THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING COMPARED WITH DIRECT INSTRUCTION IN TEACHING SPEAKING SKILL (An Experimental Research at the Eighth Grade of SMP Negeri 4 Saradan - Kab. Madiun in the Academic Year 2014/2015)

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING COMPARED WITH DIRECT INSTRUCTION IN TEACHING SPEAKING SKILL (An Experimental Research at the Eighth Grade of SMP Negeri 4 Saradan - Kab. Madiun in the Academic Year 2014/2015)

By : Ida Kuswandari

This article is aimed at reporting the results of an experimental research which was carried out in SMP Negeri 4 Saradan in the Academic Year 2014/2015. The research is done to find out whether Problem-based Learning is more effective than Direct Instruction in teaching speaking skill for the eighth grade students. Speaking is the most important skill among the four language skill since the foreign language learners will judged as fluent communicator if they can speak the target language actively. However, teaching speaking skill is not a simple matter. Teacher must consider many things which one of them is learning model. The two learning models (PBL and DI)  are compared in this study which also involves two classes as experimental group and control group. After applying PBL and DI, the writer conducts a speaking test for both groups. Then, the data gained is analyzed by using descriptive statistics and simple analysis of variance (ANOVA). The results of the data show that the mean of the experimental group (70) is higher than the mean of the control group (64). Thus, it can be concluded that Problem-based Learning is more effective than Direct Instruction in teaching speaking skill.

A.   Background

Learning language will ease someone to grasp knowledge and become a success learner. The students with a good language mastery will have a greater understanding in obtaining information and tranfering knowledge than those with a lack of language mastery. Nunan (1999: 71) states that effective foreign language learning produces learners with the social and cognitive problem-solving skills that can be used in other subjects in the school curriculum. It means that the foreign language learning process must be effective to produce learners with those skills. Learning foreign language, especially English, becomes a necessity. English is considered as one of the most important languages all around the world. It is said so because English is a universal language that links the world. It is used as the first international language spoken by the majority of people all around the world. Harmer (2007: 13) states that English was already well on its way to becoming a genuine liangua franca.

Among four langage skills (namely: listening, speaking, reading, and writing, speaking seems intuitively the most important: people who know a language are referred to as ‘speakers’ of that language, as if speaking included all other kinds of knowing; and many if not most foreign language learners are primarily interested in learning to speak (Ur, 1996: 120). It means that speaking is the most important of all the skills.

However, the teaching learning process is not a simple matter. In fact, most students find many difficulties in speaking English. Speaking a language is especially difficult for foreign language learners because an effective oral communication requires the ability to use the language appropriately in social interaction. Learners must also require the knowledge of how native speakers use the language in the context of structured interpersonal exchange, in which many factors interact (Shumin in Richards, 2001: 204).  Nevertheless, to master these requirements is not easy to do for the learners. The complicated of the vocabulary, grammatical rules, and the knowledge of the culture become the real hindrance.

Teaching speaking is not an easy task to do for both teachers and learners because there are many problems to deal with. Horwitz (2008: 94) mentions four obstacles in speaking activities deal with creating authentic speaking rather than display one, beliefs about second language speaking, teacher anxiety, and difficulties in grading. She includes the learners, teachers, belief, and grading.

Due to the learners’ difficulties, teaching speaking is not an easy task to do. Many learners tend to feel fearful of saying things in foreign language and make error. This condition will gradually make them fossilized. Their interest becomes less and they begin to create negative attitude toward speaking activity. This situation drives the learners to assume that speaking is not interesting and a very difficult task to do. The problem emerges as students are not familiar yet with the types of spoken language due to the lack of exposure. Consequently, they are not able to express their thought and feeling and speak spontaneously in English. They tend to formulate their ideas in  Indonesian and afterward try to translate it into English.

Becoming a more effective communicator is not simply a matter of practicing the spoken language, but the real improvements come from planning how to approach a speaking task and evaluating how well you speak (Anderson et al., 2007: 5). It means that in teaching speaking, teachers may use the most suitable approaches, methods, learning models, strategies, media, and so on to enable the learners to achieve the goal. The use of learning model is applied in this study because it is not only more complete than the other aspects, but also is directly related to the learners’ activity. Two of the alternative models are problem-based learning and direct instruction which are suggested to be applied in teaching speaking.

