Fostering Students Speaking Ability in

Expressing Feeling through Problem Solving

Group Discussion
Pila Depita A
A student of English Education Magister Program
Jakarta State University
Abstract
The fact that problem solving based learning could improve the
students ability in different discipline was proved by the
investigation conducted by Heller & Hollabaugh (1992) , Ming
(2000), Ali et al (2010), Yin (2011), Oradee (2012) etc. It triggers
the writer to point out the effectiveness of problem based learning
in group discusssion whether it could foster students speaking
ability in expressing feelings (hypothesis alternative/Ha) which is
stated as one of the goals of teaching speaking for Senior High
School students (KTSP). Problem solving procedure was proceed
into several steps; pre-discussion, during and end of discussion.
Pre-test and post-test in form of interviews were administered to
44 Senior High School Students (SMAN 9 Pekanbaru). Both tests
were conducted to find the different of mean score, standard
deviation, and variance in order to calculate the t-calculate and tcritical. By using 0.05 level of significance, found that t-calculate
was bigger than t-critical (3.98>2.00), which means that null
hypothesis was rejected. Furthermore, problem solving group
discussion should be apply more intensively in the classroom with
other supportive elements such as problem based textbook,
teachers quality, and positive response from students.

Introduction
As stated in School Based Curriculum, one of teaching speaking
goals to Senior High school students is to express meaning in formal text
both

transactional

and

interpersonal

conversation

and

continue

(sustained) by using variety of spoken forms accurately, fluently, and

understanably and involved the expressing of feeling in the real life. It
means

that

students

learn

about

the

functions

of

language

for

communication such as ideational function , interpersonal, and textual

function (Halliday in Sandra J.Savignan). To achieve the goal, English
teacher already used contextual teaching and learning (CTL) approaches

which

consists

of

seven

components

constructivism,

inquiry,

questioning, learning community, modeling, reflection, and authentic

assessment. In the teaching and learning process, students were asked to
do a presentations, role play, games, etc. However, the ability of students
speaking were still under the expectation of the curriculum. Harris (1997)
states that speaking is a complicated thing to do that requires
simultaneous use of number of different abilities that should be used
simultaneous.
Brown (1991) considered that the language users knowledge of the
linguistic rules (usage) and his abillity to use this knowledge in truly
communicative are the aspects influence the speaking. All students make
mistake at various stages of their language learning. It is part of natural
process they should go through and it occurs for a number of reasons
(Harmer, 1998,p. 62). Lacking of vocabularies, low understanding of
grammar and pronounciation were others basic problems that students
have. On the other hand, students difficulties in speaking might be caused
by

others

factors

which

is

not

mentioned

above

such

as

the

approppriateness of teaching techniques with the students learning

styles, the material development, teachers role in establising a conducive
class atmosphere, etc. It is extremely important for you to create a
related,

supportive

class

atmosphere

(Mathew,

1994).

As

Harmer

(1998,p.10) stated that teachers will frequently say that successful

student posses some or all of the characteristics; awillingness to listen, to
ask question, to experient, to think about how to learn and a willingness to
accept correction.
There are some techniques commonly used in teaching speaking .
Those are aimed to drive students to be active learners. There are some
types of active learning, including problem solving group discussion
method. This method involves a sytematic group discussion that open
students minds (Johnson,1997;Johnson et al.,2000 in Yin et al., 2011).
Boud and Feletti (1991) defined that it is an approach that involves a few
students coming together to discuss questions and problems given by
teachers whereby this stimulates students self learning.

