DRAFT OF THESIS

Name : Nur Afifah Rustan

NIM : 20400112050
Department : English Education
Faculty : Tarbiyah and Teaching Science
Title : The Effectiveness of Project Based Learning
to Improve Students Speaking Skill for the
Second Semester Students of Cokroaminoto
University Palopo
Consultant I : Dr. Hj. Mardiana, M.Hum
Consultant II : Dr. Hj. Djuwairiah Ahmad, M.Pd.,
M.TESOL

A. Background

Speaking is an essential skill used to communicate and to share thoughts and

minds. People speak to express themselves by making statements, asking

questions, or negating. Many people have the potential to speak but there are lists

of problems they are facing when they want to speak, for example lack of

confidence and lack of vocabulary.

Nowadays, English is the most worlds spoken language and it is very

important to be able to speak in English. It is difficult if we do not have

confidence, knowledge, and preparation to speak in front of many people and it is

worst if it has to be in a foreign language especially in English since English is the

global language. Many of my collages from junior high school, senior high school

until college confront themselves that they have difficulties in speaking English.

There are many factors of the difficulties in speaking such as, the lack of

confidence, nervous to be standing on stage, and lack of vocabulary. For these

reasons, many people could not express themselves in front of other people
despites of their bright mind. Sometimes people call other person smart if he or

she is fluent in speaking even though that other person is cleverer than the fluent

person might be.

Experiencing the learning teaching in the class a few years ago is definitely

become a strength to conduct an experiment especially in speaking. Several years

back, the teaching process was 90% just focused on Reading and Writing only.

Speaking and Listening were so rare as if it were never existed. While the

National Examination were not just Reading, there was Listening as well where I

found out that it was very different from what we have learned in the class.

At High School, most of the learning was just structure, structure and

structure. Speaking was absolutely forgotten and from what we have seen in the

real world, we need to speak to be connected with others. That is the whole point

of language and then writing and gesture come along. Even though that the

students have a grade mark on structure but if they do not know how to speak it

up, then it is useless.

Many people admit that Speaking is very hard. Therefore, the question for

them is why. Their answers are all different but most of them because they were

afraid to be getting wrong. They do not have the courage to say what they think

because they are afraid to be misunderstood. From my point of view, they just

need a little practice on their Speaking so they will get use to it and feel no longer

embarrassment.

Due to the fact that English is a global language, speaking in English is very

helpful because people can interact with many people all around the world. People

use English in international meetings, conferences, symposiums, workshops, and

other important international events. Therefore, speaking is very important in our

lives.

Based on the experiences above, it is interesting to conduct a research using

Project-Based Learning to overcome the problem of speaking specially in

University. In the journal titled A Review of Research on Project-Based Learning

written by Thomas (2000 p: 1), it says that Project Based Learning is a model that

organizes learning and projects. Projects as stated in the journal are complex

tasks, based on challenging questions and problems, that involves students in

design, problem solving, decision making, or investigative activities: give students

the opportunity to work relatively autonomously extended periods of time: and

culminate in realistic products or presentations. (Jones, Rasmussen, & Moffitt,

1997: Thomas, Mergendoller, & Michaelson, 1999).

Project Based Learning (PBL) is one of the models that suits to improve the

students speaking because it prepares the students to speak in front of many

people. Project Based Learning also suits in any parts of the curriculum whether

in the KTSP or in the K-13 or in University Syllabus. Therefore, it can be taught

in any subjects but the researcher will be focusing on improving the speaking in

English Class.

Based on the aforementioned definitions above, Project-Based Learning is a

chosen model to improve the students speaking skill. The project will be from the

curriculum, depends on which curriculum the university uses. The project will be

presented in front of the class with its miniature or picture of the selected material.

From the activity of presentation, students will be able to speak fluently and

communicatively in front of the class.

