PROJECT-BASED LEARNING IN TEACHING GRAMMAR FOR HIGH AND LOW MOTIVATED STUDENTS The Case of The Tenth Graders of Sman 1 Bangsri In The Academic Year of 2013/2014
##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##
Abstract
Although the present body of literature supports the use of project-based learning (PBL) to teach grammatical accuracy, there is still huge urgency to investigate its effectiveness for language learners with different motivation. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of PBL, the effect motivation in teaching grammar for ten graders and the interaction among techniques, motivation, and students’ grammar. The study is a 2X2 factorial research design involving 48 students in two experimental groups and two control groups. The samples are divided into high and low motivated where the experimental groups are taught using PBL and the control groups are taught using collaborative learning. The data are collected by using a pretest and a posttest. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) is used for analyzing the data. The content analysis reveals that students’ motivation does not effect students grammar significantly in both experimental and control groups. The finding also shows that both techniques are effective to improve students’ grammatical accuracy for high and low motivated students. The analysis of variance shows that there is no interaction among students’ motivation, techniques, and students’ grammar with the level of significance at 0.934. The study suggests that teachers must be able to consider the presence of both variables in teaching and learning, especially to teach grammatical accuracy.
##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##
References
DeKeyser, R. M. (1995). Learning Second Language Grammar Rules. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(3), 379 – 410.
Dobao, F. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 40–58.
Gillies, R. M. (2006). Teachers and students verbal behaviors during cooperative and small-group learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 (2), 271–287.
Ivone, F. (2005). Teaching English as a foreign language in Indonesia: The urge to improve classroom vocabulary instruction. TEFLIN Journal, 16(2), 195-208
Pintrich, P.R.,& Groot, E. (1990). Motivational and Self-Regulated Learning Components of Classroom Academic Performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.
Pusat Kurikulum. (2013). Kajian Standar Proses Kurikulum 2013. Jakarta: Ministry of National Education.
Robb, T., Ross, S. & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 82-94.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, (26), 207-231.
Shepherd, H. G. (1998). The probe method: A problem-based learning model’s effect on critical thinking skills of fourth- and fifth- grade social studies students. Dissertation Abstract International, Section A: Humanitie and Social Sciences, September 1988. 59 (3-A), p. 0779.
Skehan, P. (2009). Modeling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30 (3), 510–532.
Skinner, E.A., & Belmont, M.J (1993). Motivation in the Classroom; Reciprocal effect of Teacher Behavior and Student Engagement Across the School Year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571-581.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50 (2), 315–342.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(2), 153–173.
Swain, M. (2001). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(3), 44–63.
Thomas, J. W. & Mergendoller, J. R. (2000). Managing project-based learning: Principles from the field. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Winkel, F. W. (2006). Peer Support Groups: Evaluating the mere contact / mere sharing model and some impairment hypotheses. Victimology: International Perspectives, 2(1), 101-114.