i
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ………..………. 1
1.1 Background of the Study………. 1
1.8 Operational Definition of Terms ………..……… 7
1.9 Concluding Remarks of Chapter One ……….. 8
CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ………. 9
2.1 Project Approach ……….………..…….. 9
2.1.1 The Principles of Project Approach ………..………. 11
2.1.2 The Phases of Project Approach ………..………….. 14
2.1.3 The Advantages of Project Approach ……….….. 16
2.1.4 Challenges in Implementing Project Approach ……….… 17
2.1.5The Previous Study ………..….. 19
2.2 Reading Skill ………..…….. 22
ii
2.2.2 Testing Reading ……….…………..…….. 23
2.3 Teaching Children ………..…….. 26
2.3.1 General Characteristics of the Fifth Grade Students of Elementary School ………..…….. 27
2.3.2 The Language Development of Children ………….………. 28
2.4 Concluding Remarks of Chapter Two ……… 29
CHAPTER III THE RESEARCH METHOD ……….…... 31
3.1 Objectives of the Study ………..…….. 31
3.2 Hypothesis ………..……….. 31
3.3 Method of Investigation ………..………..…….. 32
3.4 Variables ………..…..…….. 33
3.5 Research Site ………..…….. 33
3.6 Data Collection and Instrumentations…..………..…….. 34
3.6.1 Tests (Pre- and Post-test) ……….. 34
3.6.2 Participant Observation ……… 35
3.6.3 Interviews ………..…………..…….. 37
3.6.4 Questionnaires ………...………..…….. 37
3.7 Collecting Data Procedures ………. 39
3.8 Validity and Reliability of Tests ………. 40
3.8.1 Validity ………..………..…….. 40
3.8.2 Reliability ………...…………..…….. 41
3.8.3 Pre-test and Post-test Items Difficulty ………. 42
3.8.4 Pre-test and Post-test Items Discriminating Power ………. 42
3.9 Data analysis ………..…….. 43
3.9.1 Tests ………...…..…….. 44
3.9.1.1 The Normality Test …………...……… 44
3.9.1.1.1 The Normality Test for the Pre-Test………….. 45
3.9.1.1.2 The Normality Test for the Post-Test………….. 45
3.9.1.2 Homogeneity Test …………...…..……… 46
3.9.1.2.1 The Homogeneity Test for the Pre-Test……….. 46
iii
3.9.1.3 Students’ Improvement in Reading Comprehension…… 48
3.9.2 Participant Observation Analysis ……….. 49
3.9.3 Interview Analysis ……….………..…….. 49
3.9.4 Questionnaire Analysis ………. 49
3.10 Concluding Remarks of Chapter Three…………..……… 50
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ….………. 51
4.1 The Effectiveness of Project Approach in Encouraging Students’ Reading Comprehension ………..….. 51
4.1.1 The Students’ Initial Skills ……… 51
4.1.2 The Project Approach Effectiveness on Student’s Reading Comprehension Achievement ……… 54
4.1.2.1 The Implementation of PA ……….……….. 54
4.1.2.2 The Effectiveness of PA ……….……….. 59
4.1.3 Students’ Improvement ……….……… 61
4.1.3.1 Before and After the Treatment ……… 62
4.1.3.2 Students’ Gain……… 63 English Using the Project Approach ………. 69
4.2.3 The Students’ Responses toward the Role of the Teacher in Teaching and Learning English Using the Project Approach …... 72
4.3 Conclusion Remarks of Chapter Four ……….……… 74
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION …….…… 75
5.1 Conclusion ………...……… 75
5.2 Recommendation ……….……….…...……… 76
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 The schedule of the observation
Table 3.2 The framework of the questionnaires for the students Table 3.3 The close-ended questionnaires statements
Table 3.4 The result of homogeneity of variances on pre-test Table 3.5 The result of homogeneity of variances on post-test
Table 4.1 Descriptive statistics of experimental and control groups pre-test Table 4.2 Independent t-test of pre-test score in experimental and control groups Table 4.3 The Groups statistics result on post-test
Table 4.4 Independent t-test of post-test score in experimental and control groups Table 4.5 Index gain criterion of experimental group
Table 4.6 Index gain criterion of control group
Table 4.7 Students’ responses to the implementation of PA
Table 4.8 Students’ responses to Importance of Learning English Using the PA Table 4.9 Students’ responses to the role of the teacher in teaching and learning
v
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Interviews 1.1 Interview Outline 1.2 Interview Transcript
Appendix 2: Questionnaires
Appendix 3: Try Out Test (The First Draft of Pre- and Post-test) 3.1 Kisi-Kisi Penyebaran Soal/Nomor Soal
3.2 Pre-test Items 3.3 Post-test Items
Appendix 4: Try-Out Test Analysis (Pre-Test) 4.1 Reliability Test
4.2 The Correlation of the Item Score and the Total Score 4.3The Index Discriminating Power
4.4 Items Difficulty
Appendix 5: Try-Out Test Analysis (Post-Test) 5.1 Reliability Test
5.2 The Correlation of the Item Score and the Total Score 5.3The Index Discriminating Power
5.4 Items Difficulty
Appendix 6: Revised Test
6.1 Kisi-Kisi Penyebaran Soal/Nomor Soal 6.2 Pre-test Items
vi Appendix 7: Pre-Test Analysis
7.1 The Pre-Test Score of the Experimental Group 7.2 The Pre-Test Score of the Control Group
7.3 The Normality Test of Experimental Group Pre-Test 7.4 The t-Test of Pre-Test
Appendix 8: Post-Test Analysis
8.1 The Post-Test Score of the Experimental Group 8.2 The Post-Test Score of the Control Group
8.3 The Normality Test of Experimental Group Pre-Test 8.4 The t-Test of Post-Test
8.5 The Strength of Association (η2)
Appendix 9: Paired-Samples T-Test and Index Gain of Experimental Group 9.1 Paired-Sample T-Test of Experimental Group
9.2 Index Gain of Experimental Group
Appendix 10: Paired-Samples T-Test and Index Gain of Control Group 10.1 Paired-Sample T-Test of Control Group
10.2 Index Gain of Control Group
Appendix 11: Lesson Plan
Appendix 12: Teacher’s Journal
Appendix 13: The Example of the Final Test from the Local Government
1 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents a general description of the research. It covers the background of the study, the research questions, the purposes, the hypothesis, the significance, and the scope of the study. Moreover, the brief explanation of the research method will be also provided. At the end of this Chapter, the definition of main terms will be presented.
