THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING IN TEACHING SPEAKING VIEWED FROM THE STUDENTS’ CREATIVITY

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING  IN TEACHING SPEAKING VIEWED FROM THE STUDENTS’ CREATIVITY

By : ¹Kuswandari, ²Ngadiso1, ³Asib2

¹(Student of Magister Program of English Education of Pascasarjana UNS)

²(Teacher of English Education of Pascasarjana UNS)

³(Teacher of English Education of Pascasarjana UNS)

ABSTRACT:

Keywords: Problem-based Learning (PBL), Direct Instruction (DI), Speaking, Creativity

This research is aimed at finding out whether: (1) Problem-based Learning is more effective than Direct Instruction in teaching speaking for the eighth grade students of SMP Negeri 4 Saradan in the Academic Year 2014/2015; (2) students having high creativity have better speaking skill than those having low creativity; and, (3) there is no interaction effect between learning models and students’ creativity in teaching speaking skill. The research was conducted at SMP Negeri 4 Saradan Kab. Madiun in the academic year of 2014/2015. The population of this research was the eighth grade students of SMP Negeri 4 Saradan in the academic year 2014/2015. The Class A was occupied as the experimental class and Class B as the control class. Each of the class consist of 32 students. The experiment group was treated by using Problem-based Learning, while the control group was treated by using Direct Instruction. The data analysis shows the following findings: (1) Problem-based Learning is more effective than Direct Insruction in teaching speaking for the eighth grade students of SMP Negeri 4 Saradan in the academic year of 2014/2015; (2) the students who have high creativity have better speaking skill than the students who have low creativity; and, (3) there is no interaction between learning models and students’ creativity in teaching speaking skill. Problem-based Learning is effective for both students who have high creativity and students who have low creativity.

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. 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, most students find many difficulties in speaking English 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).  The difficulty lies not only in pronouncing and choosing appropriate vocabulary, but also in organizing ideas into an understandable comprehension. The skills involved in speaking are highly complex. The learners have to consider to higher level skill of organizing ideas fluently as well as lower skills of pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, and the knowledge of the culture.

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. 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.

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 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).

In addition, both models are applied succesfully in teaching speaking if they are supported by the students’ creativity. Without creativity in speaking, the students will be passive in joining the class. Creativity plays an important role in producing spoken language since it can ease the learners to express their thought and feeling freely. Creative learners tend to be enthusiatically in speaking foreign language, therefore, they do not hesitate to communicate in the target language. Teacher may use creativity as a means to promote critical thinking and discovery. Creativity not only stimulates learners’ curiousity to understand the learning materials, but also makes personal contribution to whatever subjects they undertake. This is an important dimension of learning. Creative ideas are often generated when someone discards previous assumptions and attempts a new approach or method that seem to others unthinkable. The creativity that has a very influential factor in speaking skill is verbal creativity. It is an ability to think creatively and to measure someone’s fluency, flexibility, and originality of a verbal form, which deals with word and sentences. Moreover, verbal creativity is an ability to form and create new ideas and combine them into something new referring to the previous information. The new ideas reflect fluency, flexibility, and originality that can be seen in divergent thought revealed verbally.

Considering the background, the study is aimed at finding out: (1) Whether Problem-Based Learning is more effective than Direct Instruction in teaching speaking for the eighth grade students of SMP Negeri 4 Saradan; (2) Whether the students having high creativity have better speaking skill than those having low creativity; (3) Whether there is an interaction between the learning models and students’ creativity in teaching speaking.

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. Meanwhile, 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 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. In addition, 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. 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, i.e. pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency, 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.

To make the students enjoy and interested in teaching learning process, the teacher must be able to select an appropriate learning model. One of the learning models which can be applied in teaching speaking is Problem-based learning. This model enables the students to construct knowledge through a real problem as stimulus and focuses on the student activity.  According to Boud and Feletti (1997: 2), problem-based learning is a way of constructing and teaching courses using problem as the stimulus and focus for student activity. It starts with problem rather than with exposition of disciplinary knowledge. Whereas, 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. Furthermore, Prince in Dobbs (2008: 30) states that problem-based learning is 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. In addition, 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. Hence, 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.

