• Tiada Hasil Ditemukan

BASED ON COMPONENT DISPLAY THEORY ON STUDENT’S ACHIEVEMENT

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Share "BASED ON COMPONENT DISPLAY THEORY ON STUDENT’S ACHIEVEMENT "

Copied!
42
0
0

Tekspenuh

(1)

THE EFFECT OF INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN OF ENGLISH SUBJECT

BASED ON COMPONENT DISPLAY THEORY ON STUDENT’S ACHIEVEMENT

MULYADI

UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA

2011

(2)

THE EFFECT OF INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN OF ENGLISH SUBJECT

BASED ON COMPONENT DISPLAY THEORY ON STUDENT’S ACHIEVEMENT

By

MULYADI

Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

2011

(3)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Praise be to Allah SWT. Whose knowledge extends knows beyond all knowledge, both secret and open, Most Gracious and Most Merciful. His Blessing has provided me the strength and courage to undertake and complete this extensive endeavor. Thank you Allah for giving me the opportunity to meet many wonderful people during this endeavor, with whom I would like to humbly share this achievement.

First, allow me to express my gratitude and appreciation to all who had made this study possible.

I am deeply grateful and thankful to my supervisor, Prof. Madya Dr. Sharifah Norhaidah Syed Idros (Allahyarhamah), for her advice, understanding, encouragement, support and guidance towards the completion of this study.

My grateful thanks are also extended to Dr. Nordin Abdul Razak for his expert advice.

I wish to express my heartfelt thanks to the principals, teachers, and students involved in this study and those in the pilot study. Their cooperation, generosity, sincerity and keenness have made my field work an enlightened experience.

My gratitude is also extended to staff of School of Education and staff of IPS, Universiti Sains Malaysia, and many others for their encouragement and support.

I am indebted to my family, my loving daughters Dina Mardhatillah, Dini Hidayati and especially my beloved wife Marhamah Syarief, for their sacrifice, love, support and encouragement. My deep gratitude is also extended to my mother for her moral support and loving prayers.

(4)

ii

Last but not least, I wish to dedicate this study to all English teachers in Bekasi, eastern Jakarta, Indonesia for their untiring effort and patience in making English learning meaningful.

(5)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

No. PAGES

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i

TABLE OF CONTENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES vii

LIST OF FIGURES ix

LIST OF APPENDICES X

ABSTRACT xi

ABSTRAK xiii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem 7

1.3 Purpose of the Study 15

1.4 Research Objectives 15

1.5 Research Questions 16

1.6 Research Hypotheses 18

1.7 Conceptual Framework 22

1.8 Rational of the Study 27

1.9 Operational Definition of Terms 28

1.9.1 Component Display Theory 28

1.9.2 Learning Target 28

1.9.3 Achievement 28

1.9.4 Primary Presentation 28

1.9.5 Primary Presentation Together with Secondary Presentation

30 1.9.6 Academic Intrinsic Motivation

1.9.7 Instructional Design

30 31

1.10 Significance of the Study 32

1.11 Limitation of the Study 32

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction 34

2.2 Instructional Design 36

2.3 Instructional Design Models 36

2.3.1 Dick and Carey Model. 36

2.3.2 Gerlach and Ely Model 40

2.3.3 Kemp Model 42

2.4 Weaknesses and Strengths 44

2.4.1 Weaknesses 44

(6)

iv

2.5 Definition of Component Display Theory (CDT) 50

2.6 Theoretical and Foundation of CDT 52

2.7 Taxonomy of CDT Content Type 55

2.8 Principle of CDT 56

2.8.1 The Performance Levels 58

2.8.2 The types of Content Level 58

2.9 Dimensions of CDT 59

2.9.1 Primary Presentation 59

2.9.2 Secondary Presentation 61

2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15

2.16 2.17

2.18 2.19 2.20

Theoretical Support CDT Learning Target on CDT Researches Support CDT

Principles of Language Teaching

Essentials of Grammar in English Language Teaching Problems in Teaching a Language to Students Whose First Language is not English

2.15.1 Age

2.15.2 Native Language 2.15.3 Cultural Differences

2.15.4 Academic Language Skills Take Time Definition of Motivation

Types of Motivation 2.17.1 Intrinsic Motivation 2.17.2 Extrinsic Motivation Theory of Motivation

The Significance of Motivation in Foreign Language Learning

Summary

64 66 68 72 73 75 76 76 76 76 77 77 78 79 79 81 82

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction 84

3.2 Research Design 84

3.3 Research Variables 86

3.3.1 Independent Variable 87

3.3.2 Dependent Variable 88

3.3.3 Covariate (Control) Variable 89

3.4 Population, Sample and Sampling Technique 89

3.4.1 Population 89

3.4.2 The Sample of the Study 91

3.4.3 Internal and External Validity Threat 93

3.5 Research Instruments 97

3.5.1 The Instruments to Measure Student’s Achievement 97 3.5.1.1 Development of Test Items Used to

Measure Student’s Achievement 3.5.1.2 The Reliability of the Student’s

Achievement Test

98 99

(7)

3.5.2 The Instruments to Measure Student’s Academic Intrinsic Motivation

100 3.6 Development of Teaching and Learning Materials 103 3.6.1 Organization of Material Content 105