B. Problem Question

The lack of speaking in English especially at Cokroaminoto University

Palopo is the main problem. In order to elaborate the main problem, the research

question is To what extent is Project Based Learning in improving speaking skill

of the second semester students of Cokroaminoto University Palopo?

C. Research Objective

This study aims at improving speaking skill of the second grade students of

Cokroaminoto University Palopo. The specific objective of this current research is

To identify the effectiveness of the Project Based Learning in improving

speaking skill of the second semester students in Cokroaminoto University

Palopo.

D. Research Significance

This research contributes significance both theoretically and practically. It

may contributes and become the benefits for all the people especially whom work

around education.

1. Theoretical Significance

First contribution to this research is theoretical significance. This

significance of the research can contribute one more theory of how

effective Project Based Learning towards the teaching and learning

process, especially to speaking skill.

2. Practical Significance

Second contribution to this research is practical significance. There

are many practical significances of the research which can be useful for
 students, teachers, and for the next researchers. First, for the students, this

research will be about the project-based learning where the researcher will

conduct the PBL model in learning so it will bring the excitement in the

class. Second, for the teachers, this research will offer the information to

the significance of the Project Based Learning. Third, for the next

researcher, this research can be the reference of his or her that related to

the research.

E. Research Scope

To make this research clearer and specific, the limits of this research is the

effectiveness of using PBL in speaking skill. The PBL here means a task of which

the students will be given and present their own work in the front of the class. The

speaking criteria chosen for this research are accuracy fluency and

comprehensibility. The speaking skill is based on three aspects of speaking which

are fluency, accuracy and comprehensibility. Fluency in this matter is how the

students speak very clear and without any hesitation about what they are talking.

Accuracy here means that the students present their work like a native, which

means they have a good pronunciation like a native-like and easy to understand of

what they explain. Comprehensibility means that what the students talk about

precise of which they are presenting.

For the place, the research will be conducted at Cokroaminoto University

Palopo. For the subjects, the chosen semester is the second semester students of

Cokroaminoto University Palopo. The method that will be used in this research is

True Experimental Design, exactly the Pretest-Posttest Control Group Design.

F. Operational Definition of Terms
There are three main terms of this research, they are: Effectiveness, Project-

Based Learning and the students speaking skill improvement.

1. The first term is the effectiveness. Defining effectiveness as the extent to

which targeted problems are solved is what this research is for. In this

matter, the targeted problem is the speaking and the models that we want

to find the effectiveness of Project Based.

2. The PBL that will be conducted is a task that is given to the students that

have a long period to be done so the project will be nicely prepared. The

project is also according to the curriculum that the university uses. The

students will be given the project that will be done outside the class and

they will present their project in the class by speaking English.

3. This research aims to collect the data of the implementation of Project

Based Learning that can improve the students speaking skill. Improve

here means that the ability of the students speaking skill becomes better or

increase by applying the Project Based Learning.

G. Review of Related Literature

1. Previous of Related Findings

In conducting PBL, there must be a guidance to straighten the research.

These are 9 steps in conducting the PBL written in the book of Teachers as

Classroom Coaches by Andi Stix and Frank Hrbek in Oct 2006. The steps are:

1. Setting the Stage with Real-Life Examples

With the help of the school's science teacher, Mr. Jordan set the

stage for his students to study the arch bridge. He explained that the major
advantage of the construction was that it had a large passage for vessels to

pass through. The Roman transportation system was a key priority for

continuous military campaigns, as well as for the trade that was carried to

all corners of the empire. Mr. Jordan showed the students different types of

bridges, demonstrating the differences between the arch bridge and the

primitive structures that existed prior to its invention.

2. Taking on the Role of Project Designers

Having his goal in mind, Mr. Jordan assigned the students their

roles as engineers for Roman firms. He explained that they were

commissioned by the emperor, but had to use paper materials for their

model constructions. Each group of two to three students was to be a firm

competing with other groups to build a bridge that would meet

predetermined specifications and be subjected to heavy weight.

