pbl and language
DESCRIPTION
Dissertation of PBL and Language communicationTRANSCRIPT
THE USE OF PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING IN AN
ENGLISH FOR OCCUPATIONAL PURPOSES CLASSROOM
AMONG FINAL SEMESTER STUDENTS OF
DIPLOMA IN OFFICE MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY
JACQUELINE SIM PHEK KIM
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
THE USE OF PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING IN AN
ENGLISH FOR OCCUPATIONAL PURPOSES CLASSROOM
AMONG FINAL SEMESTER STUDENTS OF
DIPLOMA IN OFFICE MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY
JACQUELINE SIM PHEK KIM
A project report submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the award of the degree of
Master of Education (Teaching of English as a Second Language)
Faculty of Education
in collaboration with
the Department of Modern Languages
Faculty of Management and Human Resources Development
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
30 SEPTEMBER 2006
ii
I declare that this project report entitled “The Use of Problem-based Learning in
an English for Occupational Purposes Classroom Among Final Semester
Students of Diploma in Office Management and Technology” is the result of my
own research except as cited in the references. The project report has not been
accepted for any degree and is not concurrently submitted in candidature of any
other degree.
Signature :
Name : JACQUELINE SIM PHEK KIM
Date : 30 SEPTEMBER 2006 ………
iii
To
Kester my hubby, bestfriend, confidant, soulmate;
Jaomi and Timotheus the apples of my eye;
and the memory of
Linda Chang Ping Tek my Grand Mah.
You have taught me to run with horses.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
From the depths of my heart, I thank the Lord for being my anchor. His
omnipresence, faithfulness and wisdom enabled me to complete my Master and
this dissertation.
I am very grateful to my lecturer and supervisor, Associate Professor Dr.
Salbiah Binti Seliman, for motivating me to look at problems from a different
light, and for patiently guiding, directing and advising me.
I remember with deep appreciation the wind beneath my wings: my
husband, Kester, and my pride and joy, Jaomi and Timotheus, who believed in
me, and loved me and all my idiosyncrasies especially during my most stressful
days, and my mom, and sister, Evelyn, who gave me the much-needed space.
Special mention goes to my friends, especially, Shirley Su, who
encouraged me to climb “walls”, Valerie Chan, who challenged me to think
outside the box, and Euphrasia Lee, who inspired me with her wits. It has been a
privilege solving problems with you. I also thank Cindy Wee, who has always
gone the extra mile, and my colleagues at Universiti Teknologi MARA Kota
Samarahan who have been so supportive.
v
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to investigate the use of PBL in an EOP
classroom by determining, firstly, whether the use of PBL benefited the EOP
respondents’ language skills, and secondly, whether there are any significant
improvements in their language skills. The study also attempted to describe the
respondents’ responses in the use of PBL in learning EOP. The respondents
involved in this study were five final semester students from diverse backgrounds
and different levels of English Language proficiency pursuing Diploma in Office
Management and Technology at a local university in Sarawak. This study was
conducted using the qualitative approach. Observation Checklists were used to
collect data on the respondents’ oral language skills in their group discussions
and presentations to ascertain if the use of PBL had benefited the respondents’
oral skills. Pretest and Posttest were administered at the beginning and the end of
the study to determine if the process of learning EOP using PBL had benefited
the respondents’ written language skills in the area of writing reply letters of
complaints. The Posttest letters were also analysed for significant improvements
in the language used by the respondents. Besides that, various types of
Evaluation Forms were distributed to the respondents to obtain data on their
responses towards the use of PBL in an EOP classroom. The findings from this
study revealed that the respondents had responded positively towards the use of
PBL. Their oral and written language skills had improved significantly. On top
of that, their generic skills had also improved, and this would enhance their rate
of employability upon graduation. All the results of this study pointed towards
the fact that the use of PBL in an EOP classroom had benefited the respondents’
oral and written language skills.
vi
ABSTRAK
Tujuan kajian ini adalah untuk mengkaji kegunaan ‘Pembelajaran
Berasaskan Masalah’ (PBL) dalam kelas ‘Bahasa Inggeris Bagi Tujuan
Pekerjaan’ (EOP). Ini dilakukan dengan menentukan pertamanya, sama ada
pengguna PBL boleh memberi faedah kepada kemahiran bahasa pelajar EOP dan
keduanya, terhadap jenis kemahiran bahasa yang dapat diperbaiki dengan
signifikannya. Kajian ini juga ingin menggambarkan tindak balas pelajar yang
mengguna PBL untuk mempelajari EOP. Pelajar yang terlibat dalam kajian ini
adalah lima orang pelajar semester akhir daripada latar belakang dan tahap
kemahiran Bahasa Inggeris yang berbeza, iaitu pelajar Diploma Pengurusan
Pejabat & Teknologi di sebuah universiti tempatan di Sarawak. Kajian ini
dijalankan dengan menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif. Satu Senarai Semak
Pemerhatian digunakan untuk mengutip data mengenai kemahiran lisan pelajar
dalam sesi perbincangan berkumpulan dan pembentangan. Ujian pra dan pos
dilakukan pada awal dan akhir kajian untuk menentukan keberkesanan proses
pembelajaran EOP menggunakan PBL melalui kebolehan pelajar menjawab
surat. Borang Soalselidik juga digunakan untuk mendapatkan maklum balas
mengenai perkara yang sama. Hasil kajian ini mendapati bahawa tindak balas
terhadap kegunaan PBL dalam EOP adalah positif. Kemahiran bahasa dalam
lisan dan penulisan didapati bertambah baik dengan signifikannya. Kemahiran
generik mereka juga bertambah baik yang seterusnya boleh meningkatkan
peluang mendapatkan pekerjaan setelah tamat pengajian. Oleh itu, semua
keputusan kajian ini menjurus kepada kegunaan PBL dalam bilik darjah EOP
telah dapat memberi faedah kepada kemahiran secara lisan dan penulisan bahasa.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE
DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
ABSTRACT v
ABSTRAK vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF TABLES xii
LIST OF FIGURES xiv
LIST OF ACRONYMS xv
LIST OF APPENDICES xvi
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Background of the Study 3
1.3 Statement of Problem 4
1.4 Purpose of the Study 5
1.5 Objectives of the Study 6
1.6 Research Questions 6
1.7 Significance of the Study 7
1.8 Scope of the Study 7
1.9 Conclusion 8
2 LITERATURE REVIEW 9
2.1 Introduction 9
2.2 Current Status of PBL 9
viii
2.3 Approaches to Language Learning
and Teaching 10
2.3.1 Constructivist Approach 11
2.3.2 Learner-Centred Approach 11
2.3.3 Approaches in Language Acquisition and
Learning 13
(a) Behaviourist Approach 13
(b) Innatist Approach 15
(c) Natural Approach 16
(d) Interactionist Approach 18
2.4 What is PBL? 21
2.5 Rationale for Using PBL 22
2.6 Early Success of PBL 23
2.6.1 PBL in Medicine 23
2.6.2 PBL in Pure Sciences 25
2.7 Recent Developments in PBL 25
2.7.1 PBL in Education 26
2.7.2 PBL in Law 27
2.7.3 PBL in Language Teaching and Learning 27
2.7.4 PBL in English for Academic Purposes 28
2.7.5 PBL in English for Occupational Purposes 29
2.7.6 PBL and Generic Skills 30
2.8 Design Process of PBL 33
2.9 Characteristics of PBL 35
2.10 Scaffolds in PBL 36
2.11 Characteristics of a PBL Poorly-Structured Problem 36
2.12 Role of the Facilitator in PBL 37
2.13 Role of the Learners in PBL 38
2.14 Constraints in Implementing PBL 38
(a) Cultural Change 38
(b) Manpower 39
(c) Infrastructure 39
ix
2.15 Conclusion 39
3 METHODOLOGY 40
3.1 Introduction 40
3.2 Research Design 40
3.3 Population 42
3.4 Sampling Design 43
3.5 Respondents 43
3.6 Instrumentation 44
3.6.1 Instruments used in Data Collection 45
(a) Questionnaire 45
(b) Written Essay 46
(c) Poorly-Structured Problem 46
(d) Poorly-Structured Problem
Reply Letter 46
(e) Tests 47
(f) Evaluation Forms 48
(g) Problem Logs 51
(h) Checklists 53
3.6.2 Instruments used in Data Analysis 55
(a) Assessment of General Language
Skills 55
(b) Assessment of Specific Language
Skills 56
(c) Assessment of Oral Presentation 57
3.7 Research Procedure 59
3.7.1 Preliminary Study 59
3.7.2 Preparation of Instruments 59
3.7.3 Piloting of Instruments 61
3.7.4 Improvement of Instruments 62
3.8 Data Collection 63
3.9 Data Analysis 68
3.9.1 Poorly-Structured Problem Reply Letter
and Pretest 68
x
3.9.2 Tests (Pretest and Posttest) 69
3.9.3 Assessment of Oral Presentation 70
3.9.4 Evaluation Forms 70
3.9.5 Problem Logs 72
3.9.6 Checklists 72
3.10 Conclusion 73
4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 74
4.1 Introduction 74
4.2 Benefits of PBL on the Respondents’
Language Skills 74
4.2.1. Ability to Decide To Write
a Reply Letter of Complaint 75
4.2.2 Ability to Write a Reply Letter of
Complaint 76
4.2.3 Improvements in Written Language Skills 76
4.2.4 Discussions of Respondents’
Overall Performance 82
4.3 Aspects of Language Skills the Respondents
Improved Significantly 83
4.3.1 Significant Improvements in Written
Language Skills 84
(a) Grammar 86
(b) Punctuation 87
(c) Vocabulary and Expression 87
(d) Rhetorical Aspects 88