On the other hand, Arrends (2007: 67) states that Direct Intruction lessons require a most careful structuring and orchestrian by the teacher. It 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. Meanwhile, Stein in Rodman (2007: 18) states that Direct Instruction is explicit, intensive, and teacher-directed model. 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.

Furthermore, the brief syntaxes of teaching speaking using Problem-based Learning and Direct Instruction are as follows:

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. The following guidelines for teachers to keep in mind:

1.         Teachers orient the students to the problem by giving background information and getting students ready to learn.

2.         Teachers organize the students by dividing them into small groups.

3.         Teachers assist independent and group investigation by monitoring the students’ involvement during the process.

4.         Teachers analyze and evaluate the problem-solving process by giving chance for the students to present to work.

Meanwhile, Direct Instruction is a model to teach content which applies teachers’ demonstration and instruction as well as students’ practice session. Kozloff in Rodman (2007: 33) states that the goal of every lesson in Direct Instruction is mastery instead of just exposure. The expectation is that the student will be able to perform the presented skill without prompting or error. The concept are introduced so the information is clear and consistent with a single interpretation. Furthermore, the syntax of Direct Instruction is as follows:

1.          Teachers orient the students to focus on the lesson and also activate the students’ prior knowledge and experiences.

2.          Teachers present and ensure the students to understand a conceptual framework of the new knowledge.

3.          Teachers guide practice by giving the students opportunity to apply the concept of the new knowledge and monitor students’ success.

4.          Teachers apply independent practice in which the students practice work independently.

Another success key of education depends on creativity. Smutny et.al, (1997: 57) states that the teacher can use ceativity as a means to promote critical thinking and discovery. It means that creative thinking stimulates children’s curiousity to discover the world. It enables students to make personal contribution to whatever subjects they undertake. This is an important dimension of learning. Furthermore, Rogers in Ornstein and Lasley (2000: 24) states that the essence of creativity is novelty. The individual creates primarily because creating is self-satisfying and because the behaviour or product is self-actualizing. In addition, Sternberg in Tan (2007: 3) states that creativity is a habit.  may sound paradoxical that creativity–a novel response–is a habit–a routine response. Creative people are creative largely not by any particular inborn trait, but rather, because of an attitude toward life. The habitually respond to problems in fresh and novel ways, rather than allowing themselves to respond mindlessly and automatically. Thus, it can be concluded that creativity is the ability to bring something new or combination of the previous elements that manifest in self in fluency, in flexibility as well in originality of thinking.

In addition, this study applies a verbal creativity. Torance in Munandar (1999: 67) defines verbal creativity as an ability to think creatively and to measure one’s fluency, flexibility, and originality of a verbal form which deals with words and sentences. Guilford in Munandar (2009: 65) states that verbal creativity is an ability to think divergently. Thinking divergently involves creative finding to any possible solution upon a problem. An instrument of verbal creativity is designed by Munandar (2009: 68). The test adopts Guilford’s Intellectual Structure which is supported by divergent thinking, content, and verbal thinking dimension. The test consists of  six sub-tests which reflect the indicators of verbal creativity, namely: fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. The median of the verbal creativity test score is used to determine the creativity level of examinee. The examines whose score are more than the median are categorized to have high creativity, while those whose scores are less than the median are categorized to have low creativity.

The method applied in this study was 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.

The study was aimed at finding out the effectiveness of learning models in teaching speaking viewed from students’ creativity for the eighth grade students of SMP Negeri 4 Saradan. It involved three variables, namely independent variables, dependent variable, and attributive variable. The independent variable of the study was learning models. The learning models are the factors of the study which are manipulated, measured, and selected to know the effect and the relationship to the phenomenon investigated. The learning models used in this study were Problem-based Learning and Direct Instruction.  These two different learning models were related to two groups of students. In this study, the Problem-based Learning was treated to the experimental group and Direct Instruction was treated to the control group. Whereas, the dependent variable of this study was the students’ speaking skill and the attributive variable of this study was students’ creativity. This attributive variable was also assumed as the secondary independent variable to the phenomenon investigated.

The population in this study was all the eighth grade students of SMP Negeri 4 Saradan in the academic year of 2014/2015. There were 192 students who were divided into six classes. Meanwhile, the writer decided to take two classes as the sample of the study. In determining the samples, the writer applied cluster random sampling by doing 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. In this case, the writer decided to take thirty-two students of Class VIII A as the experimental group and thirty-two students of Class VIII B as the control group.