3. Discussing and Accumulating Necessary Background Information

Students conducted research on the arch bridge and learned that the

center keystone was critical to distributing weight evenly to each side.

They saw the advantage of the Roman arch bridge over post-and-lintel

constructions, which did not offer as much clearance for whatever passed

beneath. The even distribution of weight created by an arch bridge's

keystone made the structure more reliable, adding a degree of stability and

security.
 Mr. Jordan and his students determined the parameters of the

construction, setting strictly defined limits to the length of the bridge and

the roadway above.

4. Negotiating the Criteria for Evaluation

Mr. Jordan and his students decided that the projects should be

assessed by asking the following questions:

Did the group design and construct a bridge that employed the

Roman arch concept?

Did the engineers try to keep their expenditures low?

Did the bridge support the weight that was placed upon it?

Once the criteria were clearly defined, the students realized

that they might have to be modified in the future.

5. Accumulating the Necessary Materials

The students decided that they would use paper or soft balsa wood

and glue or tape to make their arch bridges. Mr. Jordan told them that any

material they needed would have to be purchased at a mock store, and they

were expected to keep track of their expenditures on an expense sheet. For

example, a sheet of paper, representing stone, cost $1,000; a tablespoon

of glue, representing cement, cost $2,000. Mr. Jordan reminded students

that construction commodities were very expensive in Ancient Rome.

Students decided that the bridge that withstood the most weight and was

most cost-effective would win.

 6. Creating the Project

Students in each group worked on preliminary sketches and

graphic organizers until they decided on a final design. During this stage,

Mr. Jordan served as coach, moving from group to group to guide the

students' work. As he did so, he asked himself the following COACHing

questions (reflective of the COACH Model in Chapter 3):

Do the students have a clear understanding of the task?

Does each student have ownership of her role within the

group?

Are the students attentive and working together cooperatively?

Are the resources that students use geared to

their comprehensive level of understanding?

Are any groups stumbling in a way that is blocking their work

due to heightened emotions?

Mr. Jordan's role as coach obtained a clarity of purpose

throughout this process. Prompted by the COACHing questions and the

GOPER Model, the students used their own intellects to solve problems

while attaining a higher level of learning.

7. Preparing to Present the Project

The students in each group prepared for the final stages, discussing

whether or not the presentations needed to be rehearsed, or whether

display cards had to be written. They also made note of the following:
 Who designed and built the arch bridge

The cost expended on materials

What made their design aesthetically appealing

What they thought was unique about their design

What made their arch bridge strong enough to hold the

weight that was placed on it

8. Presenting the Project

During this stage, students become aware of the ways their

presentations meet the criteria of assessment. The teacher-coach observes

how engaged they are in presenting their projects. Each group in Mr.

Jordan's class showcased its arch bridge to the class, explaining how the

design was achieved. Testing one bridge at a time, weight was placed on

top of it, to determine how much stress the bridge could bear without

collapsing. Not one student was absent on the day of the competition.

9. Reflecting on the Process and Evaluating the Process

In this simulation, the students discussed what they enjoyed about

working in pairs or small groups, and how one student's idea would spawn

another student's idea. They discussed what they liked about the materials

and what they found to be frustrating. Students shared their reflections to

note what they had in common and what was special to each pair or to

each individual personally. They reviewed the criteria of assessment and

discussed how well they met them.

 In the research under the title of Gains in Students' Understanding

of the Subject Matter: A Longitudinal Study of Two found that the

different school have the different kinds of method to teach, one of them

is the conventional way and the other one is treated by the PBL method.
British Secondary Schools study was conducted by following a

cohort of students from each school (300 students in all) for three years as

they moved from Year 9 (age 13) to Year 11 (age 16). Boaler observed

approximately 90 one-hour lessons in each school, and she interviewed

students in the second and third year of the study, administered

questionnaires to all students in each year of the study, and interviewed

teachers at the beginning and the end of the research period. In addition,

she collected documentation, administered assessments, and analyzed

student responses to a standardized national assessment measure, the

General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE). Students in the two

schools were considered to be comparable in background and ability.