3.6.2 Development of Lesson Materials 107

3.6.3 Sample of Lesson Plan

3.6.4 The Evaluation of the Lesson Materials

108 111

3.7 Research Procedures 114

3.7.1 The Preparation Phase 114

3.7.2 The Treatment Phase 115

3.8 Data Collection Procedures 116

3.9 Technique of Data Analysis 117

3.10 Research Matrix 118

3.11 Summary 121

CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction 122

4.2 Respondent Demography Information 123

4.3 Testing of Statistic Assumption 124

4.3.1 Testing of Normality Assumption 124

4.3.2 Testing of Homogeneity Variance Assumption 125 4.3.3 Testing of Homogeneity of Regression Slope 128

4.4 Testing of Null Hypothesis 130

4.4.1 The Effect of Different Types of Presentations on the Overall Student Achievement

131 4.4.2 The Effect of Different Types of Presentations on

the Student Remember Concept

133 4.4.3 The Effect of Different Types of Presentations on

the Student Remember Procedure

136

4.4.4 The Effect of Different Types of Presentations on the Student Remember Principle

139 4.4.5 The Effect of Different Types of Presentations on

the Student Use Concept

142 4.4.6 The Effect of Different Types of Presentations on

the Student Use Procedure

145 4.4.7 The Effect of Different Types of Presentations on

the Student Use Principle

148 4.4.8 The Effect of Different Types of Presentations on

the Student of Remember Concept, Remember Procedure and Remember Principle

151

4.4.9 The Effect of Different Types of Presentations on the Student for Use Concept, Use Procedure and Use Principle

154

4.5 Summary Findings of the Test Result Hypotheses 156

(8)

vi

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Introduction 160

5.2 Discussion 162

5.2.1 Research Objective 1

The Effect Secondary Presentation to the Students’ Overall Achievement

162

5.2.2 Research Objective 2

The Effect of Secondary Presentation on Student’s Achievement of Remember Concept, Remember Procedure and Remember Principle, with Student’s Motivation as Covariate

168

5.2.3 Research Objective 3

The Effect of Secondary Presentation on student’s Achievement of Use Concept, Use Procedure and Use Principle, with Student’s Motivation as Covariate.

5.2.4 Research Objective 3

173

179

5.3 Research Conclusion 181

5.4 Suggestions for Further Research 189

5.5 Suggestions Utilization Research Results 185

(9)

LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1

Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 3.1 Table 3.2

Learning Target

Components of Primary and Secondary Presentation Types of Components Strategies

Research Design

The Population of Second Grade Students of State Junior High School in Bekasi, Eastern Jakarta, Indonesia.

66 67 68 85 90 Table 3.3 The Name of The Schools and Classes Used as The

Sample for The Experimental Group 1 and Experimental Group 2.

92

Table 3.4

Table 3.5

Pretest Mean Score and Standard Deviation of Experimental Group 1 and Experimental Group 2 Before Treatment.

T-test Result of Different Score on Experimental Group 1 and Experimental Group2 Before Treatment

96

96 Table 3.6 The Number and Type of Test Items Used to Measure

Student’s Achievement

98 Table 3.7 The Results of Validity and Reliability Test of

Achievement Tests by Using Cronbach's Alpha Method

99 Table 3.8 The Kuder Richardson Coefficient of Reliability of

Instrument Used to Measure Student Achievement.

100 Table 3.9 Dimensions of Academic Intrinsic Motivation. 101 Table 3.10 Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient of Reliability of

Instrument Used to Measure Student’s Academic Intrinsic Motivation.

102

Table 3.11 Table 3.12

Main Content Lessons on Each Learning

Target Rate Value Means Score from Evaluation Team for the Appropriateness of the Lesson Material.

106 112 Table 3.13 Rate Value Means Score for the Appropriateness of Each

Lessons Material

112

Table 3.14 Research Matrix 118

Table 4.1 Table 4.2

The Demographic Information of Respondents.

Skewness and Kurtosis Value

124 125 Table 4.3 Lavene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances for Post-

Test of Six Learning Targets

126 Table 4.4 Test of Homogenity of Regression Slope 128

Table 4.5 Mean and Standard Deviation 131

Table 4.6 ANCOVAAnalysis Result 132

Table 4.7 Mean and Standard Deviation of Remember Concept Score

134 Table 4.8 ANCOVA Analysis Result of Different Score on

Remember Concept

135 Table 4.9 Mean and Standard Deviation of Remember Procedure

Score

137 Table 4.10 ANCOVA Analysis Result of Different Score on 138

(10)

viii

Table 4.11 Mean and standard Deviation of Remember Principle Score

140 Table 4.12 ANCOVA Analysis Result of Different Score on

Remember Principle

141 Table 4.13 Mean and Standard Deviation of Use Concept Score 143 Table 4.14 ANCOVA Analysis Result of Different Score on Use

Concept

144 Table 4.15 Mean and Standard Deviation of Use Procedure Score 146 Table 4.16 ANCOVA Analysis Result of Different Score on Use

Procedure

147 Table 4.17 Mean and Standard Deviation of Use Principle Score 149 Table 4.18 ANCOVA Analysis Result of Different Score of Use

Principle

150 Table 4.19 The Multivariate Test Analysis Result of Different Score

on Remember Concept, Remember Procedure, and Remember Principle

152

Table 4.20 MANOVA Analysis Result of Different Score on Remember Concept, Remember Procedure, and Remember Principle

153

Table 4.21 The Multivariate Test Analysis Result of Different Score on Use Concept, Use Procedure, and Use Principle

155 Table 4.22 MANOVA Analysis Result of Different Score on Use

Concept, Use Procedure, and Use Principle

156

(11)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Performance Content Matrixes 24

Figure 1.2 Conceptual Framework 26

Figure 2.1 Components of Dick and Carey Model 37

Figure 2.2 Components of Gerlach and Ely Model 42

Figure 2.3 Components of Kemp Model 43

Figure 2.4 The Relationships Among The Four Memory Structures 53

Figure 2.5 CDT- Learning Target Matrixes 57

Figure 2.6 Primary Presentation Form 60

Figure 2.7 The Relationship Component of Primary Presentation Strategy and Components of Secondary Presentation Strategy

61

Figure 2.8 Intrinsic Motivations, Task Involvement, and Other Motivation

80 Figure 3.1 Different Types of Presentations in Lesson Material A

and Lesson Material B.

88 Figure 3.2 The Arrangement of Primary Presentation Together with

Secondary Presentation.

103 Figure 3.3

Figure 3.4

The Arrangement of Primary Presentation Only.