4.3.2 Discussions of Respondents’
Overall Written Performance 90
4.3.3 Significant Improvements in Oral
Language Skills 93
(a) Language Used When
Communicating With Group
Members 93
xi
(b) Effectiveness in Oral
Language Skills 93
4.3.4 Discussions of Respondents’
Overall Spoken Performance 97
4.4 Informants Responses to the Use of PBL in
Learning EOP 98
4.4.1 Interpersonal Skills 99
4.4.2 Self-Management Skills 101
4.4.3 Communication Skills 105
4.4.4 Problem-Solving Skills 110
4.4.5 Discussions of Respondents’
Overall Responses to the Use
of PBL in Learning EOP 114
4.5 Conclusion 114
5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 115
5.1 Conclusion 115
5.2 Recommendations 118
5.3 Pedagogical Implications 119
5.4 Suggestions for Further Research 120
5.5 Limitations of the Study 121
REFERENCES 123
Appendices A-V 132-163
xii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE
3.1 Likert Scale used in Evaluation Form 49
3.2 Grading Scale for Evaluation 51
3.3 Assessment of General Language Skills 55
3.4 Assessment of Specific Language Skills 56
3.5 Assessment of Oral Presentation 57
3.6 Grading Scale for Oral Presentation 58
3.7 Types of Improvement in the Posttest Letters 69
4.1 Analysis and Comments of the Respondents’ Letter
from the Pretest and Poorly-Structured Problem Reply 77
4.2 Marks obtained by the Respondents in the Pretest and
Posttest Letters 84
4.3 Types of Improvement Obtained by the Respondents
in the Posttest Letters 85
xiii
4.4 Checklist of Generic Skills: Self-Evaluation of
Interpersonal Skills Before and After the Use of
PBL in Learning EOP 99
4.5 Checklist of Generic Skills: Self-Evaluation of
Self-Management Skills Before and After the Use of
PBL in Learning EOP 101
4.6 Ratings Obtained by the Respondents in the
Group Evaluation 103
4.7 Checklist of Generic Skills: Self-Evaluation of
Communication Skills Before and After the Use of
PBL in Learning EOP 105
4.8 Marks Obtained by the Respondents in the
Oral Presentation 107
4.9 Checklist of Generic Skills: Self-Evaluation of
Problem-Solving Skills Before and After the Use of
PBL in Learning EOP 110
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE
2.1 Design Process of PBL 34
3.1 Research Design 41
3.2 Process of Data Collection 63
xv
LIST OF ACRONYMS
EOP - English for Occupational Purposes
PBL - Problem-Based Learning
EAP - English for Academic Purposes
ELT - English Language Teaching
FBI - Federal Bureau of Investigation
ALM - Audio-Lingual Method
SLA - Second Language Acquisition
LAD - Language Acquisition Device
L2 - Second Language
NA - Natural Approach
CI - Comprehensive Input
L1 - Native Speaker
Non-L1 - Non-Native Speaker
CO - Comprehensive Output
UBD - University Brunei Darussalam
SPM - Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia
CGPA - Cumulative Grade Point Average
PTPTN - National Higher Education Fund
xvi
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX TITLE PAGE
A Questionnaire 132
B Written Essay 135
C Checklist of Generic Skills 136
D Pretest 138
E Poorly-Structured Problem 139
F Checklist of Observation 140
G Scaffolds 1 141
H Problem Log 1 142
I Self-Evaluation Form 1 145
J Group Evaluation Form 1 147
K Scaffolds 2 149
L Problem Log 2 150
M Scaffolds 3 151
N Problem Log 3 152
O Scaffolds 4 154
P Problem Log 4 155
Q Assessment of Oral Presentation 156
R Group Evaluation Form 2 157
S Poorly-Structured Problem
Evaluation Form 158
T Self-Evaluation Form 2 160
U Posttest 162
V Poorly-Structured Problem Reply Letter 163
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
The lecturer entered the EOP class all prepared to deliver the first lecture of
the new semester. Exuberating with enthusiasm and well-prepared with
transparencies and printed notes, she introduced the final semester undergraduates to
the course content. Expecting enthusiastic responses from these undergraduates, she
was certainly not prepared for what was to transpire. Comments such as ‘dry’,
‘boring’, and ‘technical’ were the responses she received. She was taken aback by
this lacklustre attitude of the undergraduates, and on probing further, she discovered
that they were not in the least interested in learning the EOP skills so important for
their career.
There has to be a departure from this approach of learning and teaching to
one that will enable the learners and teachers to see the relevance of learning. It has
to be an approach that views learning as a process that constructs knowledge; one
that is not only concerned with the end product of acquiring that knowledge but
rather the process of constructing that knowledge. This is to run away from the non-
constructivist approach of learning to one that looks at learning from the
constructivist point of view (Brooks and Brooks, 1993). Learning, to a
constructivist, involves a process where knowledge is constructed not transferred.
It is based on the principle that learning takes place when there is construction of
2
knowledge. Brooks and Brooks (1993) explain it well when they say that the focus
in learning is the receipt of knowledge and the learning activity. They add that this
type of learning approach will free the learners from the
“dreariness of fact-driven curriculum and allow them to focus on large
ideas; (they) place in students’ hands the exhilarating power to follow
traits of interests, to make connections, to reformulate ideas, and
to teach unique conclusions”
(Brooks and Brooks, 1993: 22).
Gone were the days where education was seen as a transfer of knowledge
from the teacher to the learners, and as long as learners were given knowledge, they
would be able to use it (Gordon, 1998).
One method which advocates learning by engaging learners in authentic
learning activities is PBL which uses real-life problems as the starting point and
focus of learning (Barrows, 1985; Dunlap, 2005). It is based on the premise that the
place where learning occurs lies not with the head-knowledge of the learners but in
the arena where there is social interaction (Mardziah, 1998), and where the social
participants play a deciding role in the content and amount learnt (Cole and
Engestrom, 1993; Salomon, 1993).
The use of PBL in the science disciplines has been successful in producing
learners who are responsible for their own learning and equipping themselves with
the relevant generic skills for life outside the classroom (Wood, 2003; Oliver and
McLoughlin, 2001). This method of learning and equipping can be adopted in the
EOP language classrooms where PBL is used as an approach to pave the way for this
self-learning to take place.
3
1.2 Background of the Study
The present scenario in the classrooms where learners are unable to see the
importance of what they learn as being instrumental in succeeding in the real world
has to undergo a paradigm shift. Traditional education practices are churning out
disinterested and bored learners who go to school and come home with huge amount
of facts to memorise – an activity that does not in the least prepare them for life
outside the classroom. Their attitude towards the learning process is reflected in
their declining attendance rate and poor academic performance (Zhonglei, 2004;
Ahlfeldt, 2004).
Learning in the classrooms cannot be confined to just the content to be taught
for the day, nor the syllabus to be completed in the semester. It will be so unnatural
because acquisition of knowledge comes in a package together with the acquisition
of other skills. In other words, these learners are not just learning and improving on
their language skills, but also simultaneously picking up a variety of generic skills.
Research has unveiled an important role of PBL and its ability to motivate
learners to learn as they would in the real-world (Mardziah, 1998); learning which is
self-directed and encouraged by the learners’ own intellectual curiosity to find
solutions to problems. Through PBL, the learning horizon of the learners is opened
to a wide spectrum of skills and knowledge which they can acquire besides just the
target content.
Wood and Head (2004) in their research on the application of PBL in the
EAP classroom manage to successfully use PBL in their EAP class and in its process
enable their students to gain the necessary skills. The same can be done for the EOP
classrooms by using PBL in the teaching and learning of EOP language skills. In
this case then, the use of real-world problems in the learning process will enable the
4
learners to acquire the end product which is the construction of the target EOP
language skills, and at the same time, develop generic skills relevant for life-long
learning. This learning experience will be a simulation of the real-world.
Instructional sessions will never be boring any more, and learners will be more
enthusiastic towards the learning experience as they take charge of their own
learning.
While substantial research and studies have been carried out in the field of
pure sciences and medicine, there has not been much in language in general and EOP
in particular. Thus, this study looks at the use of PBL in learning EOP language
skills where learners are themselves responsible for solving a problem that mirrors
real-world problems which are not well-phrased, have many solutions and use a
myriad of generic skills, such as those pertaining to oral or written communication,
critical thinking, problem solving, decision making, leadership, and team work
which serve the basis for life-long learning (Peterson, 1997; Murray-Harvey et al.
2004; Ellis et al., 2005).
