PBL in Speaking.pdf

8/14/2019 PBL in Speaking.pdf

1/5

1

THE USE OF PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING IN DEVELOPING

STUDENTS SPEAKING ABILITY AT THE SECOND GRADE STUDENTS

OF SMA 4 CIMAHI

Annisa Siti Rengganise-mail: [email protected]

English Education Study Program Language and Art Department

Sekolah Tinggi Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan (STKIP) Siliwangi Bandung

ABSTRACT

The objective of the research entitled The Use of Problem-Based Learning in Developing Students

Speaking Ability at the second grade of SMA 4 Cimahi, was to investigate whether or not PBL waseffective in developing students speaking ability. Th is research used quantitative method and quasi

experimental design with nonequivalent control group design. The population of this research wastwenty students of the second grade students of SMA 4 Cimahi and the sample was entire population.

The instrument of this research was the pretest and posttest. The collected data was analyzed by usingt-test formula. The results of this research showed that: the mean score of pretest was 12.7000, the

mean score of posttest was 19.8400, the t observedwas 4.234 and the t table with degrees of freedom (df)38 and level of significance at 5% (0.05) was 2.000.Based on the data analysis above that the

alternative hypothesis was accepted because the t observed was higher than t table (4.234 > 2.000). It alsomeant problem-based learning was effective in improving students speaking ability at the second

grade of SMA 4 Cimahi.

Key Words:Problem-Based Learning, Speaking, Elementary School and Method.

A. BACKGROUND

One of the biggest problems for students is tospeak fluently and corrrectly because to master

speaking skill the students must speak and think at

the same time. It means that being fluent and correctin speaking needs critical thinking competence since

it is believed that language is a means to thinking.

Problem-based learning is an instructional methodthat encourages learners to apply critical thinking,

problem-solving skills, and content knowledge to

real-world problems and issues. From the explanationabove, the writer comes up with an idea to conduct

the research concerning with using problem-basedlearning in developing students speaking ability.This research was conducted to a group at second

grade in SMA 4 Cimahi. Hopefully by using

problem-based learning, speaking ability can bedeveloped students. The problem-based instruction

is an instruction that allows students to use the target

language by using English, rather than by beingpresented with and then practicing predetermined

language structures.

B. THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

a. The Characteristics of Problem-Based

LearningProblem-based learning has emerged

relatively, this new method to become known asproblem-based learning. The problem-based

instruction is an instruction that allows students

to use the target language by using English,rather than by being presented with and then

practicing predetermined language structures.

b. Phases in Implementing Problem-Based

LearningThere are some steps in a problem-based

learning. Elaborates four steps in implementing

problem-based learning either about what actions

each of these steps require from teacher or students.This step generally includes four main steps:

1). Meet the problem, 2). Explore knowns and

unknowns, 3). Generate possible solutions, 4).Consider concequences and choose the most

viable solution.

c. Teaching Speaking in EFL ClassroomSpeaking is a key in communication. Its form and

meaning depend on the context in which it occurs,including the participants themselves, their collective

experiences, the physical environment, and the


2/5

2

purposes for speaking. It is often spontaneous, open-

ended, and evolving. Language learner regard that

speaking is the most important skill to master. It isbelieved that speaking skill is a measurement of

knowing a language. The more understand the better

fluently they will be. Teaching speaking in EFL isntease since the students believe that speaking is the

hardest one in English. Moreover, Brown (2001: 270-

271), presents several aspects which make speakingare difficult to be mastered, they are,clustering, fluent

speech is phrasal, word by word. Learners canorganize their output both cognitively and physically

through such clustering.

d. Problem-Based Learning in Teaching

SpeakingIn teaching speaking language, communicative

approaches have been known to promote language

acquisition since in the late 1970s. One of thecommunicative approaches is Problem-based

learning. The expection is that such interactionspromote language acquisition. Because problem-

based learning shifts the emphasis on learning

activity from teachers to students, it can also helpstudents become more autonomous learners who will

transfers the skills learned in the classroom to their

lives outside of the classroom. For adult Englishlanguage learners in particular, carefully chosen

problems directly related to their everyday lives canbe not only highly motivating but also practical for

them to work on.

C. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

To find out the effectiveness of problem-basedlearning in developing students speaking ability in

the second grade of SMA 4 Cimahi, this research

used quasi experimental method with two groups; acontrol group and experimental group. During the

experiment, this research used problem-based

learning treatment in the experimental group in orderto show the effectiveness ofproblem-based learning

in developing students speaking ability in the secondgrade of senior high school. Meanwhile, in thecontrol group was applied non treatment.