The Flow Chart of Research Experiment Procedure

104 116

(12)

x LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Achievement Test 201

Appendix B Instrument of Achievement Validity 212

Appendix C The Kuder Richardson Coefficient Of Reliability Of Instrument Used To Measure Student Achievement

227

Appendix D Questionnaires of Academic Intrinsic Motivation 237 Appendix E Statistical and Reliability of Academic Intrinsic

Motivation

242

Appendix F Lesson Materials Based on CDT 259

Appendix G Questioners for Evaluation of Content of Lesson Materials

322

Appendix H Lesson Material Validity 324

Appendix I Testing of Normality Assumption 327

Appendix J Testing of Homogeneity of Variance Assumption 330 Appendix K Testing Homogeneity of Regression Slope 333 Appendix L Permission Letters to Conduct the Pilot-test and the

Actual Study

337 Appendix M Letter of Confirmation of Thesis Editing 344

REFERENCES 188

APPENDICES 201

(13)

PENGARUH RANCANGAN PENGAJARAN BAHASA INGGERIS BERDASARKAN COMPONENT DISPLAY THEORY TERHADAP HASIL

BELAJAR SISWA ABSTRAK

Kajian ini merupakan usaha untuk mengaplikasikan Component Display Theory (CDT) sebagai dasar pengetahuan tentang mereka bentuk pengajaran bertulis.

Kajian in bertujuan untuk menyelidik pengaruh persembahan (pembentangan, penyampaian) sekunder ke atas; (1) pencapaian keseluruhan pelajar, (2) enam sasaran pembelajaran: mengingat konsep, mengingat prosedur, mengingat prinsip atau hukum, dan menggunakan konsep, menggunakan prosedur, dan menggunakan prinsip, (3) setiap tahap prestasi mengingat dan menggunakan secara serentak.

CTD merujuk kepada dua dimensi objektif pengajaran dan menyediakan

“persembahan primer” dan “persembahan sekunder.” “Persembahan primer”

mencerminkan mesej pengajaran yang utama, yang mengandungi empat komponen strategi persembahan yang berdasarkan kedalaman dan kaedah persembahan.

“Persembahan sekunder” mengembangkan lagi “persembahan primer” untuk menjadikannya lebih senang bagi pelajar-pelajar untuk menerima, memproses, dan merekodkan maklumat. CTD menetapkan bahawa bagi setiap objektif pengajaran akan ada satu kombinasi komponen strategi pengajaran “persembahan primer” dan

“sekunder” yang berusaha untuk membolehkan pencapaian objektif pembelajaran.

Skop kajian ini terbatas kepada penggunaan; (1) “persembahan primer” yang terdiri daripada hukum, contoh, mengingat, latihan, dan (2) “persembahan primer” bersama- sama dengan “persembahan sekunder” yang berkaitan hukum, contoh, mengingat, serta memberikan pengenalan dan maklum balas.

(14)

xii

Populasi kajian ini adalah pelajar tahun dua Sekolah Menengah Umum di Bekasi, Jakarta Timur, Indonesia. Sampelnya terdiri daripada 342 responden yang dipilih mengikut kaedah pensampelan rawak. Analisis kuantitatif menggunakan analisis kovarians (ANCOVA) dan analisis varians multivariat (MANCOVA) telah digunakan untuk menganalisis data. Soal selidik telah digunakan untuk mengumpul maklumat tentang motivasi intrinsik akademik pelajar-pelajar, manakala ujian soalan aneka pilihan telah digunakan untuk mengukur pencapaian pelajar.

Dapatan daripada analisis ANCOVA menunjukkan; (1) pelajar-pelajar yang diajar menggunakan “persembahan primer” bersama-sama “persembahan sekunder”

memperoleh skor pencapaian purata yang lebih tinggi dalam pencapaian keseluruhan mereka daripada pelajar-pelajar yang diajar menggunakan “persembahan primer”

semata-mata, dan (2) penambahan “persembahan sekunder” telah meningkatkan pencapaian pelajar terhadap sasaran pembelajaran berkaitan mengingat konsep, menggunakan konsep dan menggunakan prosedur. Pencapaian pelajar untuk sasaran pembelajaran mengingat prosedur, mengingat prinsip, dan menggunakan prinsip tidak mengalami peningkatan.

Dapatan daripada analisis MANOVA menunjukkan; (1) perbezaan yang signifikan tahap prestasi bagi mengingat dan menggunakan (secara serentak), berbezaan bererti di antara pelajar-pelajar yang diajar menggunakan “persembahan primer” bersama-sama “persembahan sekunder” dan mereka yang diajar menggunakan “persembahan primer” sahaja kelihatan hanya pada sasaran pembelajaran mengingat konsep, tidak pada sasaran pembelajaran mengingat prinsip, dan (2) perbezaan bererti telah dikesan pada sasaran pembelajaran menggunakan konsep dan menggunakan prosedur, tidak pada sasaran menggunakan prinsip.

(15)

THE EFFECT OF INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN OF ENGLISH SUBJECT

BASED ON COMPONENT DISPLAY THEORY ON STUDENT’S ACHIEVEMENT

ABSTRACT

This study constitutes an attempt to apply the Component Display Theory (CDT) as a knowledge base on designing written instruction. It aims to investigate the effect of “secondary presentation” on; (1) students’ overall achievement, (2) the six learning targets: remember concept, remember procedure, remember principle or rule, and use concept, use procedure, use principle, (3) each level of performance of remember and use simultaneously.

CDT refers to two dimensions of instructional objectives and provides

“primary” and “secondary presentations.” The “primary presentation” reflects the main instructional messages comprising four components of presentation strategies based on the depth and the method of presentation. The “secondary presentation”

elaborates the “primary presentation” to make it easier for learners to receive, process, and record the information. CDT postulates that for every instructional objective there is a combination of instructional strategy components of “primary”

and “secondary presentations” that effectively strive for the achievement of the learning objectives. The study limits its scope to the use of (1) “primary presentation” consisting of rules, examples, recall, and practice, and (2) “primary presentation” with “secondary presentation” consisting of rules, examples, recall, practice, and giving introduction and feedback.

