stated by Tatalia (2020:27) that the two stay two stray model can be used on materials that require a high level of understanding. This is based on the freedom given to more intensive discussions between group members or between members of one group and another. Based on the results of research conducted by Murtanti (2020:9) the two stay two stray learning model can be used to improve the exposition writing skills of students in class X TAV-2 at SMK Negeri 3 Semarang. Improvements after action include process improvements and product improvements.
According to Huda (2015:42) the Two Stay Two Stray learning model, students are required to have responsibility and be active in every learning activity. This learning allows students to share information with other groups. Agreeing with Huda, Damayanti (2008:91) also uses the student-centered Two Stay Two Stray model, to obtain information it is necessary to have active activities for each student during the learning process and the teacher as a facilitator using the Two Stay Two Stray type cooperative learning model will direct students to be active, both in discussions, question and answer, look for answers, explain and also listen to the material explained by friends. This kind of learning makes students actively participate in the learning process, so that students can understand the material well which will affect their learning outcomes.
In addition to the Two Stay Two Stray model, the teacher can also choose the Jigsaw model in learning to write explanation texts. Jigsaw is a type of cooperative learning that encourages students to be active and help each other in mastering the subject matter to achieve maximum achievement. This is in line with the opinion of Slavin (2009:237-245) who stated that in Jigsaw developed by Elliot Aronson and his colleagues in 1978, students read different passages from those read by their teammates. It is useful to help "experts" master unique information. In addition, in Jigsaw learning, each student must help each other and appreciate the contribution of each member.
According to Lie (2003:73), the jigsaw model is a cooperative learning model in which students learn in small groups consisting of four to six people heterogeneously and students work together in positive interdependence and are responsible independently. Through this jigsaw cooperative model, students have many opportunities to express opinions and process the information obtained and can improve communication skills, group members are responsible for the success of their group and the completeness of the material being studied and can convey information to other groups (Kurbani, et al. 2015:3). Based on the results of research conducted by Andrika, et al (2016:276) that the Jigsaw model is one type of cooperative learning that encourages students to be active and help each other in mastering the subject matter to achieve maximum achievement. Based on these problems, it is necessary to conduct research that aims to describe the the difference in the ability to write explanation texts for class XI students of SMA Negeri 13 Padang taught by the Two Stay Two Stray and Jigsaw models

METHODS
The type of this research is quantitative research with quasi-experimental research method. This study uses the Non-equivalent Control Group Design because in this study, there were two groups who were given a pre-test, then given treatment, and given a post-test (Sugiyono, 2010:53). The population of this study was all students of class XI SMA N 13 Padang in the 2020/2021 academic year. The total populations in this study were 218 people spread over 8 classes. In this study, students were grouped into two groups, namely the experimental class I and the experimental class II. The experimental class I was taught using the Two Stay Two Stray model and the experimental class II was taught using the Jigsaw model. Furthermore, in both classes, the same learning materials and tests were given. After testing the normality and homogeneity of the research population, class XI IPA 2 was selected as the experimental class I, which consisted of 26 people and class XI IPS 1 as the experimental class II, which amounted to 27 people, because the two classes were normal and homogeneous classes. In addition, the two classes also have relatively the same average value. The data collection instrument used was a performance test of writing explanation text. The indicators set for the assessment of writing an explanation text are the structure and linguistic features of the explanation text. The structure of the explanation text consists of: identification of phenomena, descriptions of series of events, and reviews, while the linguistic features of explanatory texts consist of chronological conjunctions and causal conjunctions. The steps taken to analyze the data are as follows. First, the description of the data. Second, testing requirements analysis which includes the normality test with the Liliefors test, and the homogeneity test with the Harley test (F-Test). Third, hypothesis testing is done by using the t-test formula.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Based on the results of data analysis, two types of data were obtained, namely pretest data and posttest data in the experimental class I and the experimental class II. For pretest data in the experimental class I, the highest score obtained by students was 86,7 and the lowest was 40. These values can be grouped into 7 groups which can be seen in the following table. Based on the table, it can be described as follows. First, the value of 40 was obtained by 2 students (7,7%). Second, the value of 53,3 was obtained by 4 students (15,4%). Third, the value of 60 was obtained by 7 students (26,9%). Fourth, the value of 66,7 was obtained by 4 students (15,4%). Fifth, the value of 73,3 was obtained by 5 students (15,4%). Sixth, the value of 80 was obtained by 3 students (11,5%). Seventh, the value of 86,7 was obtained by 1 student (3,8%). Thus, the average value of the students' ability to write explanation texts in the experimental class I for the pre-test was 64,4 with a standard deviation is 11,8.