According to Hmelo-Silver in Eggen and Kauchak (2012: 307) Problem-Based Learning  means a set of teaching model which applies problems as a focus of developing problem solving skill, materials, and self-management. Indeed, Materi Pelatihan Kurikulum 2013 (2014: 38) states that Problem-Based Learning is a finding way out of difficulty,  attaining an aim that is not immediately understandable. Problem-Based Learning can be used on a regular basis to promote interaction and divergent thinking. During the study, students are often expected to work as a part of a group. A large amount of problem solving takes place in group setting. Used at the right time and the right way, group problem solving can be the most effective way of solving some problems.

In problem solving activities, the learners have to find solutions. The language which is needed for problem solving activities depends on the topic of exercise, but in general students will have to make suggestions, give reasons, and accept or reject suggestions and reasons given by others. Problem solving activities lend themselves to follow up. First, the activity may be repeated in the same or altered form. Second, a sequence of activities can be developed.

Meanwhile, Joyce et.al, (2006: 339) define Direct Instruction  as a pattern of teaching that consists of the teachers’ explaining a new concept or skill to a large group of students, having them tested by practicing under teacher’s direction (that is controlled practice), and encouraging them to continue to practice under teacher’s guidance (guided practice). The Direct Instruction emphasizes speaking in that new teaching points are introduced orally than in writing. A Direct Instruction requires a most careful structuring and orchestration by the teacher. To be effective, the model necessiates that every detail of the skill or content be carefully defined and that the demonstration and practice session be carefully planned and executed (Arrends, 2007: 67).

Considering the background, the writer will try to investigate the effectiveness of Problem-Based Learning and Direct Instruction in teaching speaking for the Eighth Grade Students of SMP Negeri 4 Saradan in the Academic Year of 2014/201. The objectives of the research is to find out whether Problem-based Learning is more effective than Direct Instruction in teaching speaking skill in SMP Negeri 4 Saradan.

B.   Review of Literatures

1.    Speaking Skill

Speaking is one of the four language skills that must be mastered well. According to Brown (1994: 322), speaking is an interactive process of constructing meaning that involves producing and receiving and processing information. Its form and meaning are dependent on the context in which it occurs, including the participants themselves, their collective experiences, the physical environment, and the purposes for speaking. It is often spontaneous, open-ended, and evolving.

Widdowson (1996: 58-59) defines speaking based on its use and usage. Speaking, as an instance of use, is part of reciprocal exchange, in which both reception and production play a part. In this sense, the skill of speaking involves both receptive and productive participation. With reference to usage, speaking is active, productive, and makes use of aural medium.

Another definition is stated by Fulcher (2003: 23) who states that speaking is the verbal use of language to communicate with others. The purposes for which learners wish to communicate are so large. The outward manifestation of speech is found in sound waves. Its meaning lies in the structure and meaning of all language, whether this is written or spoken.

Pawlak (2011: 4) states that the act of speaking is rarely monologue and typically also involves simultaneous listening and comprehending. It happens in real time, thus being transient and dynamic; it involves mobilizing various aspects of communicative competence, including non-linguistic resources; it is heavily reliant on the situational context and it must take account of the broader cultural and social milieu.

Based on the theories above, it can be concluded that speaking is an interactive process of constructing meaning that involves producing, receiving, and processing information to communicate with the others. It is active, productive and makes use of aural medium. It happens in real time, thus being transient and dynamic. Besides, it also involves developing subtle and detailed knowledge about why, how, and when to communicate and manage interaction.

Speaking skill plays an important role in learning and understanding the language. Harris (1969: 81) states that speaking is a complex skill requiring the simultaneous use of a number of different abilities which often develop at different rates. Either four or five components are generally recognized in analyzes of the speech process:

a.     Pronunciation

b.    Grammar

c.     Vocabulary

d.    Fluency

e.     Comprehension

In testing the speaking skill, the writer adapts the oral profieciency scoring table proposed by Brown (2004: 172). This table presents oral proficiency scoring categories based on the  components of grammar, vocabulary, comprehension, fluency, pronunciation, and task. The writer will adapt it based on the five indicators, namely: grammar, vocabulary, comprehension, fluency, and pronunciation.