In this study, the writer occupied a speaking test to measure the scores of the students’ speaking skill and a verbal creativity to measure the students’ creativity. The speaking test was given to measure the students’ speaking skill after the two groups were treated by using problem-based learning and direct instruction. The elements of the test were arranged based on the indicators of speaking skill including pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. Whereas, the students’ creativity was measured by using an instrument of verbal creativity test which consists of six sub-test, namely: word initial, word creation, sentence formulation from three letters, similar characteristics, extraordinary uses of words, and consequences or effects. The median of the verbal creativity test score was used to determine the creativity level of examinee. The examines whose score are more than the median are categorized to have high creativity, while those whose scores are less than the median are categorized to have low creativity.

In addition, the techniques used in analyzing the data of the study were descriptive and inferential analysis. The descriptive analysis was used to find out the mean, mode, and standard deviation of students’ scores. Meanwhile, the inferential analysis is used to test the hypotheses.  This study applied multifactor analysis of variance (ANOVA) to find out the significant difference between two groups of means. Then, the data were analyzed using multifactor analysis of variance 2x2.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

After treating the experimental class by using Problem-based Learning and the control class by using Direct Instruction, then the speaking scores and creativity scores were gained. The next step was sorting the speaking scores in accordance with their creativity level. Then, the two-way variance with the same cells was used to analyze the data gained from the post-test of speaking given to both experimental and control classes. However, before computing this analysis, there were some requirements needed as prerequisite conditions. Therefore, after classifying the data into their groups, the writer analyzed the normality and the homogeinity of the data.

The findings of the normality test show that the sample is in normal distribution because L_o (L obtained) is lower than L_t (L table) at the level of significance α = 0.05. Therefore, it can be concluded that all of the samples based on the both learning models and creativity levels were normal. Furthermore, homogeneity test is employed to know whether the data are homogeneous or not. If χ_o² is lower than χ_t² at the level significance α = 0.05, it can be concluded that the data are homogeneous. The result of the homogeneity test shows that the χ_o² (1.9535) is lower than χ_t² (7.815). Hence, it can be concluded that the data are homogeneous.

Then, the hypothesis tests were applied to find out whether there were effects of  the independent and attributive variables upon the dependent variable. These tests were also intended to reveal if there was an interaction among the variables. The data analysis was used by employing multifactor analysis of variance (ANOVA). H_o is rejected if F_o ˃ F_t. It means that there is a significant difference.

Table  The Results of Multifactor Analysis of Variance

Table The Summary of Multifactor Analysis of Variance

Based on the data on the table above, it can be concluded that:

a.     Because F_o between columns (4.2318) is higher than F_{t (.05)} (4.00), H_o is rejected and the difference between columns is significant. It means that the learning above, there 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) (69.06) is higher than the mean of those taught by using Direct Instruction (A₂) (62.94), it can be concluded that the use of Problem-based Learning is more effective than the use of Direct Instruction in teaching speaking.

b.    Because F_o between rows (15.9703) is higher than F_t(.05) (4.00), Ho is rejected and the difference between row is significant. Then, because the mean of the students who have high creativity (B₁)  (71.94) is higher than the mean of the students who have low creativity (B₂) (60.06), it can be concluded that the the students with high creativity have better speaking skill than the students with  low creativity.

c.     Because F_o interaction (3.7295) is smaller than F_t(.05) (4.00), Ho is accepted and there is no interaction effect between the two variables, learning models and students’ creativity level on the students’ speaking skill. It means that the effect of the use of learning models on speaking skill does not depend on the level of students’ creativity.

Discussion of the Findings

By considering the results, there are some conclusions that can be drawn:

a.     The use of Problem-based Learning is more effective than the use of Direct Instruction in teaching speaking

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. Uden (2006: 237) states that it is important for the students to have an understanding of how the communication process works and what are the skill that are required in order to communicate effectively with others in the group. Having an understanding of this enables students to work better and also improve their communication 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. Conklin (2014: 222) states that students will analyze information collected and graph the results during the learning process. 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.

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.

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. Killen (2006:) states the evidence of Direct Instruction will come from the product that the students produce, such as the outcomes they can demonstrate, their scores on quizzes, and also their answers to questions. It will relate to the product of that learning rather than to the learning process.