At the beginning of the research period, students entering the

project-based school and the traditional school were similar in

socioeconomic status, they had experienced the same approaches to

mathematics instruction in prior years, and they showed similar

mathematics achievement performance on a range of tests. Results from a

national, standardized test of mathematics proficiency administered at the

beginning of the first year of the study (students' year 9) revealed no

significant differences between the scores of students enrolled in the

traditional school and those of students enrolled in the project-based

 school. The majority of students in both schools scored below the national

average for the test, 75 and 77 percent, respectively.

During the three-year period of the study, the author observed and

interviewed students periodically. At the traditional school, students'

responses to the textbook-based teaching were, according to Boaler,

"consistent and fairly unanimous...the majority of students reported 15

that they found (the) work boring and tedious." Moreover, "the students

regard mathematics as a rule-bound subject and they thought that

mathematical success rested on being able to remember and use rules." In

contrast, students at the project-based school regarded mathematics as a

"dynamic, flexible subject that involved exploration and thought."

(Boaler, 1997, p. 63). Results from mathematical assessments

administered in each of the three years favored the students at the project-

based school. Students at the project-based school performed as well as or

better than students at the traditional school on items that required rote

knowledge of mathematical concepts, and three times as many students at

the project-based school as those in the traditional school attained the

highest possible grade on the national examination. Overall, significantly

more students at the project-based school passed the national

examination.
Therefore, the results of the study was that the school with the

treatment of Project Basel Learning was more significantly better than the

school that still use the conventional way of learning.

2. Some of Pertinent Ideas
 Project-based learning (PBL) is an instructional model that is based in the

constructivist approach to learning, which entails the construction of knowledge

with multiple perspectives, within a social activity, and allows for self-awareness

of learning and knowing while being context dependent stated Duffy &

Cunningham, 1996 in Tamim and Grant 2013, p: 73. Thomas (2000) sets five

criteria for PBL: projects should be central to the curriculum, focused on

problems that drive the students to struggle with major concepts, involve the

students in constructivist investigation, student-driven, and realistic. (Tamim and

Grant 2013, p: 73)

The general definition of effectiveness is the ability to achieve stated

education goals (Seiler, 2013).

Speaking is a productive skill that can be directly and empirically observed.

Those observation are invariably colored by the accuracy and effectiveness of the

test takers listening skill, which necessarily compromises the reliability and the

validity of an oral production test (Brown, 2004). Extensive oral production tasks

include speeches, oral presentations, and storytelling, during which the

opportunity for oral interaction from listener is either highly limited or ruled out

altogether (Brown, 2004).

From the definitions above, the researcher concluded that PBL is the method

that can improve the speaking skill of the students because the PBL is a

productive method.

H. Theoretical Framework
 The conceptual framework underlying this research can be design as
follows:

PROJECT BASED STUDENTS SPEAKING

LEARNING: SKILL:
I. Hypothesis
Assignment Fluency
Presentation IMPROVES Accuracy
Communication Comprehensibility

Based on the discussion above, the researcher formulates hypotheses, which

can be answered by this research, as follows:

H1: Project Based learning is effective to improve students speaking skill.