(16)

xiv

The population of this study are second year students of Public Junior High School in Bekasi, Eastern Jakarta, Indonesia. The sample consists of 342 respondents, selected by random sampling. Quantitative analysis using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) and Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was used to analyse data. Questionnaires were administered to gather information on student’s academic intrinsic motivation, while multiple choice questions test were used to measure the students’ achievement.

The ANCOVA finding showed; (1) students taught using “primary presentation” together with “secondary presentation” obtained higher mean gain scores on overall achievement than those taught using “primary presentation” only, and (2) the addition of the secondary presentation increases students’ achievement on learning targets of remember concept, use concept and use procedure. No increases were observed in students’ achievement for the learning targets of remember procedure, remember principle, and use principle.

The MANOVA finding showed; (1) based on the level performances of remember and use (simultaneously), the significant differences between students taught using “primary presentation” together with “secondary presentation” and those taught using “primary presentation” were observed only on the learning targets of remember concept, remember procedure, not on learning target of remember principle, and (2) the significant differences are found on learning target use concept and use procedure, not on learning target of use principle.

(17)
(18)

1

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

In accordance with the Educational Law Number 20, National Education Department (Depdiknas, 2003) which was formed in relation to the National Educational System, declared that the development of the educational system was an effort to enlighten the nation as well as to improve the quality of the human resource in Indonesia, for the purpose of realizing a just and welfare society. It also aims to make it possible for the people of Indonesia to develop, both in terms of physical and mental aspects, based upon the five basic Indonesian principles (Pancasila) and the 1945 Constitution. Thus, it is manifested that the endeavour to achieve a better quality of human resources that can only be realized through advancement in education.

In the government regulation Number 28, Education and Cultural Department (Depdikbud, 1991) mentioned that primary education seems to be very important in providing knowledge to students, shaping their attitude, and preparing them with the basic skills required for their survival in the society, apart from preparing students to meet the requirements necessary to proceed to the secondary level of education. The Indonesian primary education was designed with two main goals: (a) as a preparatory step towards secondary education, and (b) as a preparatory stage to live in the society, among others, for the preparation of earning a living, in the case of those who do not wish to continue pursuing formal education. In relation to the second

(19)

goal, primary education is also expected to contribute or help in the development of students’ self-respect and help them create a better quality of life in the future.

In achieving the above mentioned goals, mastery of English is necessary (Sipay, 2006). This is a prerequisite to the development and advancement of students’ ability to cope with the rapidly changing technology in the market place and to enable them to utilize their skills and talents in various fields and disciplines.

To implement this task, the Indonesian government decided that English language should be taught as the first foreign language in the classroom and that it should be made a compulsory subject to be studied in Indonesian schools from the level of junior high school and senior high school up to the university level (GBPP, 2004).

The objective of the English education in the junior high school (SMP) is to provide the students with the basic knowledge of reading, speaking, writing, grammar, and the mastery of a sufficient number of vocabulary (more or less 1000 words). As stated in the English language curriculum, the six core English language skills are reading, vocabulary, structure or grammar, dialogue, integrated writing and pronunciation (Depdiknas, 2004).

With respect to the speaking skills, Warriner (2001) described that speaking constitutes making a sentence that comes from a group of words to form a unitary meaning, sentence or word order that is used by everyone to communicate. Warriner explained further that a sentence should consist of a subject, a predicate, and a complement. According to its structure, a sentence may be classified into four types as follows:

(20)

3

1. A simple sentence which has one main clause and no subordinate clause.

2. A compound sentence which has two or more main clauses, but no subordinate clause.

3. A complex sentence that has one main clause and one or more subordinate clauses.

4. A compound-complex sentence that contains two or more main clauses and one or more subordinate clauses.

From the explanation mentioned, to be able to communicate effectively, it is necessary for the students to understand and master the structure of the language. At the same time, if these skills can be studied by students, it means that their ability to master the grammar skills for communicative ability can be achieved. Thus, This study is concerned with the effectiveness of the grammatical skills in the formation of sentences.

The 1994 curriculum for primary and secondary education was transformed into the 2004 curriculum covering all subjects. This took effect as of the 2004/2005 school year. Generally speaking, this curriculum change applies to all school subjects, be it totally or partially. Initially this change was a direct consequence of the passing of law number 2 of the year 1989 pertaining to the National Educational system, which calls for the review and reorganization of the National Education System, requiring all relevant aspects of the curriculum to be reviewed.

The English curriculum of secondary education underwent a total transformation in both content and the organization of materials (Maskur, 1996). The

(21)

Competency Based Curriculum suggests that the function of the teacher in the teaching and learning process is strategic and decisive. The teacher dictates the depth and the width of learning materials, and enjoys a creative role, unlike that in the 2004 English curriculum of junior high school. This places the responsibility on the teacher to gather their own learning materials and to choose appropriate techniques.

Based on the 2004 curriculum, the teaching and learning process requires the teachers to (a) master the learning material, (b) design a learning program, (c) execute the program, and (d) evaluate learning results. However, a problem encountered in every educational reform does not lie on the planning aspect, but with the execution of the plan.

As the English curriculum of secondary education has changed in both the content and the organization of the materials, innovation in the curriculum constitutes an educational reform. The implementation of the 2004 curriculum involved several aspects such as teachers’ readiness, the value system, interaction of perceptions, facilities, and infrastructure. Among all these, the teacher’s factor was the most important element which required greater emphasis (Davis, 2009).

Teacher’s unreadiness leads to the curriculum being improperly interpreted;

consequently, the utilization of the curriculum would be dictated by the teacher’s own interpretation, which would then lead to a weakness in the implementation.

The English curriculum for the junior high school only contained the teaching objectives and did not contain the material presentation. Therefore, it was necessary to examine what teachers’ needs were in an effort to translate this curriculum into a teaching program. In the implementation of the 2004 curriculum, teachers were then

(22)

5

required to be able to design their own teaching. Thus, to improve the quality of teaching, the teachers were required to have relevant knowledge in designing their own instruction (Dennis et al., 2000). Ultimately, the purpose of instructional design is to improve the quality of teaching. This is accomplished by selecting, determining and developing optimal instructional methods so as to obtain the desired learning outcomes. An instructional design with a set of combined components of strategies would enable teachers to develop their creativity which is important for the teachers in upgrading their quality of teaching.