As stated by

Andre Wright (1981,p.177) that if the students must have the maximum
oppurtunities to speak. John De Boer (1973, p.156) stated that discussion
is that form of speaking in which the speakers attempt through

co-

operative exchange of ideas, to solve a problem or move toward its

solution by a better understanding of it.
Some researchers have done investigation of Problem Solving group
discussion in particular disciplines. As Heller & Hollabaugh (1992)
developed cooperative grouping in to foster students learning effectively
in problem solving strategy which focused on designing problems and
structuring groups. They determined the problem into three phases
strandard text based, textbook and real based, and context rich based. In
term of structuring groups, they investitaged the optimal group size, the
ability and gender composition, and the dominance student. Thus, they
found that cooperative grouping could be used to be an effective means
of teaching physics problem solving in two very different kinds of courses;
a university introductory

physics course and a community college

sophomore level modern physics course. Ming (2000) tried to seek the
Group Problem Solving process in term of social interactions and Individual
Actions. He found that group work can induce many beneficial outcomes
such as increased learning, decreased racial tension, more positive
students attitudes toward school, etc.

Ali et al (2010) investigate

the

effects of using problem solving method on students achievement in

teaching mathematics at elementary. The findings revealed that it is
enhanced the achievement of students in mathematics. Yin (2011)
attemped to examine the collaborative problem solving methods critical
thinking based on economy (AE) and non economy (TE) in the malaysian
Higher School certificate. The result of the examination revealed that
students from KPMs1 group (critical thinking based on systemic approach
to problem solving) obtained the highest mean score in critical thinking.
Oradee

(2012)

studied

three

communicative

activities

(discussion,

problem solving, and role-playing) in improving students speaking ability.

Thus, the findings found that Problem Solving group discussion or

collaborative problem solving could foster students in achieving the

target language or lessons.
Based the investigation of problem solving in teaching speaking
made the writer in this paper wanted to seek the effect of this method as
a means to foster students abilitys, in this case, in expressing feeling with
particular procedure suggested by Johnson and Morrow (1999, p. 144).
This study was aimed to answer the hypothesis whether accured
improvement in students speaking ability after taught by problem solving
group discussion (Ha) or vice versa (Ho).
Problem solving group discussion
Problem solving is a deliberate and serious act, involves the use of
some level method, higher thinking and systematic planned steps for the
acquisition set goals (Yuzhi, 2003). Problem solving skills can be develop
and they are essential for the resolution of many stressful experiences
(Shibata, 1997). By knowing the elements or terms closely relate with
problem solving such as purpose, situation, cause, solvable cause, issue
and solution students are aimed to get clear ideas about the problem that
need to be met the solution. To provide students with sufficient space and
time to think around for the solution, group learning is organized on
purpose let students become dependent on socially structures exchange
of information between learners in group (Olsen & Kagan,1992). Problem
solving group discussion led students to think systematically in findings
the solution by facing pre-discussion outline up to the discussion process.
In pre - discussion outline, students are asked to think through in four
steps; describr the problem, identify criteria for evaluating possible
solutions, identify possible solutions, and evaluate the possible solution
and select the best one. While during discussion, students should
understand the roles of each member in group.
The advantages of group work are explained in the following below:
(Harmer. 2007,p.117)
-

It significantly upgrade the frequency of talking for individual

students.

Personal relationships are less problematic since it consists of more

than two people in the group. Also, chance to share different ideas
and conributions broadly opened.

It encourages broader skills of cooperation and negotiation

It promotes learner autonomy by allowing students to make their

own decision in the group

Students can choose their level of partici[ation more readily

Besides those above, levin (2002a:p.5) indicated that in group learning

students would have develop some skills such as: establishing rapport
with others, negotiating a framework for working with others,
generating and sustaining motivation and commitment to work
together, standing back of hurly burly of teamwork and making
sense of what is going on in ones team, coping with stressful
situations tha arise, and evaluating the working of ones team, etc.
Methodology
Population and sample
All second year of seniour high students

in SMUN 9 Pekanbaru in

period time 2008-2009 comprised the population of the study. Using

cluster random sampling which is in group not indoviduals randomly
selected (Gay,1980). Eighty four 11th nature science two students (11 IPA
2 and 11 IPA 4) were taken as the sample of the study. Eleven nature
science two Students

