THE USE OF PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING IN DEVELOPING STUDENTS SPEAKING ABILITY AT THE SECOND GRADE STUDENTS OF SMA 4 CIMAHI

Annisa Siti Rengganis e-mail: annisha.rengganis@yahoo.com 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 was effective in developing students speaking ability. This research used quantitative method and quasi experimental design with nonequivalent control group design. The population of this research was twenty 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 using t-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 observed was 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 also meant 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 to speak fluently and corrrectly because to master speaking skill the students must speak and think at the same time. It means that being fluent and correct in speaking needs critical thinking competence since it is believed that language is a means to thinking. Problem-based learning is an instructional method that encourages learners to apply critical thinking, problem-solving skills, and content knowledge to real-world problems and issues. From the explanation above, the writer comes up with an idea to conduct the research concerning with using problem-based learning 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 be developed students. 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. THEORETICAL FOUNDATION a. The Characteristics of Problem-Based Learning Problem-based learning has emerged relatively, this new method to become known as problem-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 Learning There 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 Classroom Speaking 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 1

purposes for speaking. It is often spontaneous, openended, and evolving. Language learner regard that speaking is the most important skill to master. It is believed that speaking skill is a measurement of knowing a language. The more understand the better fluently they will be. Teaching speaking in EFL isnt ease since the students believe that speaking is the hardest one in English. Moreover, Brown (2001: 270271), presents several aspects which make speaking are difficult to be mastered, they are,clustering, fluent speech is phrasal, word by word. Learners can organize their output both cognitively and physically through such clustering. d. Problem-Based Learning in Teaching Speaking In teaching speaking language, communicative approaches have been known to promote language acquisition since in the late 1970s. One of the communicative approaches is Problem-based learning. The expection is that such interactions promote language acquisition. Because problembased learning shifts the emphasis on learning activity from teachers to students, it can also help students become more autonomous learners who will transfers the skills learned in the classroom to their lives outside of the classroom. For adult English language learners in particular, carefully chosen problems directly related to their everyday lives can be not only highly motivating but also practical for them to work on. C. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

D.

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

a. Findings This 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 before having the treatment. It was given to both of the group either experimental or control group. It was conducted 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 was measured by employing Kolmogorov-Smirnovs test at level of significance (0.05). The hypothesis of normal 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 Pretest One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnovs Test Experiment Control N 20 20 Normal a Parameters Mean 12.7000 12.4400 Std.Deviation 1.75000 1.52971 Most Extreme differences Absolute .145 .133 Positive .145 .133 Negative -.086 -.069 KolmogorovSmirnovs Z .727 .666 Asymp.Sig(2tailed) .665 .767 a. Test distribution is Normal

To find out the effectiveness of problem-based learning in developing students speaking ability in the second grade of SMA 4 Cimahi, this research used quasi experimental method with two groups; a control group and experimental group. During the experiment, this research used problem-based learning treatment in the experimental group in order to show the effectiveness of problem-based learning in developing students speaking ability in the second grade of senior high school. Meanwhile, in the control group was applied non treatment.

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 means those 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 hypothesis was stated as follows: H o: The variances of the experimental and control group are homogeneous. 2

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 Variance Levene Statistc df1 df2 Sig. Pretest Based on Mean .242 1 38 .625 Based on Median .203 1 38 .654 Based on Median and with adjusted df .203 1 37.947 .654 Based on trimmed mean .208 1 38 .650

word, it can be inferred that the experimental and the control group are equal in term of their initial ability. 2. Posttest Result The posttest was conducted after learners had received the treatment in several meetings. It was done 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 those groups; normal distribution, variance homogeneity, and independent t-test. a. Normality Distribution Test The normal distribution of posttest was measured by 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 the control group are normally distributed. According to Field (2005:93), the decision of normal distribution is as the probability is > 0.05, H o 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 Posttest One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnovs Test Experiment Control N 20 20 Normal Parameters a Mean 19.8400 17.7200 Std.Deviation 1.93498 1.58824 Most Extreme Differences Absolute .190 .190 Positive .118 .190 Negative -.190 -.125 KolmogorovSmirnov Z .951 .950 Asymp.Sig (2tailed) .326 .327 a. Test distribution is Normal

Based on the table above, it is obvious that the probability 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 similar since the null hypothesis is accepted. c. t-test Computation on Pretest The independent t-test employed was aimed at finding out the difference of both experimental and control groups in pretest. The hypothesis of the independent t-test is as follows: Ho: There is no significant difference between experimental and control groups in pretest. The decision of independent t-test is as the probability P > 2.000, Ho is accepted. In contrast, Ho is rejected as the probability P > 2.000.
Table 4.3 The Independent t-test of Both Experimental and Control Groups in Pretest Group Statistics Group N Mean Std.Deviation Std.Error Mean Pretest Experiment 20 12.7200 1.75000 .35000 Control 20 12.4400 1.52971 .30591