1.1 Background of the Study
English as one of the foreign languages has got much attention from the Indonesian government. This can be observed from the government’s commitment to teach English at all levels of education; it is even started from the elementary school level. Nevertheless, the instruction, especially in elementary school level, is not yet satisfactory.
In elementary school, although English is one of the elective subjects, it is strongly recommended by the government to be taught (see the statement from
Depdikbud RI No. 0487/4/1992 and The Decree of the ministry of Education and
culture No. 060/U/1993 in Suyanto, n.d.). Furthermore, English has been stated in the curriculum of 1994 and developed in curriculum of 2004 and the current curriculum, the school-level curriculum (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan/KTSP). Based on the competence standards and basic competences
2 which guides schools in developing their own curriculum, English lesson in elementary school is aimed at helping students to be able to communicate in English as language accompanying action, and at helping them to recognize the importance of English in encouraging people to take part in the global community. It is in line with Hamerly (in Suyanto, n.d.) and DeKeyser (2006) who stated that learning a foreign language will be better if it is started earlier. Moreover, it is similar with the purpose of teaching foreign languages to young learners in America, which is “preparing even very young children for life in a broad international community” DeKeyser (2006, 1). The English teaching involves the four skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) that need to be familiarized and mastered by the students.
3 Regarding to the research site, although sometimes the teachers used some various methods (for instance: using songs, total physical response, etc.), the instruction was still dominated by asking them to memorize the English words and the structures as well, as it is experienced by the teachers there. It is because the goal of the learning was to be able to do the final test which is emphasizing in vocabulary and grammar made by the local government (the example of the test is available in appendix 13).
As a matter of fact, there are many ways that a teacher can apply to teach the language, so that the learning goals can be achieved. Hernowo (2005) states that fun learning environment can help students to learn effectively; that is highly recommended for teachers. However, it does not mean they have to make fun all the time. The word “fun” means the teachers use the friendly ways where the students enjoy studying English and the goals of the instruction are still achieved. Moreover, children need to learn by hands-on experiences (Musthafa, 2008), which allow them to be physically contacted in direct way with the material that is being learned.
4 Some previous studies show that students find the PA as fun, motivating, and challenging approach because they can play an active role in doing the project (Katz, 1994; Challenge 2000 Multimedia Project, 1999 in Railsback, 2002). In addition, Karlin and Vianni (In Railsback, 2002) stated that in PA, children construct their new ideas or concepts based on their current and previous knowledge. It is also expected that PA can promote student’s reading comprehension (Anton, 2010); since, they explore the project independently and get in touch with the vocabularies relate to the project. Consequently, they will get familiarized with the topic that can help them to comprehend the texts given, which still relate to the topic. Thus, referring the success of PA in some previous studies, it is worth trying to implement the PA in teaching English to the research site. From the explanation above, this study was aimed at identifying and describing the values of project approach in encouraging students’ reading comprehension and investigating the students’ responses towards the project approach.
1.2 The Research Questions
Developed from what have been mentioned above, this study was focused on answering the following research questions.
1. Can project approach facilitate the students in improving their reading comprehension?
5 1.3 The Purposes of the Study
Derived from the research questions, the purposes of this study were: 1. to identify and describe the effect of the project approach in encouraging
students’ reading comprehension; and
2. to investigate the students’ responses towards the project approach.
1.4 Hypothesis
Hypothesis is a tentative statement or prediction about the outcome of a study (Hatch & Farhady, 1982; Fraenkle & Wallen, 2007). Moreover, there are two kinds of hypotheses: null and alternative hypothesis. However, Hatch and Farhady (1982) claimed that, in the most common case, the null hypothesis is used since “we do not usually bother to ask the question if we are already sure which way it will turn out” (ibid: 4). Thus, the hypothesis stated for this study is:
Ho: there is no significant difference in students’ posttest scores between the experimental and control group.
1.5 The Scope of the Study
6 observation respectively. Furthermore, the interview and the questionnaires would be given after the observation.