1.3 Statement of Problem
The trend in language teaching and learning has been one where learners
learn language in a structured, linear fashion using unrealistic examples. Language
has been taught and learnt in isolation with importance placed on the content to be
learnt but not on the learning activity. Many times, these learning activities are not
only few but far from being real. The lessons are reinforced through practice which
learners find hard to grapple with. Products of this type of teaching and learning
process are learners who know all about the rules of the language but do not know
how to use the language proficiently in the real world (Short, Harste and Burke,
1996). In response to this, teachers in the language classrooms can use PBL to close
5
the gap between language used in the real world and language taught in the
classroom. This can be done by embedding into the classroom learning activities
which support the type of thinking process that is synonymous with the real world
(Mardziah, 1998; Brown et al., 1989; Lave and Wenger, 1991).
Studies on PBL in the fields of medicine and pure sciences, such as Physics
and Biology, have generated theories and assumptions that PBL can successfully
create a learning environment where learning is done in context within its target
domain using learning tasks which are as close to real life as possible. Such a
functional approach if used in language learning will ensure that all learners have
practical knowledge of the contextual use of the language and learners are able to use
it in real-life situations. Despite these studies, PBL in language teaching and
learning has not been studied comprehensively. More studies should be undertaken
in this area to shed more light into the role PBL can play in the teaching and learning
of language.
1.4 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to investigate the use of PBL in an EOP
classroom. It is a qualitative investigation that seeks to describe how PBL can
benefit the learners’ language skills in an EOP classroom in the area of writing reply
letters of complaints. It is hoped that through the PBL learning experience, these
learners will experience significant improvements in their language skills in writing
reply letters of complaints.
The study also attempts to describe the responses of the learners towards PBL
approach of teaching and learning. Their responses will be helpful in finding out if
PBL is favourable in facilitating their learning experience.
6
1.5 Objectives of the Study
This study aims to:
1.5.1 Determine whether the use of PBL in an EOP classroom benefits the
respondents’ language skills in writing reply letters of complaint;
1.5.2 Find out which aspects of the respondents’ language skills, namely, speaking,
and writing reply letters of complaint, have improved significantly with the use of
PBL; and
1.5.3 Analyse the informants’ responses to the use of PBL in learning EOP.
1.6 Research Questions
1.6.1 Does the use of PBL benefit the respondents’ language skills in an EOP
classroom?
1.6.2 What aspects of language skills do the respondents improve significantly
when using PBL in learning EOP?
1.6.3 How have the informants responded to the use of PBL in learning EOP?
7
1.7 Significance of the Study
The findings on whether PBL improves the learners’ language skills in an
EOP classroom will help pave the way for the introduction of PBL in teaching and
learning language. This will further enhance the use of authentic learning activities
within the target context of language learning in an EOP classroom. Data on the
aspects of language skills that the learners improved significantly when using PBL in
learning EOP will give teachers an indication of the language skills that can benefit
the most through the use of PBL.
Gaining an insight into the responses of the learners towards this approach of
teaching and learning is invaluable in assisting the teachers and the management in
planning ways to maximise the benefits of PBL. An awareness of the problems that
hinder the learners from benefiting from this approach will enable the teachers and
curriculum planners to minimise the problems they face.
The findings of this study will be of great significance especially to teachers
who are considering using different and more novel ways of making learning more
student-centred and meaningful. With the results, these teachers will be able to
know how to insert more meaningful learning tasks based on real-world problems
into their target context. It is hoped that the findings of this research will lead to
PBL playing a more prominent role in the language classroom.
1.8 Scope of the Study
This study investigated the use of PBL in an EOP classroom. It focused on
the language used by the respondents in writing formal reply letters of complaints,
and oral communication. This study involved five final semester respondents who
8
were pursuing Diploma in Office Management and Technology in a local university
in Sarawak. It used a qualitative approach with different types of instruments, such
as, Questionnaire, Tests, Observations and Evaluations to obtain data on the benefits
and significant improvements in the language skills of the respondents after the use
of PBL in their EOP classroom.
1.9 Conclusion
Therefore, it is hoped that this study will provide invaluable information
pertaining to the use of PBL in helping the learners find the learning experience
relevant to them in the EOP classroom.
This first chapter on the Introduction of the study is followed by four other
chapters. Chapter 2 discusses the Review of Literature while the Methodology in
Chapter 3 explains how the study was carried out. Chapter 4 presents the Findings
and Discussion, and the report ends with Chapter 5 on the Conclusion and
Recommendations.
9
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
The literature review synthesizes research and studies on PBL. First, it
describes the current status of PBL. Second, it focuses on the approaches that are
related to language learning and acquisition. Next, the chapter explains what PBL is,
the rationale for using it, and followed by its early success. Then, this is followed
with an explanation on the recent developments in PBL, its design process, and
characteristics and features. These recent developments refer to previous research on
PBL in ELT. The chapter concludes with a summary of the constraints of
implementing PBL.
2.2 Current Status of PBL
PBL has been gaining ground in teaching and learning carrying with it a
mandate for innovative approaches to education. The literature on PBL has
mushroomed at such a fast pace with the sharing of different experiences. Lam
(2004) comments that PBL has already been accepted internationally as an
educational innovation. It has been introduced into the social work curriculum at the
University of Hong Kong where Lam conducted a study on 10 undergraduates from
10
the Bachelor of Social Work programme. She observes that the learners successfully
fill the gap in their knowledge by relating their practical field sessions to the theories
they have learnt in the classroom. She adds that PBL is a promising alternative to
the conventional field that education models.
More recently, PBL has found its way into FBI in training their agents and
making them more competent investigators who are able to do what they are trained
to do, and which is, to work as a team and solve problems (Ahlfedlt, 2003).
PBL has also been introduced into the field of communication where there is
a call for reforms in its curriculum and pedagogy. Ahlfedlt (2003) researches on the
use of PBL in the public speaking classroom by studying 855 students. The findings
from the research show that students from the PBL classes performs better on
speeches than students from the traditional classrooms, and not only are they more
engaged in their learning experience, they also experience less speaking anxiety.
These findings are significant because they reveal PBL to be an effective method of
instruction in the public speaking classroom
2.3 Approaches to Language Learning and Teaching
Approaches make up one of the fundamental factors that determine the
success of language learning and teaching. In this study, the review of literature will
discuss the approaches that can be used in tandem with PBL.
11
2.3.1 Constructivist Approach
The approach to learning in PBL is based on the premise that learning in the
social environment is a process where knowledge is constructed (Brooks and Brooks,
1993). Mardziah (1998) states that it is the knowledge gained and insight obtained
during the process of constructing that knowledge which is more important than the
end product itself. This is further supported by Brown et al. (1989), and Lave and
Wenger (1991) who stress that learning tasks must be present to facilitate the
learning process of the target language. Thus, it is the learning situation that is
instrumental in determining what the learners know and understand.
Savery and Duffy (1995) sum up the three constructivist principles that are
consistent with PBL as social interaction with the environment, and cognitive
conflict that will all work towards fostering understanding and stimulating learning.
This will in turn help the learners experience learning as in the real-world, by
constructing knowledge for themselves. As these learners gain more relevant
experience, they will be able to restructure their knowledge.
Mardziah (1998) points out that according to the constructivist view,
language learners should participate in all types of real life language activity as this
will help them understand how language is used in the real-world. They should not
just learn the rules of language.
2.3.2 Learner-Centred Approach
This approach places the needs and interests of the learners at the forefront of
the learning experience. It ensures that the materials, activities and the whole
process of teaching and learning are subjected to close negotiation between the
12
teachers and the learners in determining that the teaching approach is the most
conducive for the learners. This approach relies heavily on the learners being
actively involved in using their knowledge and generic skills, such as, critical
thinking, communication and problem-solving, to maximise the benefits from the
learning situation.
The theory of situated learning encompasses knowing and understanding as a
product of the learning situation and the learning activity. In other words, learning
activities should be carried out in a target domain supported by thinking processes
which are similar to those in real life (Brown et al., 1989; Lave and Wenger, 1991).
Learning will hence be based on real life situations drawing examples and lessons
from the real world scenarios instead of learning out of context.
Learners adapt differently to different language learning styles, and learners
who are unfamiliar with the learning style used, might not be able to fully gain from
the learning environment. Therefore, teachers need to help their learners adjust
slowly to the new learning style, and gain confidence. Group members who are
familiar with the learning environment also play a crucial role in helping the learners
enjoy the learning experience. A functional approach to language learning places
importance on helping the learners to use language in the right context for real-world
situations. PBL is one learning approach that allows the teachers to adjust the
language level of the learning environment to suit the needs and learning styles of
the learners. However, since learners come with diverse needs and language
behaviour is very broad, linguists around the world are interested in understanding
and explaining the various processes learners go through in language learning. This
has resulted in many approaches and hypotheses being put forward to further
understand how languages are acquired and learnt.
13
2.3.3 Approaches in Language Acquisition and Learning
There is as yet no definite approach that can be used to describe or explain
the language acquisition and learning process. On one extreme of the continuum is
the behaviourist approach that focuses on observed aspects of linguistic behaviour.
On the other end is the nativist approach that believes that learners are born with an
innate knowledge to the nature of language. Meanwhile, the interactionist approach
views the acquisition of language as collaborative efforts of the learners and teachers
set in the midst of a host of different external and internal factors.