Table 1 The Oral Proficiency Scoring

Score	Pronunciation	Grammar	Vocabulary	Fluency	Comprehension
1	Errors in pronunciation are frequent but can be understood by native speaker  used to dealing with foreigners attempting to speak his language.	Errors in grammar are frequent, but speaker can be understood by a native speaker used to dealing with foreigners attempting to speak his language.	Speaking vocabulary inadequate to express anything but the most elementary needs.	No specific fluency description.	Within the scope of his very limited language experien­ce, can understand simple questions and statements if delivered with slowed speech, repetition, or paraphrase.
2	Accent is intelligible though often quite faulty.	Can usually handle elementary construction quite accurately but does not have thorough or confident control of the grammar.	Has speaking vocabulary sufficient to express himself simply with some circumlocutions.	Can handle with confidence but not with facility most social situations, including intro­duc­­tions and casual conversa­tions about current events, as well as work, family, and autobiographical information.	Can get the gist of most conversations of non-technical subjects (i.e., topics that require no specialized knowledge).
3	Errors never interfere with understanding and rarely disturb the native speaker. Accent may be obviously foreign.	Control of grammar is good. Able to speak the language with sufficient structural accuracy to participate effectively in most formal and informal conversations on practical, social, and professional topics.	Able to speak the language with sufficient vocabu­lary to participate effectively in most formal and informal conver­sa­tions on practical, social, and profes­sional topics. Vocabulary is broad enough that he rarely has to grope for a word.	Can discuss particular interest of competence with reasonable ease. Rarely has to grope for words.	Comprehension is quite complete at a normal rate of speech.
4	Errors in pronunciation are quite rare.	Able to use the language accurately on all levels normally pertinent to professional needs. Errors in grammar are quite rare.	Can understand and participate in any conversation within the range of his experience with a high degree of precision of vocabulary.	Able to use the language fluently on all levels normally pertinent to professional needs. Can participate in any conversation within the range of this experience with a high degree of fluency.	Can understand any conversation within a range of his experience.
5	Equivalent to and fully accepted by educated native speakers.	Equivalent to that of an educated native speaker.	Speech on all level is fully accepted by educated native speakers in all its features including breath of vocabulary and idioms, colloquialisms, and pertinent cultural references.	Has complete fluency in the language such that his speech is fully accepted by educated native speakers.	Equivalent to that of an educated native speaker.

2.    Problem-based Learning (PBL)

Boud and Feletti (1997: 2) state that problem-based learning is a way of constructing and teaching courses using problem as the stimulus and focus for student activity. Problem-based learning starts with problem rather than with exposition of disciplinary knowledge. It moves students towards the acquisition of knowledge and skill through  staged sequence of problem presented in context, together with associated learning materials and support from teachers.

White (2001: 5) states that problem-based learning is an effective method for improving students’ problem skill and brings strong connections between concepts for the students to learn facts and skills by actively working with information rather than passively receiving information. In problem-based learning, students work with classmates to solve complex and authentic problems that help develop content knowledge as well as problem-solving, reasoning, communication, and self-assessment skill. It means that students must involve actively in the learning process.

According to Prince in Dobbs (2008: 30), problem-based learning is defined as a teaching technique where real-world problems or situations act as framework for course content and student motivation. This is an active learning method which contains small group learning of some. Students will receive a grade or an evaluation as a group or as individuals.

Serafino and Cicchelli in Eggen and Kauchak (2012: 307) state that problem-based learning is a set of teaching model which focuses on questions to develop students’ problem-solving skill, materials, and self-control.  The focus of the learning process is on the way of how learners overcome the problems.

Another definition is stated in Materi Pelatihan Kurikulum 2013 (2014: 38) as learning method which arises learners’ curiousity to learn how to learn, to overcome a problem in a teamwork, to find out solution of real matter. It means that this method is applied to stimulate learners’ anxiety to learn how to solve a contextual problem in real life.