1.6 The Significance of the Study
The result of this study is expected to give some worthy contributions to the theory, educational practice, and professional practice in EFL context in Indonesia. The theoretical significance of this study is that it is expected to enrich the literature about the teaching methodology of English, especially the implementation of project approach toward students’ comprehension about the content of the materials given. Moreover, practically, this study provides information related to project approach as one of alternative methods in teaching and learning English, especially for elementary school students, grade five. Finally, in terms of professional practice, it is hoped that English teachers could develop materials and teaching strategies which help the students to understand the English.
1.7Research Method
7 collected through some instruments: tests (pre- and post-test); observation; interviews; and questionnaires.
The data from pre- and post-test would be statistically analyzed and compared by using t-test. The aim was to see the difference between the initial ability of the students and their ability after getting the treatment. Moreover, the statistical data would be processed by using SPSS 17.0. Meanwhile, the data from the interview and the questionnaires would be analyzed by using a thematic analysis. In this case, the students’ comments were categorized into some themes that become the focus of the research. Further elaboration of this methodology part will be conveyed in Chapter Three.
1.8 Operational Definition of Terms
It is needed to have a clear view about what we are going to deal with before starting a research. Thus, the main terms that are highly related to this study are going to clarify in this part. The terms are:
8 2. Reading Comprehension : the students’ ability in understanding the texts given. In this study, the texts consist of more or less 100 words and afterwards followed by four to six questions for each text.
1.9 Concluding Remarks of Chapter One
31 CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the research design to be used in conducting this study. More specifically, it describes the method of investigation, the research site, data collection, and data analysis.
3.1 Objectives of the Study
The core of the study was to convey the implementation of project approach (PA) in English teaching and learning in an elementary school, especially for fifth graders. It hence became the focus of the study which was conducted to:
1. identify and describe the effect of the project approach in encouraging students’ reading comprehension; and
2. investigate the students’ responses towards the project approach.
3.2 Hypothesis
32 already sure which way it will turn out” (ibid: 4). Thus, the hypothesis stated for this study was:
Ho: there is no significant difference in students’ post-test scores between the experimental and control groups.
3.3 Method of Investigation
In terms of research method, the quantitative method was used to investigate the implementation of project approach in facilitating students in improving their reading comprehension and the students’ response toward the method. Furthermore, this study could be categorized as a quasi-experimental study, which included experimental and control groups without random sampling (Nunan, 1992; Hatch and Farhady, 1982). Thus, this study involved two fifth grades that exist in the school site. The experimental group received the special treatment—in this case, the project approach—and the control group was not— they received instructions like they got in their previous meetings, teacher-centered.
Furthermore, the research was stated as follows: G1 T1 X T2
____________________ G2 T1 T2 Where :
G1 = experimental group G2 = control group T1 = pre-test T2 = post-test
33 3.4Variables
There were two variables involved in this study; they were independent variable and dependent variable. Independent variable is the major variable which is selected, manipulated, and measured by the researchers in order to investigate the effect(s) on the other variables (Hatch & Farhady, 1982; Fraenkel & Wallen, 2007). On the other hand, dependent variable is the variable which is observed and measured to determine the effect of the independent variable (Hatch & Farhady, 1982; Fraenkel & Wallen, 2007). Furthermore, in this study, the independent variable was the project approach and the dependent variable was the students’ reading comprehension.
3.5Research Site
The subjects of the research were the fifth graders of one of the elementary schools in Parongpong. There were two classes of fifth grade in the school; one class would be the experimental and the other one would be the control group by randomly chosen.
34 3.6Data Collection and Instrumentations
To answer the research questions, the data was collected from various instrumentations: tests, participant observation, interviews, and questionnaires.
3.6.1 Tests (Pre- and Post-Test)
There were two tests, pre-test and post-test (see the appendix 6), that were given to both experimental and control group. The pre-test was given before the observation was conducted. This could help to know the initial differences between groups (Hatch and Farhady, 1982). Furthermore, after the observation toward the both groups, the post-test was given to the students to see the effects toward the approaches given.
Both pre- and post-test items were in form of multiple choices. It was because of some reasons: the scoring is easier, faster, and more objective than other form of tests; it is very efficient when the number of the students is large while the allotted time is very short; the reliability of this type of test is higher than the essay test (Supranata in Fitriyani, 2006). Moreover, this kind of test is able to “provide a useful means of teaching and testing in various learning situation,” especially at the lower levels (Heaton, 1995: 27).
35 giving four options which are consists three distractors of incorrect answer that are attractive and plausible (Heaton, 1995).
The items of both tests were carefully selected and some were modified from some standardized text books. Those with ISBN serial numbers: “Grow with
English Book 5”; “English Hooray: For Elementary School Students Grade 5”;
“Let’s Make Friends with English, Class 5”. Moreover, after the tests were made,
a tried-out tests were conducted to get the valid and reliable tests. The tests were tried-out to the students in different school which has similar characteristics with the research site. Both schools were categorized as National Standard School (Sekolah Standard Nasional/ SNN). Furthermore, the try-out test analysis is available in appendix 4.
3.6.2 Participant observation
Another source of data collection was from participant observation where the researcher became the teacher in the classroom being observed. The observation in this study was conducted to investigate the students’ learning activities and the implementation of PA in the classroom.