(a) Behaviorist Approach
Bohannon III and Bonvillian (1997) base this approach on the observable and
measurable aspects of language behaviour. It is an approach that recognizes the
difficulties involved in defining and measuring mental processes, and as such, it
looks for environmental conditions or stimuli that can be observed and co-occur, and
can predict specific verbal behaviours or responses. In doing so, Zimmerman (1979)
explains that it has disregarded mentalistic explanations of language behaviour that
rest upon the implicit knowledge of grammatical rules.
This behaviourist psychology has led to the development of the ALM in the
1950s. It is a method which emphasizes oral discussion at the expense of grammar
rules, and it is a process of habit-formation involving lots of oral repetition until a
pattern is formed. The ALM assumes that all language learning is the same
regardless of whether they are verbal or non-verbal, and since they are similar to
other types of behaviour, they can be learnt through imitation and reinforcement. In
this learning process, Bohannon III and Bonvillian (1997) see the learners as
“passive recipients of environmental pressures” similar to that of a tabula rasa.
They have no preconceived notions of the world but through a series of various
scheduled reinforcement, they undergo a series of conditioning. Skinner (1957), a
14
leading behaviourist in the United States in his book which is aptly titled ‘Verbal
Behaviour’, refers to this type of learners as mere spectators who play a passive role
in their own language development. He sees language as a special case of behaviour.
In addition to that, Littlewood (1984) says this process has no mental or
cognitive implications but only a set of mechanical habits formed through imitation
and repetition. He proposes a framework for teaching where he advocates pre-
communicative and communicative activities. He views the former activities as a
type of skill training where learners use habit-forming and cognitive techniques such
as explanations, to master certain aspects of the language like sound patterns. In the
latter type of communicative activities, whole-task practice is introduced in the
learning process. Here the learners’ different sub-skills will be integrated to
communicate meanings, and the learners can acquire language through the natural
processes. In this case, meanings to be communicated precede the language items to
be learnt.
However, Brown (1994) understands this production of correct responses to
stimuli as training in imitation. During this process of habit-formation, the learners’
attempts that closely resemble adults’ speech will be reinforced with rewards or
some other forms of approval while speech that is meaningless or incorrect will
receive negative reinforcements such as punishments. Over time, the learners will
use imitation more frequently in learning. The duration they take to learn a language
is dependent upon the training techniques used by the teachers rather than the
maturity of the learners. Thus, language development is seen as a link between the
various stimuli in the learners’ environment and their internal responses, and overt
verbal behaviour. This approach places importance on performance instead of
competence, and Bohannon III and Bonvillian (1997) sum it well when they say that
the behaviourist is more concerned with language functions, verbal behaviour and its
stimuli, and the consequences of language performance.
15
However, this view on how language is learnt is not shared by the innatists
who use the innatist approach to account for the acquisition of language.
(b) Innatist Approach
This approach to SLA is a reaction to the theory of learning. Chomsky
(1957) claims that learners are biologically programmed for language which
develops in them in just the same way as how other biological functions develop. He
explains that as language is both too complex and the learning occurring too rapidly
for the learners to learn through imitation, linguists should study the underlying
competence and not the performance of humans. He further adds that learners are
endowed with an ability to self-learn the rules governing a language. They have a
special device called the LAD, found only in human species. It is a tool to process
speech, and the samples of language (input) are necessary to trigger the LAD which
then enables the learners to discover for themselves the rules of the language. Due to
the ability of the LAD to be activated immediately on receiving language samples,
the universal features of all languages such as the basic grammatical structures are
found in the device.
Therefore, learners can creatively use their skills of cognition to acquire L2
independently by constructing their own rules, and simultaneously, changing the
rules whenever there are mistakes. So, they are continually playing an active role in
the learning process and finding out how language works no matter how complex the
task may seem.
This leads to another approach called the natural approach which views
learners as playing an equally active role in learning language but the main
distinction lies in the fact that language input can be processed internally without any
output from the learner as explained by Lightbown and Spada (1993).
16
(c) Natural Approach
This NA has its bases on Krashen’s work on SLA and Terrell’s classroom
experiences. Krashen’s (1983) principle of ‘comprehension precedes production’
explains that for any speaking or writing abilities to take place, the learner must first
receive input in the form of comprehensible messages or texts. He further adds that
the learners’ productions of the language appear in stages, and so they should not
face any pressure to speak unless they are ready to do so.
The NA theory maintains a distinction between language learning and
language acquisition. It explains that learning involves knowledge of the rules of the
language but it is the acquisition of language that determines the development of the
communicative ability to understand and speak the L2 successfully. Language
learning is useful as an editor for making corrections and changes before or after the
sentences are spoken or written.
In the NA theory, Krashen presents five hypotheses to explain language
acquisition and learning. The first of these is the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis
which draws a distinction between the two processes of language development.
Krashen (1983) explains that in acquisition, the learner’s linguistic ability is sub-
consciously and naturally developed whereas in learning, the learner has an ‘explicit’
knowledge of the rules. He adds that language must be acquired in order for natural
and fluent linguistic interaction to happen, and this acquisition is not a result of
learning. Any errors made in the process has very minimal or no effect at all on this
subconscious way of language development.
In the second hypothesis, which is, the Natural Order hypothesis, the
acquisition of the rules of a language occurs in a sequence that is predictable, and in
17
this case, some of these rules are acquired early while others late. Besides, it also
allows for the acquisition of some structures in groups.
In the Monitor hypothesis, Krashen (1987) stresses that acquisition
‘initiates’ the L2 production whereas learning acts as the monitor or editor on what
the acquired system has produced. Learning through the conscious method, and
formal rules of the language play a minor role in the L2 production, and for these
conscious rules to be of use, three conditions must be present, namely, sufficient
time, focus on form and knowledge of the rules.
According to Krashen, there are basically three types of performers: the
monitor over-user who is always using his L2 conscious knowledge to check his
performance, the monitor under-user who is in favour of the acquired system over
the conscious knowledge, and the optimal monitor user who will only use the
monitor appropriately - when it does not hinder communication. He considers his
learned competence as supplementing his acquired competence.
The Input hypothesis, which is considered the most important hypothesis,
emphasizes language acquisition instead of language learning. Here, Krashen (1987)
stresses that the learner acquires language by receiving CI or by understanding the
messages, and focusing on their meaning. He explains that for this to happen, the
language the learner understands consists of structures that is ‘a little beyond’ (1987)
his present competence of the language, which is, i +1 = CI. To move from i to stage
i + 1, a condition must be met. The learner must understand (focus on meaning) the
input that has i +1, and the input must be of i +1 level but the CI does not have to be
fine-tuned
However, the best input should refrain from aiming at i +1 because when
there is sufficient understandable input, i +1 will automatically take place.
18
According to Krashen (1985), the success experienced by the immersion language
teaching in the French immersion schools is due to the input of materials which are
comprehensible to the students. He claims that the environment is conducive for the
L2 learners to do well.
In the Affective-filter hypothesis, Lightbown and Spada (1993) look at the
filter as an ‘imaginary barrier’ hindering the usage of input available in the
environment by the learner. These screens or barriers to input can take the form of
motives, needs, attitudes and emotions, and the learner decides on what needs to be
tended to and what is acquired. A learner with low affective filter has low anxiety
level and his motivation and self-confidence are high.
(d) Interactionist Approach
This approach agrees with Krashen’s view that CI is crucial for language
acquisition but Lightbown and Spada (1993) add that the relationship between the
learner’s innate capabilities for language and his linguistic environment is of
importance as well in any language development. According to Brown (1994), the
learner’s knowledge of the world will influence what he learns about language, and
Gleason (1997) reaffirms that since the environment is the place where language
emerges, so the learner’s learning process cannot be explained by innate linguistic
alone but should be coupled with non-linguistic aspects of interaction.
The interactionist also believes that modified interaction will result in CI
(Brown 2000) and it is a necessary condition for language acquisition. Ellis (1984)
elaborates that when the learner encounters a problem with his communication,
changes to the structure of what is communicated will assist him in understanding
the input. Besides, this type of interactional modifications, which takes place in the
process of negotiating a communication problem, will promote comprehensible or
19
modified input. There has to be interactional modification on the input structure so
that any linguistic input that is unfamiliar will be made familiar and comprehensible.
Long (1980) also discovers an increase in different types of interactional
features in conversations between an L1 and a non-L1 as compared to conversations
between two native speakers. This increase in interactional restructuring in the first
conversation, which helps in comprehension and language acquisition, is prompted
by the need of the speakers to exchange information. Long continues to add that the
basis for the development of linguistic rules are interactive communication. He
maintains that the L1 speaker will keep on modifying his utterances so that the non-
L1 speaker can understand him. He calls for “information-exchange tasks” where
the L1 and non-L1 speakers are expected to mutually exchange information. This
will cause the language to be interactionally modified (1985) to suit the capability of
the learner, and hence, facilitate comprehension and SLA. Pica, Young and Doughty
(1986) in their study on input modification have discovered that modifications made
on interactions have successfully raised the level of comprehension among the
subjects.