D. RESEARCH FINDINGS ANDDISCUSSIONS

a. FindingsThis finding was divided into two terms analysis

namely pretest results and posttest results.1. Pretest Result

It has been stated that pretest is intended to attain

the information about learners prior ability beforehaving the treatment. It was given to both of the

group either experimental or control group. It wasconducted on 01 May 2012. It involved 20 students

from each group. To get accurate analysis, it must

involve the measurement of normal distribution ,variance homogeneity, and independent t-test.

a. Normality Distribution Test

The normal distribution of pretest score wasmeasured by employing Kolmogorov-Smirnovs test

at level of significance (0.05). The hypothesis ofnormal distribution is as follows: Ho: the distribution

of both experimental and control groups is normally

distributed.Table 4.1

The Normal Distribution of Both Experimental and

Control Groups in PretestOne-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnovs Test

Experiment Control

NNormal

Parametersa

Mean

Std.DeviationMost Extreme

differencesAbsolute

PositiveNegative

Kolmogorov-Smirnovs Z

Asymp.Sig(2-tailed)

20

12.7000

1.75000

.145

.145-.086

.727

.665

20

12.4400

1.52971

.133

.133-.069

.666

.767

a. Test distribution is Normal

The table above presents the probability

belonging to the experimental group is 0.665 and that

belonging to the control group is 0.767. It meansthose groups probability is higher than 0.05 (the

experimental group; 0.665 > 0.05 and the control

group; 0.767 > 0.05), so that the null hypothesis (H0)is accepted. In other words, the distribution of both

groups in pretest is normally distributed.

b. Homogeneity of Variance Test

In testing the homogeneity, firstly, the hypothesiswas stated as follows: Ho: The variances of theexperimental and control group are homogeneous.


3/5

3

The next step was calculating the result of

homogeneity test with the level of significance at

0.05.Table 4.2

The Variance Homogeneity of Both Experimental and

Control Groups in Pretest

Test of Homogeneity of VarianceLeveneStatistc df1 df2 Sig.

Pretest

Based onMean

Based onMedian

Based onMedian

and withadjusted

df

Based ontrimmed

mean

.242

.203

.203

.208

1

1

1

1

38

38

37.947

38

.625

.654

.654

.650

Based on the table above, it is obvious that theprobability resulted is 0.625. It means the probability

is higher than 0.05 (0.625 > 0.05). Thus, the variance

of both experimental and control group is similarsince the null hypothesis is accepted.

c. t-test Computation on PretestThe independent t-test employed was aimed at

finding out the difference of both experimental andcontrol groups in pretest. The hypothesis of theindependent t-test is as follows: Ho: There is no

significant difference between experimental and

control groups in pretest. The decision ofindependent t-test is as the probability P > 2.000, Ho

is accepted. In contrast, Ho is rejected as theprobability P > 2.000.

Table 4.3

The Independent t-test of Both Experimental andControl Groups in Pretest

Group Statistics

Group N Mean Std.Deviation Std.Error Mean

Pretest

ExperimentControl

2020

12.720012.4400

1.750001.52971

.35000

.30591

The table 4.3 shows the result of independentsample t-test. Based on the t distribution table, the

value for df = 48 at the 0.05 level significance is

2.000, whereas the value obtained is -.0559.In otherword, the tobtain(0.559) is lower than tcritical(2.000),

meaning that the null hypothesis is accepted which

means that there is no significant difference betweenexperimental and control groups in pretest. In other

word, it can be inferred that the experimental and the

control group are equal in term of their initial ability.

2. Posttest ResultThe posttest was conducted after learners had

received the treatment in several meetings. It wasdone to the control and experimental group at the

same time in May 02, 2012. The similar procedures

were employed to analyze the posttest scores of thosegroups; normal distribution, variance homogeneity,

and independent t-test.

a. Normality Distribution Test

The normal distribution of posttest was measuredby employing Kolmogorov-Smirnovs test at level of

significance (0.05). The first step in testing the

normality of pretest score is stating the hypothesis as

follows: Ho: The scores of the experimental and thecontrol group are normally distributed. According to

Field (2005:93), the decision of normal distribution isas the probability is > 0.05, Ho is accepted. In

another hand, Ho is rejected the probability < 0.05.Table 4.4

The Normal Distribution of Both Experimental and

Control Groups in PosttestOne-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnovs Test

Experiment Control

N

NormalParametersa

MeanStd.Deviation

Most ExtremeDifferences

AbsolutePositive

NegativeKolmogorov-

Smirnov ZAsymp.Sig (2 -

tailed)

20

19.84001.93498

.190

.118

-.190

.951

.326

20

17.72001.58824

.190

.190

-.125

.950

.327

a. Test distribution is Normal

The table above presents the probability

belonging to the experimental group is 0.326 and thatbelonging to the control group is 0.327. It means

those groups probability is higher than 0.05 (the

experimental group; 0.326 > 0.05 and the controlgroup; 0.327 > 0.05), so that the null hypothesis (Ho)

is accepted. In other words, the distribution of both

groups in posttest is normally distributed.