36 her own classroom behavior and its effects and influence on students” (Allwright in Emilia, 2005: 79).
Furthermore, this research was held in five meetings (excluded the pre-test), and it took two hours lesson per meeting, with 35 minutes per one hour lesson. In this research, the students got a project: making a bulletin board.
Additionally, the schedule of the observation is able to be seen in the following table.
No Date Material
1 June 18, 2011 Pre-test
2 June 20, 2011 Discussing the bulletin board 3 June 22, 2011 Discussing the content of the project 4 June 24, 2011 Conducting the project in groups (part 1) 5 June 27, 2011 Conducting the project in groups (part 2) 6 June 28, 2011 Presenting the project
7 June 28, 2011 Post-test
Table 3.1 The schedule of the observation
37 3.6.3 Interviews
The purpose of the interview is to understand the meaning of what the interviewees say (Kvale in Valenzuela & Shrivastava: n. d.). In addition, Alwasilah (2002) argues that interview can be used to gain the data, which possibly cannot be covered through observation. Furthermore, interviews in this study were “an important means of helping students to bring to consciousness their knowledge gained in the teaching program, what aspects they thought had developed, and which aspects of the teaching program were responsible for the development or changes observed in this study.” (Emilia, 2005: 80). Moreover, the interview type that was used was semi-structured interviews. It is one type of interviews that needs a list some specific questions as the guided questions, but may be followed by some other questions during the interview (Dawson: 2009).
For this study, the interview was addressed to the students to find out their opinion about their learning of English through project approach. The interview was conducted after the project approach was given. The interview was conducted to six students as the representatives, to the students that got good, medium, and low achievement in the English lesson.
3.6.4 Questionnaires
38 In this study, close-ended questionnaires would be administered to the students. These questionnaires usually take a multiple-choice form for the questions. Each student should choose one of the options given (yes, in between, no). This form of questionnaires consists of 9 statements with the framework as follows:
No Aspects Item Number Total
1. Response to the implementation of the project approach.
Table 3.2 The framework of the questionnaires for the students
Moreover, the statements of the questionnaires are shown in the following table.
No Statements
1. Saya senang belajar bahasa inggris, apalagi sambil membuat sesuatu seperti yang dilakukan lima pertemuan kemarin
2. Pelajaran bahasa inggrisnya menarik
3. Pelajaran bahasa inggrisnya membuat bahasa inggris saya jadi lebih bagus
4. Pelajaran bahasa inggrisnya sama saja seperti pelajaran bahasa inggris sebelumnya
5. Pelajaran bahasa inggrisnya membosankan 6. Saya jadi ingin belajar bahasa inggris terus 7. Guru mengajar bahasa inggris dengan bagus 8. Saya mengerti dengan materi yang dijelaskan guru
9. Guru bisa membantu saya mengerjakan tugas bahasa inggris di kelas
39 The questionnaires were administered after the post-test. For further information about the questionnaires see appendix 2.
3.7Collecting Data Procedures
There were some steps that were applied in collecting the data. The steps were:
1. Finding out some theories and concepts related to the study: project approach; teaching and testing reading to children; and general characteristics of fifth grade of elementary school students and children development.
2. Conducting the try-out tests (June 6, 2011) to make sure that the tests were reliable and valid. The tests try-out was conducted in a school, still in Parongpong, that has the same predicate with the school site, Sekolah Standar
National/SSN (National Standard School).
3. Conducting the pre-test to both groups (June 18, 2011) to find out the initial skill of the students of both groups.
4. Conducting the observation, first to fifth meeting (June 20-28, 2011). The experimental group was taught by the writer by using the project approach; and the control group was taught by the teacher of the fifth grade by using her own ways.
5. Conducting the post-test (June 28, 2011) to investigate the effect of project approach towards students’ reading comprehension.
40 7. Carrying out the interview with six students, as the representative of the class
after administering the questionnaires.
8. Organizing and analyzing the data obtained which afterwards they would be presented and discussed to draw some conclusions.
The theoretical foundation of this study can be found in the Chapter Two. Moreover, the findings and discussion of the observation can be seen in Chapter Four. Finally, the conclusion and the recommendation of the study will be displayed in the last chapter, Chapter Five.
3.8Validity and Reliability of Tests
The validity and the reliability of the tests are needed in a study to make sure that tests used in the study are appropriate and will result in a good conclusion. The following will elaborate the validity and the reliability of both tests.
3.8.1 Validity
41 In analyzing the validity test, the correlation product moment formula (r) was represented by Pearson was applied (Hatch and Lazaraton, 1991). In this case, every score item test was correlated with the total score. The computation of this validity test was done by ANATES V4.
The result of the computation shows that 0.73 for pre-test and 0.66 for post-test, which means the tests were valid since r table with α 0.01 and df 32 was 0.4451 (Appendix 4.2 and 5.2). In other words, pre- and post-test validity for the reading comprehension was fulfilled.
3.8.2 Reliability
Reliability, according to Hatch and Farhady, is the extent to which a test produces consistent result when administered under similar conditions (Hatch and Farhady, 1982). Since the type of the test (pre- and post-test) was in multiple choices form, the Spearman-Brown Formula was used to test the reliability of the tests (Hatch and Lazaraton, 1991). The computation of the reliability was done by ANATES V4.