This interaction hypothesis goes one step beyond Krashen’s CI for language
acquisition to include the CO hypothesis which argues that CI alone without CO is
insufficient for language development. Swain cites the French immersion
programme where the focus is on language rather than on its form. Her study reveals
that though the students have a good understanding of the language, they cannot
achieve the proficiency level of the native speakers. Based on the findings from this
study, she concludes that CI alone is insufficient for language acquisition. That input
has to be coupled with opportunities for output such as speaking and writing.
Long (1980) argues that the attempts of the learner to produce CO will enable
him to not only test his own hypothesis about the language but also be aware of any
20
of his linguistic problems, and to focus on form. It allows the learner to notice their
linguistic problems and emphasize on the formal properties of the input. Pica (1990)
has successfully demonstrated that even though the non-L1 speaker is more reluctant
to change his original output due to problem with communication, he still modifies
his output and that of his native speaking interactor’s.
The behaviourist, innatist and interactionist explanations can be reconciled by
way of seeing each of them explaining a different aspect of the learner’s language
development. The task of the behaviourist which focuses on the linguistic
environment tries to explain routine aspects, the innatist the acquisition of complex
grammar and the internal processing mechanisms of the learner, and the
interactionist is best explained by how the child relates form and meaning in
language, and how he interacts and uses the language appropriately.
Much has been said about these approaches towards language acquisition and
language learning, and it can be seen that none of them is complete in itself.
However, they are still important for their implications in language learning and
classroom teaching because they are a store house of information on how languages
are acquired and learnt, and how teaching should be.
It is obvious that the learner’s success in language learning is dependent on
not just one but a number of factors which influences him in his attempt at learning
the language. Thus, it can be concluded that all these views share a similar goal,
which is, to provide the language learner the tools he needs to communicate
successfully, and the means to determine the quantity and quality of input he
receives. These approaches are useful for understanding how language is learnt. It
will help provide the conceptual framework for this study which is concerned with
the learning of EOP language skills using the PBL approach.
21
2.4 What is PBL?
There are many versions to the definition of PBL. Finucane, Johnson and
Prideaux (1998) define PBL as a learner-centred educational approach that focuses
on independent learning and a deeper understanding of the subject matter by
allowing learners to play an active role in solving problems which mirrors real world
problems. They use problems as a context for learners to learn problem-solving
skills and acquire the target knowledge. This definition is echoed by Mayo et al.
(1993) who define PBL as a pedagogical strategy which uses real-world situations as
the basis for the development of content knowledge and problem-solving skills. This
methodology is in line with Plato’s and Socrates’ way of teaching; they had always
encouraged their students to think critically, source for information and debate it in a
scholastic way. Wood and Head (2004) in their study conducted on the application
of PBL in EAP amongst premedical students at UBD view PBL as a context-based
approach which is ideal for the learning phenomenon to take place in a “holistic
fashion, synthetic rather than analytic” (2004: 5). They argue that PBL is not
content-based instruction, which is concerned with learning the content, nor does it
use the L2 to learn content. They add that PBL is definitely not a type of case
studies as found in business schools.
In PBL, learners work in small groups trying to solve a problem. They
discuss possible causes, develop hypotheses and strategies, search for more
information, refine their solutions and finally reach a conclusion. In the process,
they develop and use different skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving,
decision-making, and communication, and hence, construct the target knowledge.
This is the metacognitive or problem-solving process of finding solutions. In actual
fact, this process paves the way for the pursuit of the learning goals which form the
basis of PBL. It enables the learners to recognise their level of proficiency in the
language and gaps in their knowledge. These gaps will eventually lead to further
independent learning outside the classroom.
22
Finucane, Johnson and Prideaux (1998) point out that PBL has been
recognised as the key to effective learning and learners’ pursuit of their learning
goals. In today’s age of information explosion, learning is no longer a solo venture
but a partnership, a joint venture where learners learn about collaboration,
cooperation and responsibility. Rather than just focusing on the acquisition of the
target content, PBL goes one step further by enabling and motivating the learners to
be responsible for their own learning. It is an avenue for growth for them for they
determine their own learning tasks, are responsible for their group learning, and it
ensures they understand more of the target content and are able to transfer the
knowledge to novel situations. Most important of all, PBL makes it possible for the
gap between school or tertiary education and the actual real-world situation to be
narrowed. It prepares the learners for the working world.
Fekete (1987) and Murray-Harvey et al. (2004) explain that PBL, which is
based on the principle that learning has to and must be learner-centered in order for it
to be optimised, sets the platform for the development of generic skills through its
active learner involvement, teamwork, self-directed learning and inquiry-oriented
tasks. Hmelo and Evensen (2000) add that the skills that are enhanced through this
type of PBL learning will in fact enable graduates to apply the knowledge they have
learnt at their work place. This enhances the employability of graduates who are not
only dependent upon what they know but also how to use that knowledge to
complete tasks successfully in the real world.
2.5 Rationale for Using PBL
In using PBL, various disciplines are integrated throughout the curriculum,
and as the learners attempt to solve the problems, they construct knowledge and
apply it to their search for an answer. Thus, learning occurs in the target context and
23
builds on the prior knowledge of the learners. Theoretically, this type of approach
can help in retention, motivation and self-directed learning. The learners are
responsible for their learning needs and the learning strategies.
Studies by Ahlfeldt (2003) and Aldred (n.d.) have shown that learners in PBL
must be involved in their learning process by taking charge of their own learning.
Zhonglei (2004) says that instead of waiting for answers to come from their teachers,
these learners will take the initiative to look for answers to problems themselves.
They set the perimeters of what and how much to learn, and this type of self-directed
learning enables the learners to “explore new knowledge for themselves” leading to
“deeper retention of the information” (Ahlfeldt, 2003: 28).
2.6 Early Success of PBL
PBL has been used as an approach to teaching and learning with much
success especially in the domains of medicine and pure sciences.
2.6.1 PBL in Medicine
The history of PBL can be traced to as far back as 1968 at the Faculty of
Medicine at McMaster University in Canada where this pedagogy was officially
adopted. Three other medical schools, namely, the University of Limburg at
Maastricht in the Netherlands, the University of Newcastle in Australia, and the
University of New Mexico in the United States, soon followed suit and adapted this
approach into their curriculum. The University of Delaware incorporated PBL into
its curricula in 1992 (Ahlfeldt, 2003). Thus, Camp says “sprang one of the more
24
important educational movements of this century” (n.d.: 1). Slowly but surely, PBL
was gaining ground at other medical schools in the region during the 1970s and
1980s. Today, according to Albanese (2000), PBL is widely used in almost 100
medical schools in the United States and almost every country of the world. It has
now become the basis of medical curricula in Canada, the United Kingdom, the
Middle East and Asia. In Australia, it was estimated that by the year 2000, 50% of
its doctors would have experienced the PBL process of learning (Finucance, Johnson
and Prideaux, 1998).
Camp (n.d.) explains that the distinguishing factors between PBL and the
other approaches in medical schools are the learning goals and objectives of PBL for
the learner that go beyond just acquiring and using the target content. This is what
the traditional medical curricula are all about. PBL, on the other hand, advocates
wholesome learning for the learner where learning takes on another new dimension,
and that is the development of other aspects of the learning experience. With the
introduction of PBL into the medical schools, many of the problems faced while
using the traditional medical curricula have been solved. Lohman and Finkelstein
(2000) study the dental education programme at a university in the Midwest. Their
observations on self-directedness reveal that in small groups as those found in PBL,
self-directedness increases. Learners are able to learn, remember, and apply what
they have learnt, and at the same time, continue on the learning process. They have
also begun to develop more positive attitudes towards learning. Huey (2001)
observes that PBL has successfully enhanced the learning environment.
However, the one thing about PBL that has probably left such a great impact
on the learners, according to Camp, is the process of learning itself. She argues that
success of PBL lies in its emphasis on the learner’s “autonomy, building on previous
knowledge and experiences, and the opportunity for immediate application” (n.d.: 2).
25
This approach has also found its way into other disciplines such as dentistry,
pharmacy and veterinary science (Kennedy, 2001), and public health, pure sciences,
and nursing (Biley and Smith, 1998).
2.6.2 PBL in Pure Sciences
PBL has been used with much success in the pure sciences subjects, such as,
biology, chemistry and physics. Duch (1995) observes that in her physics class, her
learners are able to identify gaps in their knowledge and then do the necessary gap
filling. She notices that in the traditional science class, learning takes the form of
abstract to the concrete where concepts are being introduced and then applied to the
problem. In PBL, the reverse is true where the learners are presented with the
problem and then they move to realise the concepts. The known precedes the
unknown to make sense of abstract principles. Albanese and Mitchell (1993)
discover that by doing so, the learners retain the knowledge better.
Allen (1996) observes that success of teaching and learning in her Biology
class is very much dependent upon her ability to use PBL in helping her learners
bridge the gap between learning and expectations, which is, to enable her learners to
learn how to integrate their knowledge of biological principles with their skills of
communication and acquisition in order to make the learning more purposeful.
2.7 Recent Developments in PBL
Although PBL is widely used in the teaching and learning of medicine and
pure sciences, the same cannot be said of PBL in other educational domains.
26
However, recently, educationists, such as Duffy and Cunningham (1997), have
realised that the successes of PBL in the medical schools can spill over to other
classrooms.