were assigned as experimental group which is

taught by problem solving discussion and eleven nature four students

were assigned as control group since the study belongs to quasi
-experimental research (pre-test and post-test with controlled group).
Research design and instrument
A pre-test and post-test were administered to experimental group
and control

group to identify the effect of problem solving group

discussion compared to controlled group towards the increase of mean

score . To get the data pre-test and post-test of both experimental and
controlled group were used as the instruments of this study. The topics

used in both types were related to trigger students sharing his ideas about
what would they say, what would they do, or why they said or did.
Data collection and analysis
Two interviews conducted before (pre-test) and after (post-test) the
treatment to the experimental group and controlled group. The interviews
were recorded and transcripted. In scoring the students speaking ability,
FSI checlist of performance factors and description was used. Three raters
were assigned to score students speaking ability to avoid the subjectivity
in scoring process. The data then tabulated into table and analyzed
statistically.
Procedure
The following procedures were carried out to conduct the reseearch:
First, pre-test in form of interview was conducted on all population of 42
students to the target group of the study (experimental and control group)
. The interview was recorded. Then, the recording was transcripted and
given to three raters to process the scoring. The writer, then, tabulated
them into FSI conversion table and started calculating it to get the Mean
score and Standard Deviation.
Second, experimental group was treated using problem solving group
discussion for 8 meetings while control group is taught by group
discussion only, During the meetings, the writer proceed some steps:
-

Explaning the procedures of problem solving group discussion to

the experimental group clearly.

Selecting topic for discussion in which related to material given in

the lesson plan

Assigning students in group discussion following the directions or

procedures of problem solving group discussion activity

Evaluating the group discussion activity by asking one of

member representative to share their discussion result

Changing the new topic which more difficult than previously

when students finished with the topic.

The class procedure were conduct for eight meetings with different
topics.
After applying treatment for eight meetings, the post-test in form of oral
interview was administered to both groups. The items of the interviews
had similar characteristics with the pre-test. It recorded and transcripted
then, scoring process would proceed by three raters. The post-test and
pre-test were analyzed statistically. The mean score, standard deviation
and variance was analyzed to find the different score before and after
taught by problem solving group discussion
Findings and discussion
The pre-test score of experimental group showed that 47.7% of
students were not able to understand or speak English similar with control
group pre-test. While in post-test score of experimental group showed that
31.8% of students were able to catches parts of normal speech without
making major conribution. The average score of pre- test was 30.11 and
46.13 in post test. The different between mean score in pre-test and
post-test was 16.02 or 36.4 % (16.02/44 x 100) . The standard deviation
of pre-test was 202.06 while post-test was 309.5 and the variance of pretest was 30.81 and 47.2 for post-test. the result of calculating the
standard error of mean was 4.02. after knowing mean, the value was
transfromed into t-test. By using 0.05 level of significance, for two tailed
test and 86 degree of freedom (df), t-obtained was 3.98. since t-obtained
was bigger than t-critical, the null hypothesis was rejected and alternative
hypothesis was accepted.
Experimental group
N
Pre-test
Posttest

Sd

44

30.1

202.0

44

1
46.1

6
309.5

Improveme
nt

S
V

(Xt1

d.f

Sig.

86

0.05

t-cal

t-crit

Xt2)
30.01

16.02 =
36.4%

47.2

4.02

3.98
2

2.000

Hypothesis testing. It was found that the value of t-calculated is bigger

than t-critical. The null hypothesis was rejected and alternative hypotehsis
was accepted. In short, problem solving group discussion method might
be the factors which could affect the students speaking ability in
expressing feelings of SMAN 9 Pekanbaru.
Recomendation
The recomendations were made on the basis of findings in this study
towards English teachers, students, and government. Providing English
textbooks which cover many real life cases or problems in form of problem
based learning could be great point to disseminate this method. This
study proved that problem solving group discussion could improve the
studentsspeaking ability in expressing feeling. So, English teachers could
use this method in their teaching and learning class especially in speaking
class. Extensive training program, seminar and workshops should be
organized regularly to maintain the quality of Seniour High Schools
English teacher to employ problem solving group discussion in the
classroom. And for students, gathering your concentration and sufficient
information

before or during the class will be good start to make

yourselves ready to follow and emerge the lesson. Last but not least, it
would be perfect meeting when it comes to the greatest willingness to
express or share or train or practice them with others in form of group
discussion or other likes.