For pre-test data in experimental class II, the highest value obtained by students was 86,7 and the lowest was 33,3. These values can be grouped into 9 groups which can be seen in the following table. Based on the table, the data is described as follows. First, the value of 33,3 was obtained by 1 student (3,7%). Second, the value of 40 was obtained by 1 student (3,7%). Third, the value of 46,7 was obtained by 1 student (3,7%). Fourth, the value of 46,7 was obtained by 1 student (3,7%). Fifth, the value of 60 was obtained by 4 students (14,8%). Sixth, the value of 66,7 was obtained by 5 students (18,5%). Seventh, the value of 73,3 was obtained by 6 students (22,2%). Eighth, the value of 80 was obtained by 4 students (14,8%). Ninth, the score of 86,7 was obtained by 1 student (3,7%). Thus, the average value of the students' ability to write explanation texts in the experimental class II for the pre-test was 64,9 with a standard deviation is 13. After obtaining the initial data (pre-test), then the treatment was carried out in each experimental class. The experimental class I was taught using the Two Stay Two Stray model and the experimental class II was taught using the Jigsaw model. After that, a final test (posttest) was carried out with the following results. For the experimental class I, the students' ability to write explanation texts was the highest 100 and the lowest was 60. These scores can be grouped into 7 groups, which can be seen in the following table. Based on the table, the data is described as follows. First, value of 60 was obtained by 1 student (3,8%). Second, the value of 66,7 was obtained by 3 students (11,5%). Third, the value of 73,3 was obtained by 2 students (7,7%). Fourth, value of 80 was obtained by 4 students (15,4%). Fifth, the value of 86,7 was obtained by 8 students (30,8%). Sixth, the value of 93,3 was obtained by 7 students (26,9%). Seventh, the value of 100 was obtained by 1 student (3,8%).
Thus, the average value of the ability to write explanation texts of students in the experimental class I for the post-test is 83,6 with a standard deviation is 10,4. For post-test data in experimental class II, the highest score obtained by students was 100 and the lowest was 60. These values can be grouped into 7 groups which can be seen in the following table. Based on the table, it is described as follows. First, the value of 60 was obtained by 1 student (3,7%). Second, the value of 66,7 was obtained by 3 students (11,1%). Third, the value of 73.3 was obtained by 4 students (14,8%). Fourth, the value of 80 was obtained by 7 students (25,9%). Fifth, the value of 86,7 was obtained by 7 students (25,9%). Sixth, the value of 93,3 was obtained by 4 students (14,8%). Seventh, value of 100 was obtained by 1 student (3,7%). Thus, the average value of the students' ability to write explanation texts in the experimental class II for the post-test was 81,2 with a standard deviation is 9,8. Before testing the hypothesis, the analysis requirements were first tested, which consisted of tests for normality and homogeneity of the data. The data normality test was conducted to determine whether the initial and final test data in each experimental class were normally distributed or not. Testing the normality of the data is done by using the Liliefors test formula. The data of normality test results can be seen in the following table. Based on the results of the normality test of the pretest and posttest data for the experimental class I and experiment II, it was concluded that the data were normally distributed because L count <L table at α=0,05. In addition to normality test, homogeneity test was also carried out. The homogeneity test of the data was carried out to determine whether the data had a homogeneous variance or not. The homogeneity test of the data was carried out with the Harley test (F-Test).
The data of homogeneity test results can be seen in the following table. The results show that the experimental class data I and Experiment II have homogeneous variance because F count <F table at α=0,05. After it was known that the data were normally distributed and had homogeneous variance, hypothesis testing was conducted to see if there was a significant difference in the ability to write explanation texts between class XI students of SMA N 13 Padang who studied with the Two Stay Two Stray and Jigsaw models. To test the hypothesis, the t-test formula is used. Based on the results of hypothesis testing, on the pretest data, the results obtained t count =0,15 and the results of t table =1,67. This shows that H 1 is rejected and H 0 is accepted. Thus, there is no significant difference in the ability to write explanation texts of class XI students of SMA Negeri 13 Padang before studying using the Two Stay Two Stray and Jigsaw models. In the posttest data, the results obtained t count =0,87 and the results of t table =1,67. This shows that H 1 is rejected and H0 is accepted. Thus, there is no significant difference in the ability to write explanation texts of class XI students of SMA Negeri 13 Padang after studying using the Two Stay Two Stray and Jigsaw models.