2.7.1 PBL in Education
According to Norman and Schmidt (1992), there is evidence to show that
PBL learners tend to remember knowledge longer than other learners who are not
taught using PBL, and they also fare better in integrating knowledge to solve
problems. However, they are quick to add that in their review of experimental
evidence of differences in learners’ learning that could be a result of PBL, they
discover that there is as yet no evidence to support the claim that problem-solving
skills can be improved through PBL. Despite this, they conclude that PBL has a
lasting impact on self-directed learning skills and learners’ motivation, and its
learning environment is more stimulating.
This fact is further supported by Mierson (1995) who states that PBL
provides the environment for her learners to be exposed to a diversity of skills. She
discovers that these learners are excited about learning, and they are able to
successfully present their ideas using accurate scientific terminology. Allen (1996)
discovers that her style of lecturing using a combination of lectures and textbook
readings, gives her students the impression that learning is all about memorisation of
facts which have very little importance to their daily lives. However, ever since
using PBL in her classroom, she finds that her students are enthusiastic about
learning, and their eagerness to learn more motivates them to self-direct their own
learning by bringing “together collective skills at acquiring, communicating and
integrating their knowledge of the biological principles and concepts” (1996:1).
27
Gordon (1998) states that the ingredient for enthusiasm in real-world learning
will exist when the latter is balanced with the realities of real-world classrooms as
long as the learning experiences are authentic and properly designed. In real-world
situations, problems are never structured properly. Even if learners can solve
problems in school, it does not mean they have acquired critical thinking skills
needed to solve real-life situations unless these problems were not structured
properly and they appeared vague.
2.7.2 PBL in Law
PBL has also made its presence felt in the teaching of law. Bailey (2004)
observes in her 72 law students at the Southampton Institute that using PBL has
allowed them to develop a myriad of skills pertaining to practicing law. Her learners
develop cognitive skills, such as, problem-solving and decision-making in law
practice. On top of that, they are highly motivated for learning and can construct
knowledge on their own after developing their self-directed learning skills.
2.7.3 PBL in Language Teaching and Learning
This is an area that linguists and language educationists alike have started
exploring. Duffy and Cunningham (1997) explain that PBL makes it possible for
learning to be more meaningful when it encourages the learners to behave as they
would in the real-world. They argue that if this can happen in the medical schools
then it can also happen in the domain of language learning. Mardziah (1998) points
out that learners can learn a language in the real-world by using PBL and placing the
learners in problem-solving activities. These problems must not be structured
properly, they must not have any easy answers, and they have to reflect the problems
28
in the real-world. While solving the problems, these learners will use the language
to communicate and negotiate, and express opinions. They will document
discussions and decisions, refer to documented materials, and present their findings
and opinions. In the process, all the four language skills, namely, listening,
speaking, reading and writing are learnt and practiced. On top of that, these learners
learn the social conventions of language used for social interactions while
developing the right words to use in the right context. Besides, they also learn to
speak and write grammatically correct sentences as they are expected to use
language in the real-world. This is synonymous with what they will experience in
the occupational domains in the world outside the classroom.
2.7.4 PBL in English for Academic Purposes
This case study on the use of PBL in the EAP classroom is conducted by
Wood and Head (2004) to a class of premedical students at UBD. The present
approach of teaching EAP is unable to meet the needs of these students who, upon
spending three semesters at UBD, will continue into their medical degree programme
in Australia using the PBL approach. Hence, the lecturers have to devise a new
approach to teaching EAP which is motivating, learner-centred and able to meet the
requirements of the EAP course. The lecturers decide to use PBL. This is a
significant decision as the lecturers are well-aware that what they are doing is going
against the traditional approaches in EAP, and they will probably be the very first to
use PBL in EAP.
In this case-study, while the lecturers’ objective is to ensure that at the end of
the learning process they attain the desired level of proficiency in English for pre-
medical students, they are also concerned with the process that will lead them to that
end product. So, the course activities include working in teams in solving a
29
simulated medical problem. It must be stressed here that the students are not
required to have any prior medical knowledge in order to solve the problem. Going
through the process of PBL will enable them to gain the necessary generic skills to
arrive at the answers. Learning takes the form of a contextualised integrated manner
instead of memorisation of abstract facts.
Wood and Head (2004) explain that what makes learning EAP using PBL
different from learning EAP the traditional way is that on the onset of the learning
process, minimal language is used, and the tasks assigned to the learners come
naturally from the problem to be solved. The learners are not assigned tasks as
would be in a traditional EAP approach. Besides that, these tasks flow naturally
from one to the other during the process of problem-solving. The presence of the
lecturers was important but not to tell the learners what to do after every task is
completed, but rather to guide and facilitate the learning. The learners are totally
responsible for determining what leaves to be done after the completion of every task
based on the needs analysis they would have carried out from the beginning of the
whole process (Bosher & Smalkosli, 2002). The learners decide the framework for
learning and they set their own pace and momentum. Wood and Head conclude
from this case study that PBL “can be, and has been, applied successfully to the
teaching of medical EAP” (2004: 15).
2.7.5 PBL in English for Occupational Purposes
As yet there have been no studies done in this area. Searches in the Internet
on PBL in EOP have produced no results or links to the use of PBL in teaching
language skills in EOP. However, as reviewed earlier, according to Duffy and
Cunningham (1997), if PBL can be used successfully in the domains of medicine, it
can also be used in other domains, and in this instance, in EOP. Besides that, Wood
30
and Head (2004) experimenting PBL in EAP also produced very favourable results
in enhancing learner-centred classroom and self-directed learning. The core feature
of the use of PBL in learning the language skills in an EOP classroom will be
learning the language skills in the context of solving related problems.
2.7.6 PBL and Generic Skills
A review of literature on PBL will not be complete without looking at what
literature says about generic skills in PBL for after all it is the presence of generic
skills in the PBL approach that makes problem-solving possible.
Some of the educational objectives for using PBL are the use of PBL in the
classroom which allow for the development of a host of essentials or generic skills
amongst the learners, and these skills being interdisciplinary can be adapted to any
curriculum.
The generic skills are also known as employability skills or skills which will
enhance the employability rate of graduates. Achan, Philip and Gunjew (2003: 10)
explain that “to be employable, a graduate must possess a portfolio of skills so that
they are flexible enough to adapt to any number of positions or situation”. In this
study, the generic skills refer to four different categories of skills, namely,
Interpersonal Skills, Self-Management Skills, Communication Skills and Problem-
Solving or Metacognitive Skills.
Zhonglei (2004) explains clearly the course which she designed for her 40
students at the University of Lanzhou in the People’s Republic of China. Through
this course, she expects her students’ spoken English and listening ability to improve
31
significantly. She also expects them to have more freedom to determine their
learning goal which is an important aspect of self-directed learning, and the
environment should present them with ample opportunities to develop their
communication and problem-solving skills.
Murray-Harvey et al. (2004) state that the approach in PBL which is based on
the constructivist’s principles of teaching and learning will ensure a successful
learning outcome of the target content, and a development of the generic skills such
as higher order thinking skills, problem-solving skills, thinking skills, teamwork
skills, communication skills, time management skills, and information skills (Bailey,
2004). They add that these qualities which are fostered through PBL, are much
sought after by employers, and graduates should not be found lacking in any of them.
However, these skills which are characteristic of the real-world are missing in
the classroom. Learners are presented with problems or situations which are well-
defined and with clear parameters leading to only one obvious answer. The learners
are taught problem-solving but not how to solve problems. In problem-solving, the
learners learn and equip themselves with skills to solve problems. They are taught
the hows in problem-solving but this knowledge remains as just head-knowledge.
On the other hand, knowing how to solve problems allows the learners to go
through the process of solving problems and in the midst of this process, they learn
for themselves the skills needed to solve the problems. How to solve problems is a
way of life (Endlex Life Skills, 2006) where learners construct the necessary
knowledge and develop their metacognitive skills relevant to solving problems.
These skills provide insight for the learners and help them analyse the problems,
brainstorm for ideas, reevaluate their strategies, present and implement their
solutions.
32
The classroom is very much teacher-centred and learners wait to be spoon-
fed instead of being responsible for their own learning. Skills pertinent to lifelong
and self-directed learning are missing. These generic skills which can later be
integrated into the undergraduates’ work place and used in varying combinations
subject to the nature of their jobs have been sidelined and deemed less important in
the curriculum.
This has prevented graduates from applying the knowledge and skills they
have acquired from their tertiary education at their work place. Many have the
knowledge but are ineffective when it comes to hands-on application of that
knowledge due to a lack of confidence, and absence of skills, such as, in
communication, decision-making, problem-solving and working as a team. Zhonglei
(2004) reiterates that the emphasis in the curriculum has been placed on the pursuit
of the target content using the traditional method which has no place for the
development of generic skills.
However, PBL can help foster generic skills because the genesis of PBL lies
in solving problems, and, hence, self-construct the target knowledge and develop the
relevant generic skills. These generic skills developed through PBL are important as
the basis for lifelong learning, and they assist in the learners’ process of learning
(Zhonglei, 2004; Wright, n.d.). The University of Wollongong Australia has
recognised the significance of these generic skills, and hence they have emphasized
the development of various generic skills in their formal curriculum to compliment
their undergraduates’ construction of professional knowledge (Wright, n.d.).