References
Ali, Riasad et al. 2010. Asian Social Science; effect of using Problem
Solving

in

teaching

Mathematics

on

the

achievement

of

Mathematics students. www.ccsenet,org/ass. Vol. 6, No. 2.

Gay, LR et all, Airasian. 2000. Educatinal reasearch competencies for
analysis and application. Prentice-hall. Ney Jersey, columbus, Ohio.
H. long, michael & C. richards, Jack. 1987. Methodology in TESOL.
Newbury house publishers. USA, New York.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2007. The practice of English Language Teaching. Pearson ELT.
Hatch & Farhady.1982. Research design and statistics for applied
linguistics.
Longman edited by Johnson and morrow. 1999. Communication in the
classroom, applications and method for a communicaticce approach.
Australian Language Center. Jakarta.
M. hughes, Donna et al. 1988. Glencoe English Encino. California.
Ming, Ming chiu. 2000. Group problem solving process: social
interactions and individual actions. Backwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford,
USA.
Nunan, David. 1991. Language Teaching Methodology. Prentice hall International English
Language teaching.
Omaggio, Alice A. 1986. Teaching Language in Context. Heinle and Heinle Prublishers, Inc.
United State of America.
Oradee,

Thanyalak.

2012.

Developing

Speaking

skills

using

three

communicative activities (discussion, Problem solving, and Role

playing). International journal of social and humanity. Vol. 2, No. 6.
Patricia, Heller. 1992. Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping; designeing
problems and stucturing groups. American Association of Physics Teachers.
Roberts, T. S., & McInnerney, J. M. (2007). Seven Problems of Online Group
Learning (and Their Solutions). Educational. Technology & Society, 10 (4),
257-268. //cowlrick@optusnet.com.au

Savignon J. Sandra. 1983. Communicative competence: theory and

classroom practice. Addison-wesley publishing company, inc. United
state.
Shibata, hidetoshi. 1998. Problem solving; definition, terminology and
patterns. Article.
Sudarti, TH.M &Grace, Audia. 2007. Look a Head 2; and English Course.
Erlangga. Jakarta
Yin, Yin Khoo et al. 2011. Collaborative problem solving methods towards
critical thinking. www.ccsenet,org/ass. vol. 4, No. 2.
Wright, Tony. 1999. Roles of teachers and learners. Oxford university
press.
Zumakhsin & Mufarichah, Yulia. 2007. Progress A contextual Approach To
learning English. Ganexa Exact. Jakarta.

Appendix
FSI checlist of performance factors and description (Keitges in H.Long,
Michael, 1987:470).
a. Accent
1. Pronunciation frequently unintellifeble
2. Frequent

gross

error

and

very

heavy

accent

make

understanding difficult, rquire frequent repetition

3. foreign

accent

mispronunciation

requires
lead

to

concentrated

occasional

listening

misunderstanding

and
and

apparent errors in grammar or vocabulary

4. Marke foreiggn accent and occasional mispronunciation that do
not interfere wit understanding
5. No conspiciuous mispronunciation, but would not be taken for a
native speaker
6. Native pronunciation, with no trace of foreign accent
b. Grammar
1. Grammar almost entirely inaccurate except in stock phases
2. Constant error showing control of very few major pattern nd
frequently preventing communication
3. Frequent errors showing some major patterns uncontrolled and
causing occasional irritation and misunderstanding
4. Occasional errors imperfect control of some patterns but to
weaknesses that causes misunderstanding
5. Few errors, with no patterns of failure
6. No more than two errors during the interview