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.

b.    Students’ creativity differs significantly from one another in their effect on the speaking skill

Creative individuals have excessive amounts of energy. This great deal of energy makes them enthusiastic and always eager to do activities. They will view any kind of things as challenges to conquer. They like to explore their ideas and imagination and to think freely. They even produce more ideas and more unusual ideas than the others. Creative people only  ever do work that they enjoy doing. Conti and Amabile in Runco and Pritzker (1999: 251) state that many great creative people feel a strong need to do the work that they do than engaging in work because they want to. In addition, highly creative people have a huge amount of resolve to make sense their own world. Generally, it is the process that they find challenging rather than the final, finished product. As stated by Sullivan (2014: 178) that the unknown challenges them.

Furthermore, highly creative persons commonly spend much time in doing what they strongly need to do. They tend to work very hard to actualize themselves. Starko (2010: 102) states that creative individuals can be passionate about their work. They are known for their endurance, perseverance and general dedication to hard work.

In addition, highly creative people tend to get along with the others more easily than those who have low creativity. They are always willing to listen new ideas from the others.  They will never look down on others, they will always make others feel as equal. They just mean to accept other people as they are. Besides, they will not pass judgment without having a real reason. Therefore, they will give comment to the others with appropriate expression, not to underestimate the  others. Lipman (2015: 100) states that creative individuals can be overly sensitive. These characteristics lead the students with high creativity have better score since they have better flexibility, fluency, elaboration, and originality of thinking which are important in speaking skill.

Csikszentmihalyi (1996: 558-73) proposes the characteristics of the creative individuals as follows: (a) Creative individuals have a great deal of energy, but they are also often quiet and at rest; (b) Creative folks tend to be both highly intelligent and naïve at the same time; (c) Creative people are disciplined and playful simultaneously; (d) Creative minds move between a spectrum of fantasy and imagination and a firm grounding in reality. They understand the present and need to keep in touch with the past; (e) Creative individuals seem to be both introverted and extroverted, expressing both traits at once; (f) Creative people are sincerely humble and extremely proud in a childlike way; (g) Creative folks do not feel as tied to gender roles; (h) Creative individuals are thought to be rebellious and cutting edge; (i) Creative people are deeply passionate about their work; and, (j) Creative people are highly open and sensitive, which exposses them to pain and suffering, but also allows them to feel higher values of joy and happiness.

On the other hand, according to the statement stated by Csikszentmihalyi (1996: 58-73) about the characteristics of creative individuals above, it can be inferred that students with low creativity tend to be passive. The students who have low creativity tend to express their ideas based on the what they see, read, and listen without any additional valuable ideas. They are unable to come up with their own fresh ideas and opinions when learning. They like something simple and like being guided. They usually view challenge as burdens. They do not really like many activities since they prefer simple, guided, and straightforward activities which in turns make the teacher should control them intensively. In addition, Munandar (1999: 25) states that everyone has different degree of creativity which affects their ways of thinking, behavior, and competences in all aspects. In fact, their low creativity makes them unable to express their ideas better in speaking skill. These are some of the reasons for their less score in speaking skill than those with high degree of creativity. Thus, it can be concluded that students with high creativity have better speaking skill than students with low creativity.

c.     Problem-based Learning is more effective than Direct Instruction in teaching speaking skill for students having high and low creativity.

Problem-based Learning is more effective than Direct Instruction in teaching speaking for both students having high and low creativity. Naturally, this learning model is more enjoying because it focuses on students’ activity. As stated by Wilkerson and Gijselaers in White (2001: 1) that Problem-based Learning is characterized by a student-centered approach. All activities are based on the students’ need. They have to participate in their learning process actively. Once they decide to take part in the activities, they will gain many things such as sharing information with their peer, developing communication and collaborative skills, and also having a critical thinking skill. Students use what they have learned to solve every day problems. Through the process, teachers guide and allow them to try, fail, work together, propose solution, formulate answers, and make presentation. Once they engage in the learning process, they will find joyfulness. Silver, et.al. (:92) state that the type of meaningful and engaaging work becomes joyful to students because they have a strong voice in shaping its outcomes.