Based on the theories above, it can be concluded that problem-based learning is a set of teaching model which facilitates an authentic real life problem that does not have a single answer. The purposes of the problem-based learning are to develop students’ thinking and problem-solving skill, to learn authentic adult roles, and to be independent learners.

3.    Direct Instruction

Arrends (2007: 67) states that direct intruction lessons requires a most careful structuring and orchestrian by the teacher. To be effective, the model necessitates that every detail of the skill or content be carefully defined and that the demonstration and practice session be carefully planned and executed. Direct instruction is a traditional teaching model where the teacher has a full control over the class. It is one of the most commonly used among teachers. In this type of lesson the teacher usually presents a lecture, then the teacher will guide the students to discuss a complex problem which has been simplified and broken down into simple steps, and finally the students are given one or many sample problems to accomplish on their own.

Stein in Rodman (2007: 18) states that Direct Instruction is explicit, intensive, and teacher-directed model. It employs scripted lessons that assist the teacher in using clear and consistent communication between the teacher and the student. Indeed, Selbitschka (2007: 25) states that Direct Instruction is a specific method of teaching content to children, where the necessary information is given directly to children. Whereas, Kuhn in Eggen and Kausack (2012: 363) defines direct instruction as a teaching model which applies teachers’ modelling and instruction as well as exercise and students’ feed back to help them develop knowledge and skill for the next learning process.

Based on the theories above, it can be concluded that direct instruction is a model to teach content which applies teachers’ demonstration and instruction  as well as students’ practice session.

C.   Research Methodology

1.    Subject of the Research

In determining the sample, the writer uses cluster random sampling technique. Gall et al. (2007: 173) state that in cluster random sampling, the unit of sampling is a naturally occuring groups of individuals. The major concern in determining the cluster random sampling is that every class has an equal chance of being selected. In this study, the writer takes two classes randomly. The writer decided to do lotteries. Here, the writer did the lotteries twice. The first lottery was used to take two classes out of six classes and the second lottery was used to choose which one of the two classes was an experimental group and which one was a control group.

After having lotteries, the subjects of the research are decided. They are the eighth grade of Class VIII A as experimental group and Class VIII B as control group at this school. These classes consist of thirty-two students. The experimental group is treated by applying Problem-based Learning. Whereas, the control group is treated by applying Direct Instruction.

2.    Research Method

The method used in conducting this study is an experimental method. Ary (2007: 317) states that an experimental research is desigend to provide a treatment to experimental group and maintain control over all factors that may affect the result of an experiment. In other words, the experimental research attempts to investigate the influence of one or more variables to other variables. A factorial design is also used in this research to analyze the main effect of experimental variables.

3.    Technique of Collecting Data

Speaking test is given to measure the students’ speaking skill after the two groups are treated by using problem-based learning and direct instruction. The elements of the test are arranged based on the indicators of speaking skill including pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension.

4.    Technique of Data Analysis

Techniques for analyzing the data used in the research are; (1) descriptive statistics to get the mean, median, mode, and standard deviation, and (2) simple analysis of variance (ANOVA) to find out the significant difference between two groups of means.

D.   Research Findings

1.    Descriptive Statistics

a.     The Data of the Students of the Experimental Group who were taught using Problem-based Learning (A₁)

44	48	50	52	52	52	54	54
56	60	68	68	68	68	68	70
70	72	74	74	76	76	78	78
82	82	82	82	84	86	90	92

Based on the calculation result of the speaking scores of the students taught by using Problem-based Learning (A₁), the total number of students (n) is 32. The highest score is 92 and the lowest score is 44. The range is 48. The number of classes used is 6, and the class width (interval) is 8. From the calculation result of statistics, the mean score achieved by the students is 70, the mode is 73.5, the median is 72.30, and the standard deviation is 12.43.

b.    The Data of the Students of the Control Group who were taught by using Direct Instruction (A₂)

40	42	44	44	44	48	48	50
50	52	52	58	64	64	64	66
66	66	66	66	66	68	70	74
76	76	78	80	82	82	84	84

The descriptive analysis of the data of A₂ shows that the total number of the students is 32 and the students’ speaking score range from 40 to 84. It means that the highest score is 84 and the lowest score is 40 while the range is 44. The number of classes used is 6, and the class width (interval) is 8. From the calculation result of statistics, the mean score achieved is 64, the mode is 69.65, the median is 66.41, and the standard deviation is 13.47.

