Cooperative, Synectics, And CTL Learning Models Toward .

2y ago
27 Views
2 Downloads
1.06 MB
5 Pages
Last View : 1m ago
Last Download : 3m ago
Upload by : Wade Mabry
Transcription

Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 1251st International Conference on Intellectuals' Global Responsibility (ICIGR 2017)Cooperative, Synectics, and CTL LearningModels toward Speaking Ability Viewed fromStudent’s MotivationAgus DarmukiJoko NurkamtoSebelas Maret Surakarta State UniversitySurakarta, Indonesiaagus darmuki@yahoo.co.idSebelas Maret Surakarta State University,Surakarta, Indonesia,jokonurkamto@gmail.comAndayaniKundharu SaddhonoSebelas Maret Surakarta State UniversitySurakarta, Indonesia,bu anda09@yahoo.co.idSebelas Maret Surakarta State University,Surakarta, Indonesia,kundharu@uns.ac.idAbstract—The goal of Speaking Course in highereducation is to develop student’s ability to speak effectively. Theaim of this research are: 1) to investigate the differences onstudents’ speaking ability taught by Cooperative, Synectics, andCTL learning models, 2) to find the differences of speakingability among the students with high motivation and low one, 3)to know the interactions between learning model and motivationtoward speaking ability. This quasi experimental research usedfactorial design 3x2.The data were collected throughquestionnaire for measuring students’ motivation for speaking,empirical test for knowing the validity and reliability ofinstruments as well as speaking test to measure speakingachievement. The research results showed that there wereinteractions between learning models and motivation forspeaking toward speaking ability. The speaking score of studentswith high motivation and taught by cooperative learning modelwas better than them with synectics and CTL.Keywords—cooperative; synectics; CTL; motivation; speakingI.INTRODUCTIONSpeaking is the ability to convey messages orally. [1] arguethat speaking means the ability to pronounce language soundsto express or deliver thoughts, ideas, and feelings orally. [2]said that speaking is the second language activity done byhuman after listening. Speaking refers to the ability topronounce words (sound articulation) expressed to conveyideas or thoughts. It gives great contribution for students tohave better communication skill [3].Speaking becomes one of courses in higher education,particularly in the Department of Indonesian LanguageEducation. The goal of Speaking course is to develop effectivestudent’ speaking ability. Effective communication happenswhen the delivered message is accepted well by the receiver[4]. Students as teacher candidates have to process informationwell for the sake of having effective speaking. Processinginformation belongs to a learning process [5] and it becomesone of components for teachers’ success as they have to giveunderstandable explanation. [6] states that the teacher successis determined by the attitudes of care, never give up,understandable explanation (method/model), and goodclassroom management.The lecture process of speaking course found that manystudents lacked of speaking ability. They did not giveresponses during the teaching and learning process in class.They spoke unconfidently; even their ideas were delivered in ajump-way. They have low motivation to speak because fewstudents responded the lecturer questions, while many studentskept quiet.Motivation for achievement as motive that encouragesindividual to reach success and achieve results in certainstandards. Motivation for achievement is internal support ofstudents who comes from himself to finish learning activityand obtain success maximally [7]. It is inside power ofstudents which trigger passion in learning activity andguarantee its sustainability [8]. Therefore, a subject must havemotivation to achieve the best result. Motivation can bedefines as student’s thrust to do something so that he/she hascuriosity in learning. Motivation has to be built by a lecturerby playing role as a motivator to improve learningliveliness/interaction.[9] state seven indicators to measure high and lowmotivation for achievement as the following: (1) work ethic,(2) acquisitiveness, (3) dominance, (4) excellence, (5) statusaspiration, (6) competitiveness, (7) mastery. Students areexpected to have high motivation for achievement so that theycan achieve maximum learning outcomes. The development ofcreativity and liveliness of students is very crucial during thelearning process. Creativity is very essential in life as itenables human to improve his life quality [10]. Students’creativity is needed in learning speaking.Copyright 2018, the Authors. Published by Atlantis Press.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license 5

Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 125[11] interprets learning as a combination composed fromhumanized elements, material, facility, equipment, andprocedure which complete and influence one to another toachieve learning objectives. [12] defines learning method as away used by a teacher to have relation with students during thelearning process. Thus, learning method is a way carried outby a teacher/lecturer to achieve the determined goal.Therefore, before presenting the learning materials, a lecturerhas to choose certain method which is appropriate to thematerials. [13] explains that learning method is ways topresent learning materials done by educators so that studentshave learning experience to achieve the goal. In essence,learning method is a way that carried out, related to workingpatterns to understand the objects of lesson target in order toachieve learning objectives designed by the lecturer.Learning method has to arouse students’ achievement,consider the process and result, and equalize theory as well aspractice. [13] says that learning, ideally, does not only focuson the process but also on the result so that the learningobjective can be achieved maximally. Learning in past putgreat emphasis on the target achievement of result not processand the main crucial thing is the number of learning materialsnot the depth of learning materials. Thus, lecturers havemethodological problem in terms of choosing their learningstrategy [2].Selecting learning method for speaking necessarily aims toimprove students’ motivation, process, and learning outcomes.Teaching speaking effectively needs revamping in allcomponents inside. One of which is choosing the learningmodel. Students have to obtain not only theoretical experiencebut also practical one in learning speaking as the last kind ofexperience enables the improvement of students speakingability receptively and productively.Nowadays, various learning models have been applied torenew effective and efficient learning by embeddingmotivation for lifelong education. The selection of learningmodel must focus optimally on the improvement ofmotivation, process, and learning outcomes. Lecturers aredemanded to choose the appropriate learning model,particularly in teaching speaking. They have to acquire theknowledge and mastery of various learning models not onlytheoretically but also practically.Some learning models are good and appropriate to beimplemented in teaching Speaking course such as synectics,cooperative, and CTL. [14] states that synectics learningmodel is metaphor activity consisting of personal and directanalogies. [15] presents synectics learning model asmetaphorical process with analogy. This model unifies variouselements by using metaphor to have new vision.[16] describes cooperative learning model as a learningstrategy involving students to work participatively andcooperatively in achieving the goal. During this learningmodel, students work in small groups and help each other tolearn materials [17]. Cooperative learning model can be usedby lecturers to develop creativity personally or in group. Thismodel is designed to distribute responsibility among studentsduring the learning process and orientate for socialcompetence [18][19][20][21][22]. Students were chosen as theresearch subjects because during their age, they arecharacterized by high curiosity to have experience, insight,knowledge, character building, and language skill with whichthey can be ready and able to adapt the recent and future life.[24] defines CTL (Contextual Teaching and Learning) as alearning concept which assists teachers to correlate theirlearning materials with the reality and encourages students tocorrelate their knowledge and its application in their dailylives. It can be conducted by involving seven components ofeffective learning as follows: constructivism, questioning,inquiry, learning community, modeling, and authenticassessment. [24] describes CTL as an educational processwhich aims at assisting students to get the meaning of theirlearning materials by connecting academic subjects with theirdaily lives contexts i.e. personal, social, and cultural contexts.II. METHODSThis quasi experimental research used factorial design 3x2.The population of this study is all students of Faculty ofTeacher Training and Education, the sample is taken byrandom sampling of 150 students in each study program ofIndonesian Language and Literature Education. Datacollection techniques through questionnaire for measuringstudents’ motivation for speaking, empirical test for knowingthe validity and reliability of instruments as well as speakingtest to measure speaking achievement. The 22 questionnairestatements were distributed to students. The speaking testconsists of 25 questions of multiple choices and oral test.III. RESULT AND DISCUSSIONA. Students Speaking Ability Taught by Cooperative LearningModelThe descriptive analysis on the collected data of studentsspeaking ability taught by cooperative learning modelindicated that n 150, minimum (min) score 59, maximum(max) score 96, Mean (Mn) 78.07, Median (Me) 80.00,Modus (Mo) 84.00, deviation standard (S) 9.77, andvariance (S2) 95.45.TABLE I. DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS SPEAKING ABILITYFREQUENCY TAUGHT BY COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODELInterval 7%22.67%16.67%8.00%3.33%The students taught by cooperative model gave highmotivation in speaking skill. This model is effective forlearning speaking. The frequency distribution can be brieflypresented in histogram as follows:76

Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 125Fig. 1. Histogram Distribution of Students Speaking AbilityFrequency Taught by Cooperative Learning Model.C. Students Speaking Ability Taught by CTL Learning ModelDescriptive analysis on students speaking ability showed that:n 150, minimum (min) score 55, maximum score (max) 94, mean (Mn) 72.34, median (Me) 73.00, modus (Mo) 83.00, deviation standard 9.97, variances (S2) 99.34. Basedon the data analysis, Sturges-based frequency distribution waslisted in Table 2 with range 39, number of interval class (k) 8 and interval length (C) 5 as the following.TABLE III. FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS SPEAKINGABILITY TAUGHT BY CTL LEARNING MODELInterval : n 150; min 59; max 96; Mn 78.07; Me 80.00;Mo 84.00; S 9.77; S2 95.45B. Students Speaking Ability Taught by Synectics LearningModelThe descriptive analysis on the data of students speakingability taught by synectics learning model showed that: n 150, minimum (min) score 56, maximum score (max) 93,mean (Mn) is similar to median (Me) 78, modus (Mo) 60.00, deviation standard 10.24, variances (S2) 104.76.Based on the data analysis, Sturges-based frequencydistribution was listed in Table 2 with range 37, number ofinterval class (k) 8 and interval length (C) 5 as 7%13.33%16.67%13.33%18.00%14.67%5.33%6.00%Based on the data in Table 3, it can be stated that CTLlearning model gave effective influence on speaking learningprocess although it was not as significant as cooperativemodel.Frequency distribution in Table 3 can be presented inhistogram as follows:TABLE II. FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS SPEAKINGABILITY TAUGHT BY SYNECTICS LEARNING MODELInterval 0%15.33%20.67%11.33%11.33%Based on the data in Table 2, it can be stated that synecticslearning model gave effective influence on speaking learningprocess although it was not as significant as cooperativemodel.Frequency distribution in Table 2 can be presented inhistogram as follows:Fig. 3. Frequency Distribution of Students Speaking AbilityTaught by CTL Learning ModelNotes: n 150; min 55; max 94; Mn 72.34; Me 73.00;Mo 83.00; S 9.97.24; S2 99.34The questionnaire result on the motivation from the threelearning models showed that cooperative learning model ismore effective than synectics and CTL ones. High motivationinfluences speaking ability effectively.D. Students Speaking Ability Viewed from The Average ofEach Data Cell on Learning MotivationThe data analysis on speaking ability in this research leads tothe result of two-way variance analysis which processing usedSPSS version 17. Table 4 presents the students speakingability viewed from the average score in each data cell oflearning motivation.Fig. 2. Histogram Frequency Distribution of StudentsSpeaking Ability Taught by Synectics Learning ModelNotes: n 150; min 56; max 93; Mn 76.90; Me 78.00;Mo 60.00; S 10.24; S2 104.76TABLE IV. THE AVERAGE SCORE OF EACH DATA CELLNoLearning Model(A)123CooperativeSynecticsCTLTotalLearning 3.4523.4793.405MarginalAverage3.5663.2643.39877

Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 125E. Interaction Among Learning Model and Motivation inInfluencing Students Speaking AbilityThe detailed interaction was found by inter-cell doublecomparison. The significance score of double comparison wasprocessed by SPSS version 17 as presented in Table 5.TABLE V. INTER-CELL COMPARISON IN THE SAME COLUMN ANDROWNo123456789ComparisonHigh motivation Cooperative(A1B1) and low motivationSynectics(A2B1)High motivation Cooperative(A1B1) and high motivation CTL(A3B1)High motivation CTL (A3B1) andhigh motivation Synectics (A2B1)LowmotivationCooperative(A1B2) and low motivationSynectics (A2B2)LowmotivationCooperative(A1B2) and low motivation CTL(A3B2)Low motivation CTL (A3B2) andlow motivation Synectics (A2B2)High motivation Cooperative(A1B2) and low motivationCooperative (A1B2)High motivation Synectics (A2B1)and Low motivation Synectics(A2B2)High motivation CTL (A3B1) andlow motivation CTL (A3B2)Sig Þ0.00Sig AcceptedH0AcceptedIV. CONCLUSIONSNormality and homogeneity tests were used prior to testinghypothesis. Since the data analysis by SPSS program wasemployed, Barlette and Lilliefors were used to test normalityand homogeneity. The results of the first test showed that thedata came from population with normal distribution while thatof the last one indicated the same population variants.The hypothesis testing obtained the score of F-calculation17.267. After consulted by the significance level 0.005 withthe numerator 2 and denominator 445, the score of F-table was3.00. It means that F-calculation is greater than F-table(17.267 3.00). The results of Scheffe analysis indicated: (1)the comparison between synectics and CTL learning modelshad the score of F-calculation 7.18 greater than F-table 3.00;(2) the comparison between CTL and cooperative learningmodels had the score of F-calculation 36.13 greater than Ftable 3.00; (3) the comparison between synectics andcooperative learning models had the score of F-calculation11.09 greater than F-table 3.00. In short, cooperative learningmodel is better applied for learning speaking than synecticsand CTL methods. CTL, synectics, and cooperative learningmodel gave effects on students speaking ability.Based on the results of hypothesis testing, F-calculationwas 13.964. After consulted by significance level 0.05 withthe numerator 1 and the denominator 445, F-table was 3.84. Itmeans that F-calculation is greater than F-table (13.964 3.84).Scheffe analysis showed that F-calculation 11.97 greater thanF-table 3.84. In essence, there were effects between speakingability and motivation for achievement both high and low.The result of a two-way variance analysis gained thesignificance score 0.003 0.05 which means that thehypothesis was rejected. In other words, there wereinteractions among the three learning models i.e. cooperative,synectics, and CTL as well as motivation toward studentsspeaking ability. The speaking score of students with highmotivation and taught by cooperative learning model wasbetter than them with synectics and CTL.The conclusions of research are as follows: first, there wassignificant different among the students taught by the learningmodels of CTL, synectics, and cooperative. Positive feelings(happiness, togetherness, and less anxiety) can control mentaland cognitive processing optimally which then lead to highmotivated to have public speaking. Second, motivation forachievement both high and low gave effect to studentsspeaking ability. The students with high motivation have theability to cooperate than them with low motivation. Third, theinteraction between learning model and motivation forachievement influenced the students speaking ability. Basedon inter-cells comparison namely the interaction betweencolumn and row, it was found that 6 comparisons showed thesimilarity and 3 comparisons showed distinction. Therefore,lecturers are suggested to choose appropriate learning modelby referring to the characteristics of students’ motivation forachievement, their ability, and learning materials so that theycan guide students to obtain experience and build theircharacters. Every lecturer is recommended to have goodknowledge on various learning models both theoretical andpractical.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTThis research project was supported by a grant from theMinistry of Research Technology and Higher Education,Indonesia.REFERENCES[1] Brown G. & G. Yule. (2012). Teaching the Spoken Language. London:[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]Cambridge University Press.Nurgiantoro, Burhan . (2011). Penilaian dalam Pembelajaran Bahasa danSastra. Yogyakarta: BPFE.Rido, Akhyar, Noraini Ibrahim & Radha M.K. Nambiar. (2013).Interaction Strategies of Master Teacher in Indonesian VocationalClassroom: A case Study. 3L Journal of Language Teaching, Linguisticsand Literature.21(3): 85-98.Daryanto. (2010). Ilmu Komunikasi. Bandung: Satu Nusa.Wardani, I.G.A.K, Prasetyo Irawan, Suciati. (2007). Teori Belajar,Motivasi dan Keterampilan Mengajar. Pekerti. Dirjen Dikti, Depdikbud.Marland, Michael. (2010). Seni Mengelola Kelas : Tugas danPenampilan Seorang Pendidik. Semarang : Dahar Prize.Abdullah, Mat Zaini, Rafisah Osman. (2015). Kesan PengantaraanPengalaman Psikologi bagi Hubungan Pelbagai Kemahiran dalam TugasPengajaran dengan Motivasi Kerja Guru. Malaysian Journal of Learning& Instruction. 12. 205-233.Abdullah, Melissa Ng Lee Yen. (2016). Interaction effects of gender andmotivational beliefs on self-regulated learning: a study at ict-integratedschools. Malaysian Journal of Learning & Instruction. 13 (1). 24-41.Lynn, Richard & Tony Cassidy. (1989). “A Multyfactorial Approach toAchievement Motivation The Development of a ComprehensiveMeasure”; Journal of Occupational Psychology. 2(62). 301-312.78

Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 125[10] Darmuki, A., Andayani, Joko Nurkamto, Kundharu Saddhono. (2017).Evaluating Information-Processing-Based Learning Cooperative Modelon Speaking Skill Course. Journal of Language Teaching and Reasearch.8(1) pp. 44-51.[11] Hamalik, Oemar. (2008). Pengembangan Kurikulum KTSP. Bandung:Rosda Karya

implemented in teaching Speaking course such as synectics, cooperative, and CTL. [14] states that synectics learning model is metaphor activity consisting of personal and direct analogies. [15] presents synectics learning model as metaphorical process with analogy. This model unifi

Related Documents:

Synectics in creative writing. Literature Review Synectics Psychologist William Gordon and his partner George Prince designed the creative process of Synectics in 1961 (Joyce, Weil & Calhoun, 2004, p. 158). Gor

Synectics plc (‘Synectics or the ‘Group’ or the ‘Company’) Final Results for the year ended 30 November 2020 Synectics plc (AIM: SNX), a leader in the design, integration and support of advanced security and surveillance systems, reports its a

6. For a Dual Display system: A second HD CTL and an Extron USBC-HDM/6 (USB-C to HDMI) cable are needed for the second display. Connect an HDMI cable from the Intel NUC HDMI Out to the Input connector of one HD CTL 100. The USBC-HDM/6 cable is connected from the Intel NUC USB C connector to the HDMI Input connector on the second HD CTL 100 (see figure 3 and figure 5).

Synectics Model of teaching was developed by William J. J. Gordon and his colleagues in 1961. This model uses a series of analogies in the classroom. Synectics is a creative word coined to mean "amalgamation of different and apparently irrelevant elements" (Gordon and Poze, 1981). It brings

Synectics is the Group’s security surveillance products and software business. Over recent years, Synectics CCTV recording and control systems have evolved to become what we believe is the industry standard for public space CCTV systems in the UK and some overs

Synectics In 1961, creator William J. J. Gordon described synectics as the “the joining together of different and apparently irrelevant elements (Gordon, 1961, p. 5).” “The basic processes of Synectics are ‘making the strange familiar’ and ‘makin

Synectics Use synectics to help students make figurative connections using evidence to support their reas

These codes appear in Checkpoint feedback reports. Stages 1 and 2 are not assessed and so do not have reporting codes. Similarly, Problem solving is not assessed separately and does not have a reporting code. Introduction Welcome to the Cambridge Primary Mathematics curriculum framework. This framework provides a comprehensive set of progressive learning objectives for mathematics. The .