Teachers have a function as facilitators rather than disseminators. They deliver a willingness to share self, to care, to begin a journey, then launch the students on personal growth, and send them beyond the teacher. The responsibility of the teacher in Problem-based Learning is to provide the educational materials and guidance that facilitate learning. As learners become more proficient in the PBL learning process the tutor becomes less active. Azer (2007: 5) states the teacher in Problem-based Learning course is facilitator rather than an information provider. Thus, their role is completely different from that of traditional teacher.

Problem-based Learning as one of learning models becomes important for some reasons. First, Problem-based Learning navigates the students with an authentic and challenging real matter. Problems are used as stimulus to start the learning process. The students give reasons through the problems and find out whether they have already known and what they should know to solve the problems. Hence, Problem-based Learning obviously not only promotes students’ critical thinking skill, but also arouses students’ curiousity and communication skill. Second, it also navigates the students to work in groups. They have to work together to solve a real problem by sharing ideas. In this case, they are navigated to develop communication and collaboration skill. Third, Problem-based Learning encourages the students to search and sort information needed to solve the problem. In this case, the students are facilitated to develop their critical thinking skill to analyze the information. Then, Problem-based Learning enables the students to be in charge of their own learning achievement. Once they are engaged actively in the learning process, they will enjoy learning using this 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 achievement.

The greatest advantages of Problem-based Learning are that the learning process is meaningful and meets the society need. The relationship between learning and society is not a simple matter. Learning is critical to the students’ future. It is an activity that goes beyond the schools. The explosion of knowledge  and the wide spread of network have changed the nature learning. Furthermore, education always find challenges . Education systems, including learning model, must be developed to meet the demands of knowledge-driven societies. The learners need to learn and relearn throughout their lives. The effects of the challenges will affect the learners’ way of learning.  The effectiveness of the world challenges will achieve genuine lifelong learning which is reflected in their way of thinking and problem-solving skill. As Dewey in Arrend (1997: 162) states that education (schools) is a mirror of the larger society and then classrooms will be laboratories for real life problem solving.

On the contrary, the implementation of Direct Instruction directs the learning process in different ways. There are a few opportunities for the students to develop communication and social skills because they have limitation in involving the learning process actively. They just learn the material provided by the teacher and do activities based on the teacher’s instruction. Markusic (2012: 1) states that this model is a teacher-centered approach.

Besides, the students who have a limited chance to explore and practice their skill find difficulties in assimilating information through listening, observing and note taking. They will get insufficient chances to process and understand the  information. As the result, they cannot develop their collaboration, communication, and social skills. Ross and Kyle in Killen (2007: 106) state that Direct Instruction ma have a negative impact on students’ problem-solving abilities, independence, and curiousity.

In addition, teachers have to control over the class since the learning framework provides a full guidance from the teachers. The teachers who are not well prepared, confident, knowledgable, enthusiatic, and well organized will influence and then lead the students to become bored or distracted. Finally, their learning will be hindered. Killen (2007: 105) states that the success of this model depends heavily on the teachers’ role. 

As with any methods, learning models are at the best when they are used well, with the right students audience, for the right instructional purpose, and at the right time. Direct Instruction as a traditional model may simply not be capable of serving the world’s growing and changing needs. Whereas, Problem-based Learning as a student-centered model is more capable to meet the demands of the 21^st century challenges. Thus, it can be concluded that Problem-based Learning is effective learning model for both students having high and low creativity. Finally, the result of the research shows that learning models and creativity play an important role to the students’ speaking skill, although both variables do not influence each other in speaking skill. It means that students’ speaking skill does not depend on creativity level and learning models.

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.

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.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

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

Ary, Donald, et al. 1985. Introduction to Research Education. New York: Oxford University Press.

Azer, Samy. 2007. Navigating Problem-based Learning. Australia: Elseiver.

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

Brown, H. Douglas. 2000. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Pearson Education.

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

Bygate, Martin. 1987. Speaking. Oxford University Press.

Carson, Davd K. Becker, Kent W. 2014. Creativity in Psychotherapy. NY: The Haworth Clinical Practice Press.

Celce-Murcia, Marianne. 2001. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. Heinel & Heinel.

Conklin, Wendy. 2014. Problem-based Learning: Going Green. Shell Education.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1996. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harper Collins.

Dale, Edgar, & Chall, Jeanne. S. 1949. The concept of readability. Elementary English Vol 26 No. 1. 19-26. National Council of teachers of English. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41383594. Downloaded on January 13^th 2015.