The quality of learning acquisition is a sign of the effectiveness of instruction.

The more effective the instruction is, the higher would be the quality of the acquisition of learning (Reigeluth, 2009). Therefore, based on the quality of learning acquisition, the urgent need for improved instructional effectiveness becomes apparent.

There are two variables that affect the effectiveness of instruction, namely, the condition and the method. The instructional condition variable cannot be manipulated and, therefore, must be accepted as such by the instructional designer.

On the other hand, the method variable can be manipulated. Therefore, the instructional designers should give their attention in connection with the efforts to improve the quality of the learning acquisition by focusing on improving the instructional method. There are three components of the method, namely, organizational strategy, delivery strategy, and management strategy (Reigeluth, 2009).

(23)

Organizing instructional strategy is an approach method component to organize the learning contents. The strategy can be divided into two levels: macro and micro. The macro-level organizing strategy, which is also called structural strategy refers to how to select, sort, synthesize, and summarize a number of content- related field of study. Meanwhile, the micro-level organizing strategy, also known as the presentation strategy, refers to how to combine and sort the components of the strategy presented in connection with the contents of the field units of study to achieve specific objectives (Reigeluth, 1999).

Components of presentation strategy have been developed to facilitate students to receive, manage, and store information. For example, Smith et al. (2005) has developed mathemagenic information, which is a form of guidance that helps students understand new knowledge or acquire new skills. Forms of exercises and optimal feedbacks have also been developed by Davis (2009). However, all of these are still disconnected. To obtain the optimal learning requires a combination of effective, efficient, and attractive components of the strategy. This is the concern of instructional science (Branch, 2007).

In terms of the purpose of learning English in junior high school, there is one question that needs to be answered. Is the learning process that was developed based on Component Display Theory (Merrill, 1999), capable of reaching the highest achievement of these goals?

Theoretically, the advantages of Component Display Theory (CDT), can support the achievement of learning objectives. The ability of CDT to present the

(24)

7

content of lessons in effective, efficient, and attractive manner according the type of learning objectives, will greatly help students achieve a full understanding of each of the learning contents. Learning developed using the CDT will escort students to understand the concepts, procedures, and principles more clearly, so that it will strengthen students' knowledge structure in understanding the lessons. For that, the presentation of each learning objective, with a view to clarify students’

understanding, should be emphasized using the components of secondary presentation.

As a microstrategy, CDT does not lead students to understand a single goal in each type of learning that is disconnected from other learning objectives.

Microstrategy is intended for each learning goal to be achieved. As emphasized by Merrill et al., (1997), "...there are different kinds of instructional strategies to promote these different necessary kinds of learning outcomes."

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The teachers may encounter many problems when designing their lessons: (a) the scope of learning material, which have been prescribed based on the specific objectives, and (b) the students who bring a set of attitude, current ability, and other individual characteristics into the learning situation. It means that each student in one class has different learning style. Thus, the English curriculum for the junior high school should only contain the subtopic of materials based on the specific objectives and should not contain the complete material presentation style, basic knowledge, and motivation. Thus, the teacher will only be able to manipulate learning strategies and methods under restrictions posed by his students’ characteristics, learning

(25)

objectives as well as the students themselves. Reigeluth (1999) argued that in principle, it is the teaching method that provides rooms for manipulation by the teacher, and the instructional designer agrees upon this claim.

Furthermore, Gregory and Chapman (2007) stated that a learning outcome requires a certain learning condition. In line with this, Gagne et al. (2005) stated that often, a certain teaching method is only suitable for a certain teaching and learning materials under a certain condition. It means that to learn a different type of content under another condition, the teacher may need a different instructional method.

Nowadays, many Indonesians realize that it is beneficial to acquire the ability of learning English, which is considered an international language, to get better jobs or to further their study. Nevertheless, most of them are frustrated when they find that learning English is not that easy. This is because the grammar of the English language is very different from that of the Indonesian language, apart from other differences such as in pronunciation, writing, and reading. Therefore, Indonesians are faced with the challenge of finding solutions so that learning the English language is not perceived as difficult by students.

The mastery of English in SMP and SMA (Junior and Senior High School, respectively), which was mostly measured based on grammatical proficiency through multiple choice question test, is still far below the stated target. According to the reports on the results of EBTANAS (National Final Exam) of SMP in the school year of 2008/2009, English was among the subjects registering the worst results (Kompas, 2009). According to the EBTANAS data for East Jakarta, the average score for

(26)

9

English for the 2008/2009 school year was 4.60 (0 – 10 scale) among a population of 2500 students coming from 28 schools. The latest data of SMP “pure grade” (NEM) for the 2008/2009 school year for Jakarta Special District was recorded at 5.64.

These data suggest that the student’s mastery of English at both SMP and SMA, was very unsatisfactory; yet they are the ones about to continue their study at the University level. Meanwhile, even those who are already at the University also faced difficulty understanding English, whereas English references remain the main resource of various kinds of knowledge. Those who dropped out of University education also faced difficulty to communicate in English at their workplaces (Syahbana A. 1990).

Indonesia, like other developing nations, has faced the same problems in the implementation of its educational reform (Arief, 2004). The problems are related to the execution of educational policy in terms of management and methodology. The general problems are built in the educational system and management, as well as the practice of wrong methodologies in education. These have resulted in the ineffective teaching. The following problems particularly deserved to be mentioned:

1. Achievement in education is only measured through acquisition of knowledge.

Most of the time teachers are more concerned with the transfer of knowledge and do not stress the importance of moral values which could shape the formation of student personality. Thus, the use of examination grade is the only means in measuring educational achievement.

(27)

An educational process is a transfer of knowledge, attitudes, and skills.