Macquarie University has also included as part of its teaching and learning plan to
equip their Accountancy undergraduates with generic skills which will help them in
lifelong learning and increase their chances of employability (Macquarie University,
2001).
33
Employers have begun demanding for graduates who are not only
knowledgeable in their respective disciplines but are also competent in meeting their
list of generic skills – skills driven by intellectual curiosity which include the
flexibility to apply their understanding to new and different situations. This ability
of graduates to use the knowledge and skills, which are developed during their
tertiary education, at their work place is of paramount importance. These generic
skills compliment the graduates’ professional knowledge and they support their
lifelong learning process.
In the EAP classroom (Wood & Head, 2004), the premedical students are
able to solve problems and complete tasks because they are able to integrate as many
generic skills as possible into their learning process. In the end, they produce the
right answers to the problem and learnt premedical English; all by way of using the
generic skills within the context of PBL. Likewise, in this study, the development
and role of generic skills will be seen in the same light of being instrumental in the
process of learning the EOP skills of writing formal reply letters of complaints.
2.8 Design Process of PBL
Figure 2.1 on the next page describes the design process of PBL. It starts
with the facilitator presenting the Poorly-Structured Problem to the learners, and then
the learners relate the Problem to their classroom situation. Then, they define,
summarise and analyse the Problem to be solved. This is the first stage of the
metacognitive process of solving the Problem. The facilitator gives the learners their
first set of Scaffolds to guide them in their brainstorming session. Then, they form a
committee within the group and assign each member different roles and
responsibilities. The first stage ends with the learners agreeing on a problem
statement.
34
Figure 2.1 is an adapted model of the problem-solving process by Savery and
Duffy (1995) and Zhonglei (1994).
Stage 1 Presenting the Poorly-Structured Problem
(Encountering and (Facilitator presents Problem to learners)
Defining the Problem)
Relating to Classroom Situation (Learners relate Problem to classroom situation)
Defining the Problem Scaffolds 1
(Learners summarise and analyse the Problem)
Forming a Committee (Learners form committee within the group)
Agreeing on a Focused Problem Statement (Learners agree on a problem statement)
Stage 2 Accessing, Evaluating and Utilizing Information
(Accessing, (Learners work together to solve Problem) Scaffolds 2
Evaluating and Utilising
Information)
Presenting the Proposal (Learners synthesize and present proposal within group)
Reaching a Consensus (Learners arrive at a conclusion)
Stage 3 Synthesizing and Presenting Scaffold #3
(Synthesize & the Final Proposal
Performance) (Learners present their solutions)
Evaluating Session (Peer, self and problem-evaluation)
Figure 2.1: Design Process of PBL
35
The second stage of the process of PBL sees the learners accessing,
evaluating and utilising information to solve the Problem. They received the second
set of Scaffolds to guide them in using the information to arrive at a proposal and
present it in the group. In the third stage, the learners with the third set of Scaffolds
synthesize and present the solutions. The process of PBL ends with a session
evaluating their peers, themselves and the Problem. In this design process, certain
steps may be revisited and repeated. There will be a difference of ideas, learning
issues and solutions between the group members and this can be a point of
discussion for the whole class.
2.9 Characteristics of PBL
According to Tan (2003) and Duch (1996), the following are some
distinguishing characteristics of PBL.
• Problems are the thrust of the curriculum - the problems do not test
language or generic skills, rather, they assist in the development of the
skills themselves.
• The Problems are poorly-structured – there are more than one solution
to the Problems, and as new information is gathered, the perception
and, thus, the solution of the Problems changes.
• Learners solve the Problems while the teachers act as facilitators.
• Learners are given only guidelines as to how to approach the
Problems.
36
• Authentic performance-based assessment, which is, Problems that
mirror real-world Problems.
• Learners share information but they construct their own knowledge.
• Interdisciplinary and integrative.
2.10 Scaffolds in PBL
As shown in Figure 2.1, the facilitator builds Scaffolds into the pedagogy at
different phases of the teaching-learning process. The Scaffolds can take the form of
Wh-questions such as the following:
• What do you know?
• What are your thoughts on this problem?
• What is meant by the sentence …?
• Could you explain what is meant by this term?
2.11 Characteristics of a PBL Poorly-Structured Problem
Duch (1996) views this messy, unorganised, complex and poorly-structured
Problem as the centre of learning. It should be left open-ended so as to allow for
learner-processing besides motivating them to use their reasoning skills to relate the
37
content to their own context and previous knowledge (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993).
The problem acts as a catalyst for learning.
Blumberg, Soloman and Shehata (1994) say that the content to be explored
by the learners should be achievable with regard to time allocation and resources
available. The effectiveness of PBL on these learners is dependent on themselves
developing learning issues that are synonymous with the proposed objectives.
The Problem presented to the learners should be guided by the following
considerations (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993). The problem should:
• be significant;
• be task oriented;
• be interdisciplinary;
• cover objectives;
• be complex enough to incorporate prior knowledge; and
• have a common issue that can be replicated in another situation.
2.12 Role of the Facilitator in PBL
The role of the teacher is changed to that of a facilitator or coach. He plays
the part of cognitive and metacognitive coach rather than the knowledge-holder and
disseminator. He questions, props, monitors, challenges and manages the group
38
dynamics to keep the process going. By doing so, he is encouraging the learners to
think critically and make wise decisions. Mardziah (1998) likens this person to one
who is responsible for helping the learners to be resourceful in looking for resources
that can help them learn the language more effectively. He does not teach but
facilitates the learning by remaining in the background, and allows the learners to
interact among themselves.
2.13 Role of the Learners in PBL
The learners will participate actively and collaboratively in the problem-
solving process. They should be able to identify what they need to learn and what
resources they are going to use to accomplish that learning. Thus, they design their
own learning to meet their own needs.
2.14 Constraints in Implementing PBL
The following are some constraints in the implementation of PBL.
(a) Cultural Change
For successful PBL implementation, both teachers and students need to
assume new roles. Teachers are no longer the sages on the stage disseminating
information and directing student learning. However, traditional teachers find it
difficult to withhold information when they watch their students struggle with
problems.
39
(b) Manpower
In implementing PBL, a lot of time is spent designing the Problems.
Problems are interdisciplinary, and, thus, a methodology such as PBL will require
more time to carry out. Lectures, on the contrary, are not interdisciplinary.
Albanese & Mitchell (1993) state that lessons conducted using PBL require more
extra time to complete as well.
(c) Infrastructure
The PBL curricula require learners to work in groups of between four to six,
so there must be enough small rooms which are adequately equipped for teaching.
Besides, facilitators also need to ensure that there are enough materials for learners
to source from. As such is its nature, it will naturally incur more costs in its
implementation (Allen et al., 2003).
2.15 Conclusion
Based on the review of literature, it can be concluded that language teaching
and learning has much to gain from the use of PBL in the classroom. Linguists,
educationists and teachers will be moving in the right direction if they strive to use
this approach in making the construction of knowledge more meaningful to their
learners.
In the following chapter on Methodology, the preceding discussions on PBL
as an approach in language teaching and learning will be put into practice.
40
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of the research design in this study. It
gives an explanation of how the respondents of the study were selected, what the
different instruments were, how they were prepared, and how the data was collected
and analysed.
3.2 Research Design
This study took a qualitative approach that attempted to describe the use of
PBL in enhancing the language skills in an EOP classroom. A qualitative study
focuses on providing an explanation for Man’s behaviours through subjective
approaches which are akin to qualitative measures (Mohd Najib, 2003). The
triangulation of the data collected was done using pretest and posttest, evaluations
and observations which assisted in the validation of the data. The research design
took the following format:
41
Research Focus
Theoretical Framework
Pilot Study
Population Questionnaire
Written Essay
Respondents
Data Collection
Checklist of Generic Skills
Pretest
Poorly-Structured Problem
Checklist of Observation
Scaffolds 1
Problem Log 1
Self-Evaluation 1
Group Evaluation 1
Scaffolds 2
Problem Log 2
Scaffolds 3
Problem Log 3
Scaffolds 4
Problem Log 4
Assessment of Oral Presentation
Group Evaluation 2
Poorly-Structured Problem Evaluation
Self-Evaluation 2
Checklist of Generic Skills
Posttest
Data Analysis
Figure 3.1: Research Design
42
Figure 3.1 describes the research design. It explains how the research started
with a research focus leading to the theoretical framework. After that a pilot study
was conducted to test the instruments. Then the population was determined, and
with the use of Questionnaire and a Written Essay, the respondents of the study were
identified. Various instruments were used to collect data. The research design ended
with an analysis of the data gathered. A detailed description of the research design
can be found in the following sections of this chapter.
The data for this study was collected over a period of three weeks between
July and August, and all these thirty-one undergraduates went through the process of
PBL in learning EOP language skills. This study used a Questionnaire and a Written
Essay to collect data on the background of the undergraduates.