42 3.8.3 Pre-test and Post-test Items Difficulty
It is important to test the items difficulty of the tests to make sure that the instruments used are appropriate for the subjects. To know the difficulty of each item of the tests, the formula from Gronlund (in Fitriani, 2008; Bajracharya, 2010) would be applied.
100%
Where:
P : The percentage who answered the item correctly R : The number who answered the item correctly T : The total number who tried the item
The calculation shows that from 25 items of pre-test try-out (see appendix 4.4), 2 items are considered as difficult items, 17 items are medium and 6 items are easy. Moreover, from the post-test try-out (see appendix 5.4), 3 items are difficult, 12 items are medium, and 10 items are easy. The items, then, were determined whether it would be used or not for the tests of this study based on the discriminating power.
3.8.4 Pre-test and Post-test Items Discriminating Power
43 (Fitriani, 2008; Bajracharya, 2010). However, it was adapted by multiplied it by 100% (which was done by ANATES V4). Thus, the formula is as follows:
1 2
100%
Where:
D : The index of item discriminating power
RU : The number in the upper group who answered the item correctly RL : The number in the lower group who answered the item correctly 1/2T : One half of the total of the students who tried the item
From the calculation in appendix 4.3, it can be seen that 6 items are categorized as good; 7 items are good; 7 items are medium; 4 items are bad; and 1 item is very bad. Thus, 5 items (item no. 4, 5, 11, 20, and 24), which are bad and very bad were deleted, and 20 items were used for the pretest of the research site. Furthermore, from the post-test discriminating power analysis (appendix 5.3), it can be noticed that 4 items are considered as very good; 14 items are good; 5 items are medium; 1 item is bad; and 1 item is very bad. However, to make the total same with the pre-test, 5 items would be deleted (4, 5, 11, 20, and 23) by considering also the difficulty items and the correlation.
3.9Data Analysis
44 3.9.1 Tests
To investigate the difference between both means (post-test of experimental and control group), the independent t-test formula was used in this study (Hatch & Farhady, 1982; Hatch & Lazaraton, 1991). The test was calculated by the assistance of SPSS 17. The steps of the t-test computation are as follows:
1. Stating the Null hypothesis (Ho: X1 = X2) 2. Setting the alpha level at 0.05
3. Finding the t value with independent t-test formula which was done by SPSS 17.
4. Comparing the result of the test. According to Hatch and Farhady (1982), the level of significance that is used in independent t-test, especially for social studies, is α = 0.05. The criterion to determine t-test stated that if the significant value is higher than 0.05 (p>0.05), Ho is accepted; While, if the significant value is lower than 0.05 (p<0.05), the result is statistically significant, then Ho is rejected.
Previously, there were two other steps that were needed to be considered and calculated: the Normality Test and Homogeneity Test. The two are covered as follow:
3.9.1.1 The Normality Test
45 normality test. In this study, the normality test was done by using SPSS 17.0. When the Asym. Sig (2-tailed) value is higher than 0.05, it can be concluded that the data is normally distributed (Santoso, 2004). In relation to that, the results of testing normality distribution experimental and control groups for the pre- and post-test are displayed in the following sections.
3.9.1.1.1 The Normality Test for the Pre-Test
The results of testing normality distribution experimental and control groups for pre-test can be observed in Appendix 7.3. Based on the tables in Appendix 7.3, it can be seen that the significant value of the experimental and the control group were 0.148 and 0.746. Since the significant value of the experimental group and the control group were higher than 0.05; thus, it can be concluded that the distribution of pre-test score in both groups were normally distributed. So, the independent t-test (parametric t-test) could be used (Hatch and Farhady, 1982; Hatch and Lazaraton, 1991).
3.9.1.1.2 The Normality Test for the Post-Test
46 3.9.1.2Homogeneity Test
This test was intended to determine whether the variance of pre-test and post-test scores in experimental and control groups were the same or not. The Levene’s test for equality of variance was used to analyze the homogeneity, which was also done by SPSS 17. The hypothesis is:
Ho : The distribution of pretest score in experimental and control group are homogeneous.
In addition, the level significance of homogeneity test was determined in the level
α = 0.05. The level significance criterion for homogeneity test stated that if the probability > 0.05, the Ho was accepted. Whereas, if the probability <0.05, then Ho is rejected (Hatch and Farhady, 1982:88).
3.9.1.2.1 The Homogeneity Test for the Pre-test
The result of homogeneity test of both groups in the pre-test scores, which were calculated using Levene’s test for equality of variance test in SPSS 17.0, is presented in the following table 3. 1:
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances pretest Equal
variances assumed
F Sig.
.697 .407
Table 3.4 The result of homogeneity of variances on pre-test
47 In conclusion, because both groups in pre-test analysis were normally distributed and homogenous, then the independent t-test could be applied in testing the similarities between two means of pre-test scores. The calculation of the t-test in investigating the students’ initial skills can be observed in the Chapter Four, Section 4.1.1.
3.9.1.2.2 The Homogeneity Test for the Post-test
The result of homogeneity test of both groups in the post-test scores is presented in the table below:
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances
F Sig.