Achievement in education should emphasize on attitudes and skills development as well as knowledge acquisition. As a consequence, in the teaching of English, teachers only teach English to fulfil the process of knowledge acquisition, emphasizing more on grammar, rather than fulfilling the aspect of a skill acquisition emphasizing on speaking and writing involving culture of the language taught.

2. Students are treated as the object rather than the subject of teaching.

Most of the time, the teacher and his teaching materials are the focus during teaching and learning, while the students are considered as objects. Moreover, student’s personality is not taken into account in the teaching and learning process, where rightly, they should be the centre of the teaching and learning process.

Therefore, student’s imagination, innovation, and creativity are not evaluated; and teachers would just focus on student’s achievement. Besides, students’ learning styles are not given proper recognition. Students are assumed to have the same ability, interests, and the same learning styles as well as motivation.

3. Educational process is focused on the teaching process which is not relevant to the real world.

Learning materials and skills provided to the students do not match the learning needs of students and they do not respond to the world of work, so that there is no link between education and the world of work. Hence, in teaching of English, teachers should provide learning materials that meet the student’s learning needs and

(28)

11

4. Mastering of knowledge is processed mostly on theories and less on the enjoyment of learning so that students are not well-motivated.

Teachers concentrate on teaching theories as part of knowledge acquisition and request the students to memorize them. Therefore, in the teaching of English students are drilled to remember the sentences, while having to memorize the sentences without the teacher providing them with contextual learning, for which students could see the real situation where English is used. Students are not motivated to learn because they are removed from real life situation.

5. The management of education emphasized that the responsibility of education lies with the government rather than with members of the community and stakeholders, such as parents, teachers, and the students themselves.

The government always involves itself too much in the school management as well as in the final examination, in spite of the fact that the new law of education has placed the school within the responsibility of its own community. In the teaching of English, the school together with parents and the community should identify what to be achieved in learning English, what is the best method to achieve it, and how it could be achieved, especially in looking for partnership within its community or outside community to achieve its objects.

In response to Ariel’s recommendations, there should be some changes and innovation in the educational policy and system to make teaching more suitable to the learner’s needs using the best possible approaches. It is well recognized that

(29)

teachers are the most important agent of change that would take up this challenge (Maher et al., 2001).

However, one of the constraints faced by the teachers in producing an effective instructional method or instructional model is the fact that the teacher often encounters the lesson material with a very complex scope. This may make it difficult for the teacher to structure and develop instructional materials carefully based on the lesson’s objectives. Structuring and developing instructional material in accordance with the instructional target is not an easy task. It requires basic knowledge about instructional design. Unfortunately, the ability of the teacher to design and implement the curriculum is far from satisfactory (Gustafson et al., 2002).

A study revealed that the insufficient success in learning, especially in learning English (that is currently being taught as a foreign language at junior high school) is not so much because of its ineffective instruction in schools, but is more due to the lack of understanding of the teachers in preparing their lesson materials for the teaching and learning process (Pratitis, 1994). The experience of the researcher in teaching the subject of “English Lesson Planning” at the English Department of Faculty Teaching and Educational Science of As-Syafi’iyah Islamic University Jakarta and Islamic Faculty of Jakarta Islamic University found that in designing instruction, 90% of the students (who were already English Teachers at SMP and SMA) still do not grasp the way to organize instructional materials prescribed in the curriculum. In fact, the teacher plays a very important role in the success of the learning process; this is because the main function of the teacher is to design, to manage, and to evaluate teaching (Morrison et al., 2009), apart from the teacher also

(30)

13

being responsible for the transferring a set of organized knowledge to the student’s knowledge system (Demsey et al., 2007).

The success of the aforementioned idea is related to the ability of teachers to design his teaching presentation. Therefore, it is necessary for the teacher to have scientific knowledge that can be used in designing instruction. It is known that the nature of educational technology is the use of scientific knowledge in solving the problems of education (including instructional design problem). Thus, it is necessary that teachers should have the foundation of scientific knowledge. Without referring to the domain of this scientific knowledge, the efforts to improve the teaching will be running with an intuitive approach as well as based on trial and error through experience, with results far from satisfactory (Fink, 2003).

Based on the problems already stated previously, the conclusion is that knowledge of instructional design is vital for teachers. Gustafson et al. (2002) stated that the knowledge of instructional design, which is focused on what should be done by teachers, could be used as an effective way to solve problems in educational practice. Clearly, the aim of educational technology is to solve educational problems (such as problem of the instructional design). Thus, the basic knowledge about instructional science is a basic requirement.

In teaching, there is an approach known as the Component Display Theory (CDT) which is both a theory and a set of guidelines in designing an instruction (Reigeluth, 1999). CDT instructional design is the most complete and comprehensive presentation compared with other similar presentations based on instructional

(31)

theories (Snelbecker, 1999). As a series of guidelines, CDT proposed to present a series consisting of combinations of instructional presentation strategy components, which makes it possible for teachers to achieve their learning objectives optimally.

Merrill and Tennyson (1997) had developed the Component Display Theory (CDT) in the field of instructional theory. According Reigeluth (2000), CDT is the most comprehensive instructional theory. In terms of theory, this level of comprehensiveness makes the CDT superior to other instructional theories.

A valuable characteristic of CDT is in its high ability and accuracy in achieving learning objectives. Through an accumulation of the mastery of a number of learning targets, which are carefully designed, students will be assisted in thinking systematically and critically in facing a social phenomenon. In addition, through instructional programme developed through CDT, teachers will be guided in selecting and utilizing the appropriate method.

It is expected that the instructional programme developed using the CDT can enhance the quality of instruction, narrow the discrepancy between demand of curriculum 1994 and teacher’s ability, and especially prevent the teacher from selecting or utilizing other teaching methods. Theoretically, CDT possesses a number of advantages that could overcome those problems that have already mentioned. This study will look into the effectiveness of instructional programmes for the teaching of English that has been designed using the principles of CDT.