H0: Project Based Learning is not effective to improve students speaking

skill.
J. Research Method

1. Research Design

The research will be conducted with True Experimental Design, exactly

the Pretest and Posttest Control Group Design that the sample will be chosen

randomly as group. The pretest-and posttest control group design requires at least

two groups (L. R. Gay, p: 254). In this method, there will be two classes, which

are experimental class and controlled class. In the experimental class, the Project

Based Learning will be conducted as well as pretest and posttest and the

controlled class will only get pretest and posttest. This method is appropriate in

the research because it can describe whether Project Based Learning is effective

or not.
 E= O1 X O2

C= O3 O4
E= Experimental Class

C= Controlled Class

O1 & O3= Pretest

O2 & O4= Posttest (Sugiyono, p: 112)

2. Research Variable

Variable according to F. N. Kerlinger in Arikunto is variable is a concept

as well as men in the concept of sex and conviction in the concept of

consciousness. Well, in this research, there are two variables that consist of

independent and dependent variable. According to the title of this research namely

The Effectiveness of Project Based Learning to Improve Students Speaking Skill

for the Second Semester Students of Cokroaminoto University Palopo, the

independent variable is Project Based Learning and the dependent variable is

students speaking skill.

K. Population and Sample

1. Population

Population is the subject of the research overall (Arikunto, p: 173). The

population of this research is all the second semester students of

Cokroaminoto University Palopo. The total number of population is 178

students of five classes.

 2. Sample

Sample is partially or the representative of the population studied

(Arikunto, p: 174). In this research, the sample will be two classes.

Technique of sampling that will be used is cluster sampling. In cluster

sampling, intact groups, not individuals are randomly selected (Gay, p:

106). The five classes will be chosen randomly so there will only two

classes that will be the examples of this experiment.

L. Research Instrument

The instrument that will be used to collect data of this research is

achievement test. The achievement test is an oral test that will be systematically

done by a guidance of rubric of speaking according to Heaton. The instrument

will be measuring the students speaking skill in both experimental class and

controlled class. The pretest and posttest will be the same so it can decrease the

bias level of the research.

M. Data Collecting Procedure

The researcher will collect the data by test (pre-test and post-test) that will be

assessing based on speaking rubric. Because the research uses Pretest-Posttest

Control Group Design, the pretest will be conducted in the two classes that has

been chosen. The pre-tests will be used oral test that the material is based on the

curriculum used at the school. After giving the pre-test, then the treatment will be

given to the experimental class. The treatment is Project Based Learning where

the students will be given a project that will be based according to the curriculum

while the control class will be taught by using conventional dealing model. The

project will be presented in front of the class where the speaking of the students
will be assessed using Heaton criteria speaking assessment. After that, the post-

test will be conducted to the students of the two classes where the speaking of the

students will be assessed using Heaton criteria speaking assessment as well as in

the pretest. The data which will be taken are going to be recorded so it will make

the researcher easier to grade the students.

N. Data Analyses Technique

After conducting posttests in the experimental class and the controlled class,

the result of the pre-test will be analyzed from these two classes. In the

experimental class, the treatment of Project Based Learning will be given to the

students where they will explain about a picture or a topic while the other class

will be given the conventional dealing model. In the experimental class, to make

the experiment to be more specific and clear, the students will be asked to take

pictures when they are doing the project. Therefore, there will be a logbook to

make the research more convincing. After giving the treatment to the experimental

class, then the result of post-tests from the both classes will be analyzed to see if

there is any differences from one another.

The formula that will be used in calculating the mean score of the students

answer is:

x=
x x 100
N
x = mean score
x = sum of all scores
 N = total number of the respondents

The formula used in calculating the standard deviation is:

X
2
SD =
SS

N , where SS= X
2



SD = standard deviation

SS = the sum of square

N = total number of the subjects

x2 = the sum of all square; each score is squared and all the squares

are added up

(x)2 = the square of the sum; all the scores are added up and the sum

is square, total.

(Gay 2006, p: 321)

The formula that will be used in finding out the differences between students

score in pre-test and in post-test is:

x 1 x 2
t=

( n1+n
SS 1+ SS 2 1
)( 1
+ )
22 n 1 n 2
 Where:

t = test of significance

x 1 = mean score of experimental group

x 2 = mean score of controlled group

SS1 = sum square of experimental group

SS2 = sum square of controlled group

n1 = number of students of experimental group

n2 = number of students of cotrolled group

(Gay 2006, p: 349)

Reference

Arikunto, Suharsimi. Prosedur Penelitian: Suatu Pendekatan Praktik. Edition.