1.036 .312
Table 3.5 The result of homogeneity of variances on post-test
From the table above, it can be observed that the significant value was 0.312. Since 0.312 was higher than 0.05, Ho was accepted. It means that variances of the experimental and the control groups post-test were homogenous.
48 3.9.1.3 Students’ Improvement in Reading Comprehension
After knowing the difference between the two means of the tests, the study would analyze how much of the improvement in students’ reading comprehension of the experimental group could be accounted for by the implementation of PA by using a test of strength of association (η2). The formula of this test is as follows:
Where :
η2 : the strength of association
t : the t value
df : the degrees of freedom
To go further, in finding out each student’s improvement before and after the treatment, the index gain was calculated. The formula used to calculate the index gain is:
g = post test score – pre test score
maximum score – pre test score (Hake, 1998)
Afterward, the result of index gain was interpreted using the following criteria:
Index gain < 0,3 = low 0,3 < Index gain < 0,7 = medium Index gain > 0,7 = high
49 3.9.2 Participant Observation Analysis
The data from the observation in the class was recorded in the teacher’s journal (appendix 12). The journal would be analyzed to find out the implementation of PA and the student’s response toward the approach. The data collected would be classified into two categories: the implementation of PA and the students’ response toward project approach.
3.9.3 Interview Analysis
The data from the interview was recorded through a tape recorder, so it was easier to capture and learn what happened during the interview. Then, the transcript of the interview was made by using pseudonyms of the students (Silverman, 1985, 1993, cited in Exley, 2002). The data subsequently categorized and interpreted to answer the research questions, especially in answering the students’ response toward the implementation of project approach question.
3.9.4 Questionnaire Analysis
After all the data from the questionnaire have been collected, the students’ answer from close-ended questionnaires was calculated by using the formula below:
Total participants who answer an item (fo)
50 In interpreting the result percentage, a reference noted in Suryadi as cited in Resmiati (2007, p. 40) would be used. The following are the interpretations for each percentage:
00.00% = none
00.15 – 24.99% = a few students
25.00 – 49.99% = nearly half of the students
50% = half of the students
50.01% - 74.99% = more than half of the students 75%.00 – 99.99% = nearly all of the students
100% = all of the students
After the data from the tests, interviews and questionnaires were analyzed, and then some conclusions would be drawn. Furthermore, the recommendations for further research would be given.
3.10 Concluding Remarks of Chapter Three
75 CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
This last chapter presents the conclusions and recommendations drawn from the research findings and discussion in the previous chapter. The chapter is divided into two parts, the first is conclusion and the second is recommendation.
5.1Conclusion
This research aimed at discovering: (1) the effectiveness of project approach (PA) in encouraging students’ comprehension of the reading given; and (2) the students’ responses to the project approach. The data was collected from tests (pre- and post-test), teacher’s journal of the participant observation, interviews and questionnaires.
76 In terms of students’ responses to the PA, the students responded the PA positively. They not only enjoyed the learning process, as shown by their enthusiastic expressions in the observation and their answers to the questionnaires and interviews, but also could finish the project well. Additionally, more than half students claimed that the PA was different from previous treatment they had got; they preferred learning English with PA to learning it with the teacher-centered method. Furthermore, regarding to the importance of learning English by using PA, most of the students thought that PA could make their English better, make their creativity skills increased, and motivate them in learning English. Moreover, in terms of teacher’s role as PA implementer, nearly all of the students agreed that the teacher can teach them well and help them to do the project given. Thus, PA made the students enjoyed (Katz, 1994; Challenge 2000 Multimedia Project in Railsback, 2002), were challenged (Katz, 1994; Challenge 2000 Multimedia Project in Railsback, 2002; Anderman & Midgley and Lumsden in Railsback, 2002; Thomas, 2000), and engaged in cooperative learning (Moss and Van Duzer, 1998; Coleman in Beckett, 2002). Finally, all these indicate that implementing project approach is worth doing by teachers in their classrooms.
5.2Recommendation
77 1. It is expected that the teachers implement project approach as one of instructions in teaching English, especially in elementary school, because it benefits the students in their English learning.
2. It is suggested that teachers intending to implement project approach should be creative in designing activities to be implemented and have willingness in finding ideas. Moreover, they need to be familiar with technology that can be used to make the approach more effective.
3. For further exploration, future researchers can extend the investigation on project approach by providing more samples from different settings and contexts.
4. Future researchers can also explore the potential difficulties faced by the teachers and the students involved in the implementation of the project approach.
78 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alwasilah, Chaedar. 2002. Pokoknya Kualitatif; Dasar – Dasar Merancang dan
Melakukan Penelitian Kualitatif. Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya.
Andini, Ayu N. 2007. Simposium Pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris untuk SD.
[Online]. Available at:
http://one1thousand100education.wordpress.com/2007/07/07/simposium-pembelajaran-bahasa-inggris-untuk-sd/. [March 30, 2008].
Anton. 2010. Projects Approach. [Online]. Available at: http://essays24.com/print/Projects-Approach/331.html [19 July, 2011]. Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2006. Prosedur Penelitian: Suatu Pendekatan Praktik-Edisi
Revisi VI. Jakarta: PT. Rineka cipta.
Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan. 2007. Standar Kompetensi Dan Kompetensi
Dasar Tingkat SD/MI. Departemen Pendidikan Nasional, Direktorat
Jenderal Mendikdasmen, Direktorat Pembinaan TK dan SD: Unpublished.