(32)

15 1.3 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to develop instructional materials for the English instruction based on CDT and to examine whether the instruction based on Component Display Theory can enhance the student’s achievement. The examination is carried out by comparing the effect of Primary presentation together with Secondary presentation and with only the Primary presentation.

1.4 Research Objectives

With this purpose in mind, the objectives designed for this study are as follows:

Objective 1:

To examine the effect of “Primary presentation” together with “Secondary presentation” compared with that of “Primary presentation” only in enhancing students’ opportunities to achieve better learning results, with student’s motivation as covariate.

Objective 2:

To examine the effect of “Primary presentation” together with “Secondary presentation” compared with that of “Primary presentation” only in enhancing students’ achievement of remember concept, procedure and principle, with students’

motivation as covariate.

Objective 3:

To examine the effect of “Primary presentation” together with “Secondary presentation” compared with that of “Primary presentation” only in enhancing

(33)

students’ achievement of use concept, procedure and principle, with students’

motivation as covariate.

Objective 4:

To examine the effect of “Primary presentation” together with “Secondary presentation” compared with the effect of “Primary presentation” only in enhancing students’ achievement of remember and use concepts simultaneously, with students’

motivation as covariate.

1.5 Research Questions

This study is conducted to address these Research Questions:

Research Question 1: Related to Research Objective 1

Is there any significant difference between the overall achievement of students who were taught using the “Primary presentation” together with “Secondary presentation” and the overall achievement of students who were taught using only

“Primary presentation,” with students’ motivation as covariate?

Research Question 2: Related to Research Objective 2

Do students who were taught using “Primary presentation” together with

“Secondary presentation” obtain significantly higher achievement on learning target of remember concept than students who were taught using only “Primary presentation,” with students’ motivation as covariate?

(34)

17

Research Question 3: Related to Research Objective 2

Do students who were taught using “Primary presentation” together with

“Secondary presentation” obtain significantly higher achievement on learning target of remember procedure than students who were taught using only “Primary presentation,” with students’ motivation as covariate?

Research Question 4: Related to Research Objective 2

Do students who were taught using “Primary presentation” together with

“Secondary presentation” obtain significantly higher achievement on learning target of remember principle than students who were taught using only “Primary presentation,” with students’ motivation as covariate?

Research Question 5: Related to Research Objective 3

Do students who were taught using “Primary presentation” together with

“Secondary presentation” obtain significantly higher achievement on learning target of use concept than students who were taught using only “Primary presentation,”

with students’ motivation as covariate?

Research Question 6: Related to Research Objective 3

Do students who were taught using “Primary presentation” together with

“Secondary presentation” obtain significantly higher achievement on learning target of use procedure than students who were taught using only “Primary presentation,”

with students’ motivation as covariate?

(35)

Research Question 7: Related to Research Objective 3

Do students who were taught using “Primary presentation” together with

“Secondary presentation” obtain significantly better achievement on learning target of use principle than students who were taught using only “Primary presentation,”

with students’ motivation as covariate?

Research Question 8: Related to Research Objective 4

Is there any significant difference in achievement on learning targets of remember concept, procedure and principle simultaneously, between students who were taught using the “Primary presentation” together with “Secondary presentation” and students who were taught using only “Primary presentation,” with students’ motivation as covariate?

Research Question 9: Related to Research Objective 4

Is there any significant difference in achievement on learning targets of use concept, procedure and principle simultaneously, between students who were taught using the “Primary presentation” together with “Secondary presentation” and students who were taught using only “Primary presentation,” with students’

motivation as covariate.

1.6 Research Hypotheses

This research was conducted to compare two types of presentation strategies, first, the “Primary presentation” together with “Secondary presentation” and second,

“Primary presentation” only. Two types of learning acquisition will be observed:

(36)

19

level of content delivered, that is, concept, procedure, and principle. Both of this learning acquisition is taken as indication of the effectiveness of both types of presentation strategies. In this study, the covariate (students’ motivation) is not in any way influenced by the treatments. To achieve this, the covariate was measured before the treatments, so that it would not be influenced by the treatment.

Research study finding had confirmed that the use of different presentation strategies can lead to differences in the acquisition of learning outcomes (Dick et al., 2004). Therefore, the acquisition of learning outcomes of students who are taught with different presentation strategies based on the CDT is expected be different.

The effectiveness of “Primary presentation” together with “Secondary presentation” in improving the learning outcomes have been supported by theoretical studies and research findings (presented in Chapter 2). Therefore, it underlies the formulation of hypotheses of this study.

The research null hypotheses of this study are listed as follows:

Hypothesis 1 (H0 1):

Students who were taught using “Primary presentation” together with

“Secondary presentation” would not obtain significantly higher overall achievement than those who were taught using only “Primary presentation,” with students’

motivation as covariate.

(37)

Hypothesis 2 (H0 2):

Students who were taught using “Primary presentation” together with

“Secondary presentation” would not obtain significantly higher achievement on learning target of remember concept than those who were taught using only “Primary presentation,” with students’ motivation as a covariate.

Hypothesis 3 (H0 3):

Students who were taught using “Primary presentation” together with

“Secondary presentation” would not obtain significantly higher achievement on learning target of remember procedure than those who were taught using only

“Primary presentation,” with students’ motivation as covariate.

Hypothesis 4 (H0 4):

Students who were taught using “Primary presentation” together with

“Secondary presentation” would not obtain significantly higher achievement on learning target of remember principle than those who were taught using only

“Primary presentation,” with students’ motivation as covariate.

Hypothesis 5 (H0 5):

Students who were taught using “Primary presentation” together with

“Secondary presentation” would not obtain significantly higher achievement on learning target of use concept than those who were taught using only “Primary presentation,” with students’ motivation as covariate.

(38)

21 Hypothesis 6 (H0 6):

Students who were taught using “Primary presentation” together with

“Secondary presentation” would not obtain significantly higher achievement on learning target of use procedure than those who were taught using only “Primary presentation,” with students’ motivation as covariate.