XV: Jakarta: Rineka Cipta, 2013.
Brown, H. Douglas. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom
Practices. New York: Pearson Education Inc, 2004.
Gay, etc. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications.
Edition. VIII: New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc, 2006.
Heaton, J.B.. Writing English Language Tests. Edition. IV: London: Longman
Group UK Limited. 1991
Stix, Andi and Frank Hrbek. Teachers as Classroom Coaches: How to Motivate
Students Across the Content Areas. New York: ASCD, 2006
Sugiyono. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan: Pendekatan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif,
dan R&D.Cet. X; Bandung: Alfabeta, 2010.
Thomas, John W.. A Review of Research on Project Based Learning. California:
The Autodesk Foundation, 2000.

Appendix

1. The table for fluency scoring for pre-test and post-test:

Classification Score Criteria

Excellent 6 Speak without too great an effort with

fairly wide range of expression. Searches

 for words occasionally but only one or two

unnatural pauses.
Has to make an effort time to search for

Very good 5 words. Nevertheless, smooth delivery on

the whole and only a few unnatural pauses.

Although has to make an effort and search

for words, there are not too many unnatural

pauses, Fairly smooth delivery mostly.

Good 4
Occasionally fragmentary but succeeded in

conveying the general meaning, fair range

of expression.
Has to make an effort too much of the

time, often has to search the desire

Average 3 meaning. Rather halting delivery and

fragmentary, range of expression often

limited.
Long pauses while he searches for the

desire meaning. Frequently fragmentary

Poor 2 and halting delivery. Almost gives up

making the efforts at time. Limited range

of expression.
Full of long and unnatural pauses. Very

halting and fragmentary delivery. At times

Very poor 1
gives up making the effort. Very limited

range expression.
2. The table for accuracy scoring in pre-test and post-test:

Classification Score Criteria

Pronunciation is only very slightly

Excellent 6 influenced by the mother-tongue. Two or

three minor grammatical and lexical errors.

Pronunciation is slightly influenced by the

mother tongue. A few minor grammatical

Very good 5
and lexical errors but most utterances are

correct.
Pronunciation is still moderately

influenced by the mother-tongue but no

Good 4 serious phonological errors. A few

grammatical and lexical errors but only

one or two major errors cause confusion.

Pronunciation is influenced by the mother

tongue but only a few serious phonological

Average 3
errors. A few grammatical and lexical

errors, some of which cause confusion.

Pronunciation seriously influence by the

mother tongue with errors causing a

Poor 2
breakdown in communication. Many

basic grammatical and lexical errors.

Very poor 1 Serious pronunciation errors as well as

many basic grammatical and lexical

errors. No evidence of having mastered

any of the language skills and areas

 practiced in the course.
3. The table for comprehensibility scoring in pre-test and post-test:

Classification Score Criteria

Excellent 6 Easy for the listener to understand the

speakers intention and general meaning.

Very few interruptions or clarifications

required.

Very good 5 The speakers intention and general

meaning are fairly clear. A few

interruptions by the listener for the sake of

clarification are necessary.

Good 4 Most of what the speaker says is easy to

follow. His intention is always clear but

several interruptions are necessary to help

him to convey the message or to seek

clarification.

Average 3 The listener can understand a lot of what is

said, but he must constantly seek

clarification. Cannot understand many of

the speakers more complex or longer

sentences.

Poor 2 Only small bits (usually short sentences

and phrases) can be understood- and then

with considered effort by someone who

used to listening to the speaker.

Very poor 1 Hardly anything of what is said can be

 understood. Even when the listener makes

a great effort or interrupts, the speaker is

unable to clarify anything he seems to

have said.

Heaton, (1991: p: 100)