Beckett, Gulbahar H. & Paul Chamness Miller. 2006. Project-based second and
foreign language education: past, present, and future. North Carolina:
Information Age Publishing Inc.
Beckett, Gulbahar H.. 2002. Teacher and Student Evaluations of Project-Based Instruction. In TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL Du Canada. Vol. 19,
no. 2. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.teslcanadajournal.ca/index.php/tesl/article/viewFile/929/748 [February, 2010].
Beckett, Gubahar H. & Slater, Tommy. 2005. The Project Framework: a tool for language, content, and skills integration. In ELT Journals. Vol. 59, No. 2.
[Online]. Available
athttp://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/content/59/2/108.full.pdf+html?maxtosho w=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=project+approach+in+lang uage+learning&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT [May 27, 2011].
Beneke, Sallee. 2009. Implementing the Project Approach in Part-time Early Childhood Education Programs. In Early Childhood Research and
Practice. Vol. 2, No. 1. [Online]. Available at:
79 Berg, Bruce Lawrence. 2007. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social
Sciences-Sixth Edition. California: Pearson International.
Bajracharya, Indra Kumari. 2010.
[Online]. Available at: http://www.criticalthinkingblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Basic-Item-Analysis-for-Achievement-Test.pdf [June 13, 2011].
Brown, H. Douglas. 2001. Teaching by Principle. An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy. Second Edition. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Cameron, Lynn. 2001. Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chard, Sylvia C.. 2000. The Challenges and the Rewards: A Study of Teachers Undertaking Their First Projects. In Proceedings of the Lilian Katz
Symposium. [Online]. Available at:
http://ceep.crc.illinois.edu/pubs/katzsympro.html [November, 2010]. Clark, Ann-Marie. 2007. Changing Classroom Practice to Include the Project
Approach. In Early Childhood Research and Practice Jornal. Vol 8, No 2. [Online]. Available at: http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v8n2/clark.html [March 22, 2011].
Clark, Beverly A. 2000. First- and Second-Language Acquisition in Early Childhood. In Issues in Early Childhood Education—Proceedings of the
Lilian Katz Symposium. [Online]. Available at:
http://ceep.crc.illinois.edu/pubs/katzsympro.html [November, 2010]. Creswell, John W.. 1994. Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches. California: Sage Publications.
Dawson, Catherine. 2009. Introduction to Research Methods, Fourth Edition. Oxford: How To Books Ltd.
DeKeyser, Robert M.. 2006. Foreign Language Instruction:Implementing the Best Teaching Methods. In American Educational Research Association:
Research Points. Volume 4, Issue 1. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.aera.net/uploadedFiles/Journals_and_Publications/Research_ Points/AERA_RP_Spring06.pdf. [May 13, 2011].
Desiatova, Liubov. 2007. Project-based Learning as CLIL Approach to Teaching
Language. [Online]. Available at:
80 Edwards, Carolyn Pope and Springate, Kay Wright. 1995. Encouraging Creativity in Early Childhood Classrooms. In Clearing House on Early
Education and Parenting (CEEP). [Online]. Available at: http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/eecearchive/digests/1995/edward95.html [June 23, 2011].
Emilia, E. 2005. A Critical Genre-Based Approach to Teaching Academic Writing
in a Tertiary EFL Context in Indonesia. Thesis Dissertation: University
of Melbourne.
Exley, Beryl. 2002. Offshore Teachers' Work: Preparing International Students
For Australian Based Studies. [Online]. Available at: http//www.aare.edu.au/02pap/exl02213.htm [November 27, 2010]. Fitriyani. 2006. Islamic Reading Texts: Students’ Reading Comprehension and
Their Attitudes toward the Texts: A study in Reading Instruction at a Madrasah Aliyah in Bandung. A Paper: UPI Bandung. Unpublished.
Fraenkel, Jack R. & Wallen, Norman E.. 2007. How to Design and Evaluate in
Education-Sixth Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill International.
Gass, Susan M. & Larry Selinker. 2008. Second Language Acquisition: An
Introductory Course, Third Edition. New York: Routledge.
Hake, Richard R.. 1998. Interactive-Engagement Versus Traditional Methods: A Six-Thousand-Student Survey of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory Physics Courses. In American Journal of Physics. [Online]. Available at: web.mit.edu/rsi/www/2005/minipage/papers/hake.pdf [July, 2011]. Harmer, Jeremy. 2002. The Practice of English Language Teaching. Edinburgh:
Longman.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2007. How to Teach English. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited.
Hasan, Said Hamied. 2009. The Use of Project Based Learning in the
Implementation of the Senior Secondary Social Studies Curriculum.
[Online]. Available at:
81 Hatch, Evelyn & Lazaraton, Anne. 1991. The Research Manual: Design and
Statistics for Applied Linguistics. Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle
Publishers.
Heaton, J. B.. 1995. Writing English Language Tests. New York: Longman. Helm, Judy Harris & Sallee Beneke. 2003. The Power of Projects: Meeting
Contemporary Challenges in Early Childhood Classrooms-- Strategies and Solutions. Washington DC: Teachers College Press.
Hernowo. 2005. Menjadi Guru yang Mau dan Mampu Mengajar secara
Menyenangkan. Bandung: MLC.