The table 4.3 shows the result of independent sample 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 other word, 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 between experimental and control groups in pretest. In other 3

The table above presents the probability belonging to the experimental group is 0.326 and that belonging 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 control group; 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, the homogeneity of variance test was measured with the level of significance at 0.05. Firstly, the hypothesis is

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 < 0.05, Ho is rejected.
Table 4.5 The Variance Homogeneity of Both Experimental and Control Groups in Posttest Test of Homogeneity of Variance Levene Statistics df1 df2 Sig. Posttest Based on Mean .655 1 38 .422 Based on Median .795 1 38 .377 Based on Median and with adjusted df .795 1 37.098 .377 Based on trimmed mean .673 1 38 .416

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 the development of students speaking ability by using problem-based learning. To find the result of students development in speaking ability, the study conducted 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 control groups 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 in pretest do not have significant difference, meaning that the experimental and the control group are equal in terms of their initial ability. However, the two groups were different significantly after receiving the treatment in several meetings. Attained posttest score signifies 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), is smaller than 0.05. It means the null hypothesis is rejected. In other words, there is a significant difference between experimental and control groups in posttest. It can be said that problem-based learning was significant to develop students speaking ability. E. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS a. Conclusions The findings of the research show that problem-based learning can be beneficial in developing students speaking ability. These can be seen from the data obtained in this study. The data from speaking test shows that there is an improvement on the students speaking score. The calculation of t-test shows that the experimental 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 null hypothesis is rejected which means that there is a significant difference between experimental and control groups. Moreover, the data from the calculation of effect size shows that there is a great effect of PBL in developing students speaking ability with r value = 0.521. In other words, having been treated by problem-based learning, students have a significant improvement on their speaking ability. 4

The table above shows that the probability is 0.422 is higher than the level of significance (0.05). Thus, the variance of both experimental and control groups is similar in posttest since the null hypothesis is accepted which means the variance data of two groups are equal. c. t-test Computation on Posttest The last but no least is calculation of the independent t-test. Before testing the t-test, the hypothesis is stated as follows: Ho: There is no significant difference between experimental and control groups in posttest. The decision of independent t-test is as the probability P < 2.000, Ho is accepted. In contrast, Ho is rejected as the probability P > 2.000.
Table 4.6 The Independent t-test of Both Experimental and Control Groups in Posttest Group Statistics Group N Mean Std.Deviation Std.Error Mean Posttest Experiment 20 19.8400 1.93498 .38700 Control 20 17.7200 1.58824 .31765

Table 4.6 shows that the experimental group got higher score (M = 19.8400), than the control group score (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 level significance is 2.000, whereas the value obtained is 4.234. In other word, the t obtain(4.234) is higher than

b. Suggestions Having accomplished the study, there are some pedagogical implications of this study. The study has shown that Problem-based learning can help students in developing their speaking ability and meaningful learning. The research finding shows that problem-based learning has many positive responses from students therefore, the use of problem-based learning in teaching speaking is recommended. There are some suggestions to propose. The suggestions are in regard with practical development. Regarding to the practical development it is much better to conduct the study of using Problem-based learning 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. They should be able to select various kind of problem which is appropriate for students in terms of teaching objectives and students needs and interests. Besides pretest, and posttest. Teacher observation as instrument using record teachinglearning process during the treatments can be involved to enrich findings of the next researcher. BIBLIOGRAPHY Airlangga, (2009). Mengungkap-Rendahnya Kualitas Lulusan SMU dalam Berbahasa Asing. [Online]. Available at: http://www.kabarindonesia.com/berita.com [July 2nd, 2010]. Brown, H Douglas. (2001). Teaching by Principles: (An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy) 2nd ed. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. Ghosh, Paramita. (2009). Problem-based Learning. [Online]. Available at: http://www. buzzle.com/articles/problem-basedlearning.html. [May 13th , 2010]. Karen-Kong and Ngeow. 2001. Learning To Learn: Preparing Teachers and http:///www.ericdigests.org.20022/problem.htm. [June 16th , 2010]. Priyanto, Dwi. (2012). MediaKom. SPSS 16.00. Jakarta.

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.

R.W, Jones. (2006). Problem-based Learning: description, advantages, disadvantages, scenarios and facilitation. [Online]. Available at: 5