c. Vocabulary
1. Vocabulary inadequate in even simplest conversation
2. Vocabulary limited to basic pesonal and survival areas (time,
food, transportation, family, etc)
3. Choice of words sometime inaccurate, limitation of vocabulary
prevent discussion of some professional and social topics
4. Professional vocabulary adequate to discuss special interest,
general vocabulary permit discussion of any non technical
subject with some circumlocutions
5. Professional vocabulary broad and precise, general vocabulary
adequate to cope with complex practical problems and varied
social situation
6. Vocabulary apparently as accurate and extensive as that of an
educated native speaker
d. Fluency
1. Speech in halting and fragmentary that conversation is virtually
impossible
2. Speech is very slow uneven except for short or routines
sentences
3. Speech is frequntly hesitant and jerky, sentences may be left
uncompleted
4. Speech is occasionally hesitant, with some unevenness caused
by rephrasing and grouping for words
5. Speech is effortless and smooth, but perceptibly non-native in
speed and evenness
6. Speech on all provisional and general topic is effortless and
smooth as a native speakers
e. Comprehension
1. Understand to little for the simplest type of conversation
2. Undersatnd only slow, very simple speech on common social and
touristy topic; requires constant repitition and paraphrasing

3. Understand careful, somewhat simplified speech directed to him

or her, with considerable repetition or rephrasing
4. Understand quite well normal educated speech directed to him or
her with considerable repetition and rephasing
5. Understand everything in normal educated conversation except
for every colloquial or low frequently items or exceptionally rapid
or slurred speech
6. Understand everything in both formal and colloquial speech to be
expected of an educated native speaker

FSI conversion table

Proficiency

description
Accent
Grammar
Vocabulary
Flency
Comprehension
Total

0
6
4
2
4

1
12
8
4
8

2
18
12
6
12

2
24
16
8
15

3
30
20
10
19

4
36
24
23
23

The table was used to know and to show the proficiency or ability of the
students, whether they are in the proficiency description of 1,2,3,4,5,or 6.
then, the proficiency description is converted into score based on the
aspects of speaking.
After getting scores, they were categorized into 9 bands or level based on
FSI conversion table.
Band
0/1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Total score
16-25
26-32
33-42
43-52
53-62
63-72
73-82
83-92
93-99

Level
0+
1
1+
2
2+
3
3+
4
4+

Conversion table
Band
9
8

4
3

2
0/1

Expert speaking. Speaks with authority on variety of topics. Can

initiate, expand and develop a theme
Very good non native speaker. Maintains effectively her own
part of discussion initiates, maintains and elaborates as necessary.
Reveals humor where needed and responds to attitudinal tones
Good speaker. Present case clearly and logically and can decelop
the dialog coherently and constructively. Rather less flexible and
fluent than band 8 performers but can respond to main changes of
tones or topic. Some hesitation and repetition due to a measure of
language but interact effectively.
Competent speaker. Able to maintain theme of dialogue to
follow topic switches, and to use and eppreciate main attitude
markers. Stumbles and hesitates at tiimes but is reasonably fluent
otherwise. Some errors and inappropriate language bu these will
no impede exchange of views. Shows independence in discussion
with ability to initiate.
Modest speaker. Although gist of dialogue is relevant and
understood, there are noticeable deficiency in mastery pf
language patterns and style. Need to ask for repetition or
clarification and similarly to be asked
Marginal speaker. Can maintain dialogue but in a rather passive
manner, ...
Extremely limited speaker. Dialogue is drawn-out affair
punctuated with hesitation and misunderstandings. Only catches
parts of normal speech and unable to produce and continue
accurate discourse. Basic merit is just hanging on to discussion
gist, without making major contributing to it.
Intermediate speaker. No working facility, occasionally, sporadic
communication.
Non speaker. Not able to understand and/or speak.