Hertzog, Nancy B.. 2007. Transporting Pedagogy: Implementing the Project Approach in Two First-Grade classrooms. In Journal of Advanced
Academics. Vol. 18, no. 4, p. 530-564. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.prufrock.com/client/client_pages/prufrock_jm_jaa.cfm [April 2011].
Katz. 1994. The Project Approach. In Clearing house on Early Education and
Parenting. [Online]. Available at:
http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/eecearchive/digests/1994/lk-pro94.html [October 15, 2010].
Kuamoo, Michelle. n.d. PROJECT-BASED INSTRUCTION: Learning In Real-World Context Benefits Ells. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.prel.org/products/paced/oct04/ns_project.htm [November,
MeasurementResearch.com. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.measurementresearch.com/media/evalguidelines.pdf [June 11, 2011].
Mergendoller and Thomas. 2000. Managing Project Based Learning: Principles
from the Field. [Online]. Available at: www.bie.org [June 16, 2010].
Miles, Matthew B. & Huberman, A. M.. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. [Online]. Available at: http://books.google.com/books?id=U4lU_-wJ5QEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Qualitative+Data+Analysis
82 Moss, Donna & Carol Van Duzer. 1998. Project-Based Learning for Adult English Language Learners. In PRIME: Active Learning and Projects:
Collaborative Explorations That Excite Student Learning. [Online].
Available at: http://ceep.crc.illinois.edu/pubs/katzsympro.html [November, 2010].
Mukarto, et al. 2007. Grow with English: An English Course for Elementary
School Students—Book 5. Jakarta: Erlangga.
Mukarto, et al. (Consultative Group on English Education). 2009. English
Hooray: For Elementary School Students Grade 5. Jakarta: Erlangga.
Musthafa, Bachrudin. 2008. Teaching English to Young Learners: Principles and
Techniques. Bandung: School of Postgraduate Studies, Indonesia
University of Education (UPI).
Nunan, David. 1992. Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pang, Elizabeth S. et al.. 2003. Teaching Reading. In Educational Practices
Series. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/dept/smec/iae. [November, 2009].
Pinter, Annamaria. 2006. Teaching Young Language Learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Railsback, Jennifer. 2002. Project-Based Instruction: Creating Exitement for Learning. In By Request Series. Northwest Regional Educational
Laboratory. [Online]. Available at:
http://educationnorthwest.org/webfm_send/460 [February, 2010].
Riduan, Dr. and Sunarto, H. Dr. 2011. Pengantar Statistika untuk Penelitian
Pendidikan, Sosial, Ekonomi, Komunikasi, dan Bisnis. Bandung:
Alfabeta.
83 Stoller, Fedricka. 2006. Establishing a Theoretical Foundation for Project-Based Learning in Second and Foreign Language Context. In Project-based
second and foreign language education: past, present, and future. USA:
Information Age Publishing Inc.
Sugeng, Bambang. 2001. Let’s Make Friends with English: For Elementary
School Grade Five. Jakarta: Esis.
Suyanto, Kasihani E..n.d.. Pidato Guru Besar: Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris di
Sekolah Dasar: Kebijakan, Implementasi, dan Kenyataan. [Online].
Available at:
http://library.um.ac.id/images/stories/pidatogurubesar/Pidato%20Guru% 20Besar%20Prof.%20Kasihani%20E.%20Suyanto,%20M.A.,%20Ph.pdf. [March 21, 2010].
Syamsuddin, A. R. & Damaianti, Vismaia S.. 2007. Metode Penelitian
Pendidikan Bahasa. Bandung: Sekolah Pascasarjana UPI dan PT Remaja
Rosdakarya.
Thomas, John W.. 2000. A Review of Research on Project-Based Learning. [Online]. Available at: http://www.autodesk.com/foundation. [February, 2010].
Thomas, R. Murray. 2003. Blending Qualitative and Quantitative: Research
Methods in Theses and Dissertations. California: Corwin Press.
Trochim, William M. K. 2006. Qualitative Data. In Research Methods
Knowledge Base [Online]. Available at:
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/qualdata.php [May, 2007]. Tweedie, William. 2010. Active Learning and Projects: Collaborative
Explorations That Excite Student Learning. In PRIME. [Online]. Available at: http://ceep.crc.illinois.edu/pubs/katzsympro.html [November, 2010].
Utami, Ruth Hesti. 2004, October 02. Kurikulum Indonesia Terlalu Menuntut Anak Menghafal. Sinar Harapan [Online]. Available at: http://www.sinarharapan.co.id/berita/0410/02/nas03.html. [March 30, 2008].
Valenzuela, Dapzury & Shrivastava, Pallavi. n. d.. Interview as a Method for
Qualitative research. [Online]. Available at:
84 Vosniadou, Stella. 2001. How children Learn. In International Academy of
Education. [Online]. Available at: http://www.ibe.unesco.org [December,
2010].
Westwood, Peter & Arnold, Wendy. 2004. Meeting Individual Needs with Young Learners. In ELT Journals. Vol. 58, No. 4. [Online]. Available at: http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/content/58/4/375.full.pdf+html?sid=5b1cbc cd-2436-4136-a9fa-805045800d45 [May 27, 2011].