2.    ANOVA

The hypothesis tests are aimed at finding out whether there are effects  the independent variables upon the dependent variable. These tests are also intended to reveal if there is an interaction among the variables. The data analysis is used by employing F-test simple analysis of variance (ANOVA). H_o is rejected if F_o ˃ F_t. It means that there is a significant difference.

Table 2 The Summary of Multifactor Analysis of Variance

Source of Variance      SS                df              MS                Fo               Ft (.05)

Between groups      600.25               1               600.25          3.294            2.76 Within groups     11295.75             62               182.1895        Total                    11896                  63

Based on the data on the table above, it can be concluded that because F_o between columns (3.294) is higher than F_{t (.05)} (2.76). It means that the learning models differ significantly from one another in their effect on the speaking skill of the subjects in the experiment. Then, because the mean of the students taught by using Problem-based Learning (A₁) (70) is higher than the mean of those taught by using Direct Instruction (A₂) (64), it can be concluded that the use of Problem-based Learning is more effective than the use of Direct Instruction in teaching speaking.

3.    Discussion

Learning model plays an important role in teaching and learning process. It is one of the aspects of teaching learning process that needs to be fully considered by the teacher. Appropriate learning model will influence much the students’ attitude toward the subject.

In general, Problem-based Learning makes the learning process more interesting, attractive, and meaningful. Problem-based Learning is a structural framework that facilitates the students with an authentic real life problem that does not have a single answer. It promotes students’ critical thinking skill as well as communication and collaboration skills. This method becomes important for some reasons. Firstly, Problem-based Learning makes the students work in groups. They can share ideas with the others which means that they learn how to communicate effectively with the other members of the group. In this case, they are treated to develop communication and collaboration skills. Secondly, Problem-based Learning encourages the students to find and sort information needed to solve the problem. The students develop their critical thinking skill in finding and sorting relevant information to solve the problem. Thirdly, Problem-based Learning enables the students to be responsible for their own learning achievement. Once they are engaged actively in the learning process, they will enjoy learning with a new method. They can decide whether they will involve actively in the learning process or not. If they decide to involve actively, they will get many things. They can share ideas and learn new things with the others. If they decide not to involve actively, they will not get anything. In this case, they learn how to be autonomous learners who have right to decide what they will do for their ahievement. As Arrends (2007: 157) states that Problem-based Learning helps students to develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills, learn authentic adult roles, and become independent learners.

This model proposes four guiding steps for learning process. The first phase begins with the introduction of an ill-structured problem on which all learning is centered. The problem is one that students are likely to face as challenges. Then, the second phase is organization in which most of the learning occurs in small groups rather than in lectures. Teacher’s role is more like that of a facilitator and coach of student learning, acting at times as a resource person, rather than as knowledge-holder and disseminator. Then the third phase is assist independent and group investigation. The students are  more active, as they are engaged as a problem-solver, decision-maker, and meaning-maker, rather than being merely a passive listener and note-taker. The last phase is analyze and evaluate the problem-solving process in which students deliver the result of the discussion and give comment to the other groups.

One of the greatest advantages of Problem-based Learning is that students genuinely enjoy the process of learning. They spend a great deal of time for discussing the problem, generating hypotheses, identifying relevant facts, searching for information, and delivering their result of group discussion. Thus, during the learning process, they define and construct potential solutions actively. As White (2001: 1) states that Problem-based Learning employs “student-centered” approach which students are given a freedom to study any topics that interest them the most and determine how they want to study.

On the contrary, Direct Insruction cannot navigate like what Problem-based Learning does. Teacher has a full control over the class because Direct Instruction is a learning framework which provides guidance from the teacher along the learning process. It employs scripted lessons that assist teacher in demonstrating and practicing the skill. Thus, every single step must be carefully planned and executed. As Arrends (2007: 67) states that Direct Instrcution requires  most careful structuring and orchestrian by the teacher.