Based on the results of this study, it can be concluded that the average value of students' explanation text writing skills after using the Two Stay Two Stray and Jigsaw models in the experiment class I is 83,6 and the average value of the ability to write explanation text in the experiment class II is 81,2. So, it can be said that there is no significant difference between the ability of class XI students of SMA Negeri 13 Padang in writing explanation texts who study using the Two Stay Two Stray and Jigsaw models. However, viewed from the average value obtained in each experimental class, the results obtained that the ability to write explanation texts in the experimental class II who studied using the Two Stay Two Stray model was better than the ability to write explanation texts in the experimental class I learned by using the Jigsaw model. However, this difference is not significant. This is due to the similarities between the Two Stay Two Stray and Jigsaw cooperative approaches, namely students have the opportunity to explore information by asking questions and discussing with other groups. In the experimental class I who studied with the cooperative approach of the Two Stay Two Stray type, it was carried out with the following steps. First, students are divided into small groups (ideal arrangement of 4 people). Second, each group is given the task of discussing a problem for which they must discuss the answer. The teacher helps explain to each group if something is not understood. Third, after the intragroup discussion was over, two people from each group left their group to visit another group. Group members who do not receive assignments as guests have the obligation to receive guests from a group. Fourth, the task of the host is to present the results of the discussion to each guest who comes, while the task of the two guests is to travel to other groups and seek as much information as possible about the material discussed by the group. Fifth, after it is felt that they have received enough information, group members who are traveling are tasked with disseminating the information they receive from other groups to members of their own group. Sixth, students who serve as guests and those who serve as receptionists match and discuss the results of the work they have done (Suprijono, 2012:93).
In the implementation of learning using this type of cooperative approach Two Stay Two Stray, discussions and interactions occur between students and members of their own groups and between students and other groups. This activity makes each student responsible for mastering the material because they have to share the information they have with other groups. This is also supported by the results of research by Bali (2020:31) that the Two Stay Two Stray learning model is a learning that is not only focused in its own group, but also between groups through discussions with mutual discussions by sharing the results of group activities. This learning model provides opportunities for all groups to develop the results of their discussions with other groups.
In the experimental class II which learns with a Jigsaw type cooperative approach, it is carried out with the following steps. First, students are grouped with 4 members. Second, each person on the team is given different materials and tasks. Third, members from different teams with the same assignment form a new group (expert group). Fourth, after the expert group has discussed, each member returns to the original group and explains to the group members about the sub-chapters they master. Fifth, the expert teams presented the results of the discussion. Sixth, discussion. Seventh, closing (Rusman, 2012:218-220).
The implementation of learning to write explanation texts using a Jigsaw type cooperative approach requires each student in the group to be able to master the material assigned to him. The material that they have mastered must be discussed with other group members who get the same material and task. With the exchange of group members (expert groups), each student can better master the material and tasks assigned to them. After each group member has mastered the material and their respective tasks, they must also explain back to their group members (home group). This makes students have a sense of responsibility to master the material and assignments given to them.
This was also expressed by Rahmawati (2019:409) that Jigsaw learning is a type of cooperative learning that consists of several members in a team who have the task and are responsible for mastering the material section and are able to explain the material to other members in the group. The jigsaw type of cooperative learning model is a cooperative learning model in which students learn in small groups consisting of four to six people heterogeneously and work together with positive interdependence and are responsible for the completeness of the part of the subject matter that must be studied and convey the material to members another group.

CONCLUSION
Based on the results of the study, it can be concluded as follows. First, the ability to write explanation texts for class XI SMA Negeri 13 Padang students taught using the Two Stay Two Stray model is 83,6. Second, the ability to write explanation texts for class XI SMA Negeri 13 Padang students who are taught using the Jigsaw model is 81,2. Third, there is no significant difference in the ability to write explanation texts of class XI SMA Negeri 13 Padang students who are taught with Two Stay Two Stray and Jigsaw models. This is due to the similarities between the Two Stay Two Stray and Jigsaw cooperative approaches, namely students have the opportunity to explore information by asking questions and discussing with other groups

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thank you to those who have helped to carry out this research. First, to the principal of SMA N 13 Padang who has given permission to carry out the research. Second, to Indonesian language teachers and class XI students of SMA N 13 Padang who have been willing to help carry out the research.