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.

Fraenkel, Jack C. Wallen, Norman E. 2000. How to Design and Evaluate in Education Research. McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.

Fulcher, Glenn. 2003. Testing Second Language Speaking. Pearson Education.

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

Heaton, J. B. 1999. Classroom Testing. Longman.

Henry, Jane. 2006. Creative Management and Development. Great Britain: The Cromwell Press Ltd.

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

Huang, Kuo-shu. Wang, Tzu-Pu. 2012. Utilizing Problem-based Learning (PBL) in a University English Interpretation Class. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Volume 8, Number 1, June 2012. Hsing Wu College Taiwan. Downloaded on 21^st January 2012.

Hunt, Gilbert. Wiseman, Dennis G. Touzel, Timothy J. 2009. Effective Teaching: Preparation and Implementation. USA: Charles C. Thomas Publisher Ltd.

Jogthong, Chalemsri. 2010. Using Problem-based Learning Instruction to Activate Students’ Participation in Speaking English. e-Journal Nakhon Rachasima Rajabhat University. Downloaded on 21^st January 2015.

Joyce, Bruce. Weil, Marsha. Calhouy, Emily. 2006. Models of Teaching: Sixth Edition. Allyn & Bacon.

Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. 2014. Materi Pelatihan Implementasi Kurikulum 2013. Jakarta: Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.

Killen, Roy. 2007. Teaching Strategies for Outcomes-based Education. Cape Town: Juta.

Luoma, Sari. 2004. Assessing Speaking. Cambridge University Press.

Madsen, Harold S. 1983. Techniques in Testing. Oxford American English.

Markusic, Mayflor. 2012. Classroom Instruction: Pros and Cons in Direct Instruction. Available at: www.brighthubeducation.com/teaching-methods-tips/5487-pros-and-cons-of-direct-teaching/. Downloaded on November 4^th 2014

McVittie, Janet. 2001. Direct Instruction. Available at: http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/mcvittiej/methods/direct.html. Downloaded on November 4^th 2014.

Moore, David W. 2007. Direct Instruction: Targeted Strategies for Student Success. Hampton Brown. Available at: www.education.com. Downloaded on November 1^st 2014.

Munandar, Utami. 2009. Pengembangan Kreativitas Anak Berbakat. Jakarta: Penerbit Rineka Cipta.

Nunan, David. 1998. Language Teaching Methodology. Prentice Hall.

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

Oakland, Thomas. Lane, Holly B. 2004. Language, Reading, and Readability Formulas: Implications for Developing and Adapting Tests. International Journal of Testing 4, pp. 239-252. Downloaded on January19^th, 2015. 

Orlich, Donald C. Harder, Robert J. Callahan, Richard C. Gibson, Harry W. 1998. Teaching Strategis: A Guide to Better Instruction. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

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

Reigeluth, Charles M and Carr-Chellman, Alison A. 2009. Instructional-Design Theories and Models. Volume III. Taylor and Francis Publishers.

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

Rockler, M.J. 1988. Innovative Teaching Strategies. Gorsuch Scarisbrick.

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.

Ronen, Tammie. 2011. The Positive Power of Imagery. Wiley-Blackwell.

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.

Smutny, Joan Franklin. Walker, Sally Yahnke. Meckstoth, Elizabeth A. 1997. Teaching Young Gifted Children in the Regular Classroom. Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing.

Silver, Debbie. Berckemeyer, Jack C. Baenen, Judith. 2015. Deliberate Optimism: Reclaiming the Joy in Education. USA: Corwin.

Starko, Alane Jordan. 2010. Creativity in Classroom: Schools of Curious Delight. New York: Routledge.

Sullivan, Colleen. 2014. Charting Your Course to New Horizons. USA: Balboa Press.

Tan, Ai-Girl. 2007. Creativity: A Handbook for Teachers. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.

Thorbury, Scott. 2006. How to Teach Speaking. Pearson Education.

Uden, Lorna. Beaumont, Chris. 2006. Technology and Problem-based Learning. Hershey: Information Science Publishing.

Underhill, Nic. 1998. Testing Spoken Language. Cambridge University Press.

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

Watkins, Peter. 2005. Learning to Teach English. Delta Publishing.

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

Widdowson, H.G. 1996. Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford University Press.