The procedure of Direct Instruction is started with orientation phase in which teacher arouses students’ attention to focus on the lesson. Then, presentation phase comes up in which teacher demonstrates a new conceptual knowledge to the students. The next phase is guided practice in which students get opportunity to apply the new knowledge under teacher’s guidance. Finally, the last step is independent practice in which students have to practice the new knowledge independently. As Markusic (2012: 1) states that the structure of Direct Instruction is rigid enough to hinder the creativity of the teacher. There is very little room to improvise.

In addition, Direct Instruction makes the students get a little chance to decide what they want to learn. They involve the learning process passively. They just learn based on the material provided by the teacher and do activities based on the teacher’s command. Consequently, the students get bored easily and the learning process is not interesting and attractive.

Based on the above description, it is really clear that applying Problem-based Learning is more effective than Direct Instruction. Besides, the finding shows that the mean score of speaking skill of the students who are taught by using Problem-based Learning is higher than those who are taught by using Direct Instruction. Thus, it can be concluded that Problem-based Learning is more effective than Direct Instruction in teaching speaking.

E.   Conclusion

Referring to the findings, it can be seen that generally the use of Problem-based Learning is more effective than the use of Direct Instruction in teaching speaking. Moreover, it is good for teachers to apply Problem-based Learning in the classroom. This method provides the students with various benefits, such as the increasing critical-thinking skill, problem-solving skill, interaction skill, and also being autonomous learners who are resonsible for their own learning achievement.

Basically, the stages of Problem-based Learning are divided into four steps, they are orientation, organization, assist independent and group investigation, and evaluation. The phase of orientation includes any activities to arouse students’ attention and curiousity. It is carried out by stating the social function, the generic structures of the text, and the language features of the text. Then, the following steps are supplying the materials (including pictures of a certain topic) to the students to be identified and giving a problem which relate to the topic. In the phase assist independent and group investigation, the students have opportunities and experiences to solve a problem in groups . After discussing the problem, the students have to present the result to the class. This belongs to the the final phase of analyze and evaluation the problem-solving process.

A teacher must be able to understand the students’ condition and apply the suitable ways influencing the students’ achievement effecively. By applying Problem-based Learning as learning model, it is hoped that the students enjoy the learning process that this can really have good effect on their learning achievement, especially in speaking skill. In addition, teachers must be more creative in selecting and using various kinds of interesting learning models which will be suitable to be applied to their students to create an attractive  and joyful situation. Based on the result of this research, it is suggested for teachers to apply  Problem-based Learning in teaching speaking skill.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alderson, J. Charles. 2001. Assessing Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Arrends, Richard I. 1997. Classroom Instruction and Management. McGraw-Hill.

Boud, David and Feletti, Grahame I. 1997. The Challenge of Problem-Based Learning. London: Biddles Ltd, Guiford and King’s Lynn.

Brown, H. Douglas. 2004. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. Pearson Education.

Dobbs, Vicki. 2008. Comparing Student Achievement in the Problem-Based Learning. Walden University. Available at: www.book.google.com. isbn= 0549461388. Downloaded on November 1^st 2014.

Eggen, Paul and Kauchak, Don. 2012. Strategic and Models For Teachers: Teaching Content and Thinking Skills. Sixth Edition.

Harmer, Jeremy. 2007. The Practice of English Language Teaching. Pearson Education.

Horwitz, Elaine Kolker. 2008. Becoming a Language Teacher. Pearson Education Inc.

Nunan, David. 1999. Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Pawlak, Miroslaw et.al. 2011. Speaking and Instructed Language Acquisition. Multilingual Matters.

Richards, J.C. and Rodgers, T.S. 2001. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rodman, Marsha L. 2007. A Study of Intensive, Systematic Direct Instruction for An Autistic Child. Walden University. Available at: www.book.google.com isbn= 0549133615. Downloaded on November 1^st 2014.

Selbitschka, Jennifer Sieminski. 2007. Four-year-old Children’s Perception of Their Experience of Psychology. Walden University. Available at: www.book.google.com isbn= 054985844. Downloaded on November 15^th 2014.

Ur, Penny. 1996. A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory. Cambridge University Press.

White, Hal. 2001. Problem-Based Learning. Stanford University Newsletter on Teaching. Available at: www-ctl.stanford.edu. Downloaded on November 1^st 2014.