b. Homogeneity of Variance Test

Having calculating the normality test, thehomogeneity of variance test was measured with the

level of significance at 0.05. Firstly, the hypothesis is


4/5

4

stated as follows: Ho: The variance of control and

experimental groups are homogeneous the decision

of variance homogeneity is as the probability > 0.05,Ho is accepted. On contrary, as the probability 2.000.Table 4.6

The Independent t-test of Both Experimental and

Control Groups in PosttestGroup Statistics

Group N Mean Std.Deviation Std.Error

Mean

PosttestExperiment

Control2020

19.840017.7200

1.934981.58824

.38700

.31765

Table 4.6 shows that the experimental group got

higher score (M = 19.8400), than the control groupscore (M = 17.7200). This difference is significant t

(48) = 4.234, P > 2.000. Based on the t distribution

table, the value for df = 48 at the 0.05 levelsignificance is 2.000, whereas the value obtained is

4.234. In other word, the tobtain(4.234) is higher than

tcritical (2.000), meaning that the null hypothesis is

rejected which means that there is a significant

difference between experimental and control groups.

b. Discussion

This study was aimed to investigate thedevelopment of students speaking ability by using

problem-based learning. To find the result of

students development in speaking ability, the studyconducted the measurement of mean comparison.

Therefore, the test of speaking (pretest and posttest)to students in order to get the data required. The data

obtained from pretest score shows that students

speaking ability in both experimental and controlgroups were equal. It is proven by value of the

independent samples test that is lower than 2.000

(0.559 < 2.000). Thus, the null hypothesis is accepted

in which both experimental and control groups inpretest do not have significant difference, meaning

that the experimental and the control group are equalin terms of their initial ability. However, the two

groups were different significantly after receiving the

treatment in several meetings. Attained posttest scoresignifies that the experimental group is better than the

control group. The independent samples test is higher

than 2.000 (4.234 > 2.000) or Psig (2-tailed(0.00), issmaller than 0.05. It means the null hypothesis is

rejected. In other words, there is a significantdifference between experimental and control groups

in posttest. It can be said that problem-based learningwas significant to develop students speaking ability.

E. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

a. ConclusionsThe findings of the research show that

problem-based learning can be beneficial indeveloping students speaking ability. These can

be seen from the data obtained in this study. The

data from speaking test shows that there is animprovement on the students speaking score.

The calculation of t-test shows that theexperimental group got higher score (M =19.8400), than the control group score (M =

17.7200). In other word, the tobtain (4.234) is

higher than tcritical(2.000), meaning that the nullhypothesis is rejected which means that there is a

significant difference between experimental andcontrol groups. Moreover, the data from the

calculation of effect size shows that there is a

great effect of PBL in developing studentsspeaking ability with r value = 0.521. In other

words, having been treated by problem-based

learning, students have a significant improvementon their speaking ability.


5/5

5

b. SuggestionsHaving accomplished the study, there are

some pedagogical implications of this study. Thestudy has shown that Problem-based learning can

help students in developing their speaking ability

and meaningful learning. The research findingshows that problem-based learning has many

positive responses from students therefore, the

use of problem-based learning in teachingspeaking is recommended. There are some

suggestions to propose. The suggestions are inregard with practical development. Regarding to

the practical development it is much better to

conduct the study of using Problem-basedlearning in teaching other skills, such as

listening, speaking and writing. In addition, in

line with professional development, the teachers

are required to have certain comptencies. Theyshould be able to select various kind of problem

which is appropriate for students in terms ofteaching objectives and students needs and

interests. Besides pretest, and posttest. Teacher

observation as instrument using record teaching-learning process during the treatments can be

involved to enrich findings of the next researcher.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Airlangga, (2009). Mengungkap-Rendahnya

Kualitas Lulusan SMU dalam BerbahasaAsing. [Online]. Available at:

http://www.kabarindonesia.com/berita.com[July 2

nd, 2010].

Brown, H Douglas. (2001). Teaching by

Principles: (An Interactive Approach toLanguage Pedagogy) 2

nded. New York:

Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Ghosh, Paramita. (2009). Problem-basedLearning.[Online]. Available at: http://www.

buzzle.com/articles/problem-based-learning.html. [May 13

th, 2010].

Karen-Kong and Ngeow. 2001. Learning To

Learn: Preparing Teachers and

http:///www.ericdigests.org.2002-2/problem.htm. [June 16

th, 2010].

Priyanto, Dwi. (2012). SPSS 16.00. Jakarta.

MediaKom.

R.W, Jones. (2006). Problem-based Learning:

description, advantages, disadvantages,scenarios and facilitation. [Online]. Available

at:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7399/is_

4_34/ai_n32046182/pg_6/?tag=content;coll.

[November 2nd , 2010].

Sugiyono.(2012). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif,

Kualitatif dan R&D. Bandung, ALFABETA.

PBL in Speaking.pdf

Documents

Transcript of PBL in Speaking.pdf