Hypothesis 7 (H0 7):

Students who were taught using “Primary presentation” together with

“Secondary presentation” would not obtain significantly higher achievement on learning target of use principle than those who were taught using only “Primary presentation,” with student’s motivation as covariate.

Hypothesis 8 (H0 8):

Students who were taught using “Primary presentation” together with

“Secondary presentation” would not obtain significantly higher achievement on learning target of remember concept, remember procedure and remember principle than those who were taught using only “Primary presentation,” with students’

motivation as covariate.

Hypothesis 9 (H0 9):

Students who were taught using “Primary presentation” together with

“Secondary presentation” would not obtain significantly higher achievement on learning target of use concept, use procedure and use principle simultaneously than those who were taught using only “Primary presentation,” with students’ motivation as covariate.

(39)

1.7 Conceptual Framework

In the science teaching, there is a theory of instruction which, according to Driscoll (2007), was developed based on a blend of behaviouristic, cognitive and humanistic theories. Behaviouristic theory which was advocated by Skinner (1988) assumes that learning can be shaped by the environment through a series of habit- forming treatment. The structure of the learning process and what is going on in the student's brain is irrelevant with the effort to form behaviour. This point of view states that learning results are a new set of behaviour as a result of the stimuli habitually applied. The analysis on behaviour change provides the basis for the method of instructional design. The development of Component Display Theory adopts this principle of instruction, such as the use of the feedback and reinforcement strategies.

Cognitive theory refers to an effort to promote learning process, besides focusing on the output of the process. Driscoll (2007) had also emphasized the improvement of cognitive capability as an instructional objective. These theories proposed the instructional method, which is especially focused on the development of the learning process instead of focussing only on the learning result. They also assumed that the instructional method can be manipulated such as to activate or develop cognitive capabilities. Mayer et al. (2003) states that instructional technique and media can be utilized to activate or develop learner’s internal learning process. In this domain, Component Display Theory adopts the utilization of presentation strategy component that refers to the effort to increase internal process.

(40)

23

In humanistic theories, the student’s characteristic plays a very important role on the process as well as the result of learning. The instructional method should ideally refer to the student’s characteristic such as motivation and focus on the individual differences of learners. Learners ideally should be able to manage their own learning activities. They can decide what, when, and the reason why they learn something. This learning control is a special section developed by Merrill (2000), in the Component Display Theory.

The conceptual framework developed as a guideline in this study was designed based on the theory of Component Display Theory (Merrill et al., 1994).

The reason for using CDT as knowledge in written design instruction and written arrangement (in this research, the written design instruction is called “lesson material”) is based on the appropriateness between the CDT model and the characteristic of structured activity, as set out in the following paragraph.

First, learning content on the certain time of structured activity can be part of the topic; it can be in the form of microlevel. That upgrades the organization to be features of special CDT model. Second, lesson topic on the structured activity can be in form of knowledge in cognitive domain. This idea goes along with the CDT model Third, the CDT model tends to focus on written instructional design for self-study.

This idea goes along with the ideas proposed in this research. Fourth, the CDT model proposed an instructional design which would be easier for teacher to apply in the classroom.

(41)

CDT presents a theory which is related to the principles of instructional design, which includes an activity to choose and find the appropriate combination of an optimal presentation component strategy to support the learning activity. This is different from other instructional designs because CDT has several characteristics.

First, there is taxonomy of instructional objective which not only refers to the level of performance, but also the type of content. Merrill et al. (1994) grouped the performance into three levels: remember, use, and find. Meanwhile Merrill et al.

divides the type content into fact, concept, procedure and principle, as shown on Figure 1.1

Figure 1.1 Performance-Content Matrixes

The matrix diagram in Figure 1.1 shows that content is related to level of performance and content type. This becomes the basis of instructional objective taxonomy model of CDT (in this research it is called learning target). Thus, the CDT

Fact Concept Procedure Principle FIND

USE

REMEMBER

Types of Content Level of performance

(42)

25

type of learning. How far can the CDT design increase the learning result? This is the main issue that shall be investigated in this study.

The second special characteristic of CDT model is related to instructional presentation taxonomy. CDT divided the presentation into two: primary presentation and secondary presentation. The primary presentation is the main strategy for delivering the learning content. It consists of four strategy component forms: (1) rules (expository presentation of generality), (2) examples (expository presentation of instances), (3) recall (inquisitory generality), and (4) practice (inquisitory instance). Secondary presentation forms include prerequisites, objectives, helps, mnemonics, and feedbacks.

This study proposes to demonstrate that the secondary presentation is an instructional design which enables teachers to differentiate the CDT from other instructional designs. The function of secondary presentation is to collaborate with the primary presentation in helping students to receive and process the information.

The secondary presentation may consist of one or various combinations of secondary strategy component, such as feedbacks and introductions.

The third special characteristic of CDT model is that there is a correlation matrix between of learning target and type of instructional presentation component strategy. To enhance the optimal learning process, different learning targets need a different instructional condition (type of component instructional strategy).

Rujukan

DOKUMEN BERKAITAN

H 2 : High achievement students who engaged in immersive multimedia learning with peer-support will perform significantly better in English in terms of (a) vocabulary,

For the purposes of this study, which examines the impact of e-learning on learning and creativity (fluency, originality, flexibility and elaboration) of chemistry

Table 4.10 shows the mean performance of those pupils taught by male and female teachers and also the mean for the whole group of students.. Similarly, when the averages for

depending on the timing of their formal classes. Majority of the primary 5 and secondary 4 students were in the morning sessions while the secondary 2 students were

H 2 : High achievement students who engaged in immersive multimedia learning with peer-support will perform significantly better in English in terms of (a) vocabulary,

vocabulary achievement. Based on these results, the study suggested that the learning of compounding, inflectional and derivational morphemes has a significant effect on

3.4 Will students with high language anxiety (HL) using the Text + Sound + Phonetic Symbols + Face Gestures (TSPF) mode attain significantly higher achievement scores (AS) than

To study the effects of two presentation modes in an Interactive Multimedia Learning Environment (IMLE) on students’ achievement score as measured by Knowledge Awareness