3.3 Population
The population of this study was undergraduates from a local university in
Sarawak. There were thirty-one of them pursuing a diploma programme in Office
Management and Technology, and the duration of the programme was a minimum of
six semesters. When this study was carried out, they had spent the first three
semesters doing foundation English courses. In their final semester, they had to
complete an EOP course. The contact hours for the EOP course were six hours per
week. These undergraduates already had prior knowledge of the English tenses, and
they were expected to use English competently in the four language skills
comprising listening, speaking, reading and writing. This EOP course prepared them
for careers directly related to office management.
All the undergraduates were Bumiputeras comprising Malays from Sarawak,
and the indigeneous races from Sabah and Sarawak. Their entrance qualification
43
into the diploma programmes was at least five credits in their SPM including a credit
in either the English Language or Bahasa Malaysia.
3.4 Sampling Design
This study chose its respondents using stratified sampling. This type of
sampling allowed the undergraduates to be grouped according to similar variables
determined by the researcher. Some of these variables included age, gender, race,
hometown, training obtained, financial status, academic and family background, and
the respondents’ level of proficiency. The respondents for this study were chosen
from this group of undergraduates. According to Mohd. Najib (2003), this type of
sampling allowed the researcher to pre-determine the stratified population, and then
choose the sample that best represented the population being investigated.
3.5 Respondents
Five respondents were chosen of which three were female and two male.
Three of them were aged between 21 to 22 years, one was between 23 to 24 years
and another respondent was 25 years and above. The racial composition comprised
two Malays, one Iban, one Bidayuh and one Sikin. All were from Sarawak except
for one respondent from Sabah. Two of those from Sarawak were from the urban
areas and the other two were from the rural areas. The respondent from Sabah came
from an urban area.
The highest academic qualification of the respondents prior to studying at
the university was SPM. All of them were in their final semester, and two of them
44
had failed some subjects in the previous semesters. Their CGPA was between 2.50
to 3.49 but one respondent’s CGPA was between 2.00 and 2.49.
All the respondents had completed their compulsory training at various
organisations during their previous semester except for one respondent who had his
training during the final semester. Thus, the duration of his training was shortened to
only one week compared to his peers who were trained for three months. During
their training, all of them were attached to different departments in their respective
organisations, and their daily job responsibilities were related to office management.
All the respondents came from diverse financial standing, and they received
financial support from the PTPTN. Two respondents’ fathers’ incomes were below
RM 500 while two other respondents’ were between RM 1500 to less than RM 2500.
One respondent’s father received between RM 3500 to less than RM 4500 per
month. Four of the respondents’ mothers were housewives and did not have any
income while another respondent’s mother earned between RM 1500 and RM 2500
per month. The highest academic qualification of the respondents’ fathers was a
bachelor’s degree. All the other four respondents’ fathers did not have any formal
education. The respondents were of different levels of proficiency in the English
language. Based on their Written Essays, two of them were from the basic level,
another two were from the intermediate level, and one respondent was from the
advanced level.
3.6 Instrumentation
There were two types of instruments used in this study. The first type was
used in the data collection, and the second type of instruments was used in the data
analysis. The following were the instruments used in this study.
45
3.6.1 Instruments Used in Data Collection
The instruments used to collect data were the Evaluations forms, Tests,
Observations lists and Checklists. These instruments acted as triangulation to ensure
the validity of the data.
(a) Questionnaire
The aim of the Questionnaire (Appendix A) was to assess the demographic
background of the undergraduates so that the respondents for this study, who were
from different racial, economical and social background, could be identified. It was
an effective way of collecting background information of the undergraduates.
The Questionnaire consisted of both structured and unstructured questions.
Altogether, there were twenty-two questions, and of these, four questions were on
personal particulars such as age, gender, race, and number of siblings in the family.
Six questions were on previous and present academic status while in school and the
university, and three questions were on the respondents’ practical training. There
were also nine questions on the respondents’ financial, social and economic standing,
and these included items on the source of financial support, parents’ academic
qualifications, occupations and salaries, and the location of previous schools and
hometown.
The Questionnaire was distributed to all the thirty-one undergraduates taking
the EOP subject after the pilot study was carried out, and they were given 15 minutes
to complete it. They had to tick the appropriate boxes of the structured questions and
answered in a descriptive manner the open-ended questions.
46
(b) Written Essay
The aim of the Written Essay (Appendix B) was to determine the level of
proficiency of the respondents. This was to ensure that the respondents selected for
this study comprised undergraduates who were of different levels of proficiency in
the English language. This Written Essay was a 200-word descriptive writing on
themselves. All the undergraduates were asked to complete the task in 45 minutes,
and this was carried out immediately after they had filled in the Questionnaire.
(c) Poorly-Structured Problem
The aim of the Poorly-Structured Problem (Appendix E) was to start the
process of learning through solving problems, and to determine if this benefited the
respondents’ language skills in an EOP classroom.
The Poorly-Structured Problem was prepared to mirror a real-life problem in
the office involving responding to complainants. The Problem was typical of a PBL
problem bearing all its characteristics such as poorly phrased, had many possible
solutions, learner-centred and one which allowed a transfer of knowledge from the
course content of the respondents which was Office Management and Technology,
into the problem-solving process.
(d) Poorly-Structured Problem Reply Letter
The aim of using the Poorly-Structured Problem Reply Letter was to compare
the language used in it with the language used in the Pretest letters to determine if
PBL benefited the language skills of the respondents in an EOP classroom.
47
The Poorly-Structured Problem Reply Letter was a reply letter of a complaint
written as a group by all the five respondents as one of their solutions to the Poorly-
Structured Problem. The difference between the Poorly-Structured Problem Reply
Letter and the Pretest letters was that the former was a letter written together by all
the respondents in a group after the process of PBL while the latter were letters
written individually in the Pretest before the process of PBL started. The
respondents did not individually write any letters in the group other than this Poorly-
Structured Problem Reply Letter because working together in a group did not require
them to do so. Therefore, the researcher used this letter written by all the
respondents and compared it with the letters written individually during the Pretest to
determine whether the respondents’ language skills had benefited from the process of
PBL.
It must be noted here that the respondents were not told to write the reply
letter but the process of PBL had successfully helped them realise that one of the
solutions to the Problem was to reply formally to one of the complainants by way of
letter. Thus, this Poorly-Structured Problem Reply Letter was both a response to the
use of PBL, and at the same time an instrument used for comparison purposes.
(e) Tests
There were two Tests, namely, Pretest and Posttest, which required the
respondents to write reply letters of complaints as that was the main focus of the
EOP language skills in this study. Letters represented one of the important aspects in
an EOP classroom and of the real world. Wainwright (1994) said that in order to
produce a letter that was both effective and persuasive, the respondents had to ensure
that they knew precisely the subject matter of the letter, the audience, and the reason
behind writing the letter.
48
(i) Pretest
The Pretest (Appendix D) was aimed at determining the respondents’ level of
language skills in writing reply letters of complaints before they went through the
process of PBL. The Pretest question was in the form of a letter of complaint, and
instructions were given to the respondents to reply to the complaint.
(ii) Posttest
The Posttest (Appendix U) was similar in aim as the Pretest except that it was
to gauge the significant improvements in the respondents’ language skills after going
through the process of PBL.
The Posttest was also in the form of a letter of complaint, and the test
specifications such as the layout, format, context, nature of the complaint and level
of difficulty, the number of words required for the reply, and the time taken to
complete the test were similar to the Pretest. This was to ensure that both tests were
conducted in as similar conditions as possible with no element of bias.
(f) Evaluation Forms
There were various types of evaluation forms used to collect data on how the
informants responded to the use of PBL in learning EOP. These evaluation forms
were distributed at different intervals of the PBL process.
(i) Self-Evaluation Forms
There were two types of Self-Evaluation forms used by the respondents to
evaluate themselves during the whole process of solving the Problem. These Self-
49
Evaluation forms had different questions and were administered at different stages of
the PBL process. Ronis (2001) stated that respondents could grade their own
performances in self-evaluations, and these evaluations had rubrics which were more
concrete involving respondents evaluating their learning and trying to make
connections to prior learning experiences. The differences between the two Self-
Evaluation forms are explained in the followings sections.
• Self-Evaluation Form 1
The Self-Evaluation Form 1 (Appendix I) was the first of two self-
evaluations aimed at determining how the respondents felt about learning using PBL.
This Self-Evaluation was conducted early in the PBL process after the respondents
had completed their brainstorming session. This form had seven questions which
evaluated the respondents’ level of responsiveness, their prior knowledge,
communication skills, group participation, critical thinking, and how well accepted
they were by the other group members. Every question had a Likert scale for the
respondents to rank their responses as shown below.
Table 3.1: Likert Scale used in Evaluation Form
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Does not agree
nor disagree
Agree Strongly
agree
1 2 3 4 5
This scale ranged from 1 for strongly disagree, 2 for disagree, 3 for does not
agree nor disagree, 4 for disagree and 5 for strongly agree.
50
• Self-Evaluation Form 2
The aim of Self-Evaluation Form 2 (Appendix T) was to gauge how the
respondents felt about their learning after completing the PBL process. This form
comprised nine open-ended questions which required the respondents to describe
how they felt about participating in the problem-solving task, their transfer of skills
and attitudes while performing the task, their construction of knowledge, team work,
and their level of preparedness in facing the real world.
(ii) Group Evaluation
There were two group evaluations which assessed the different aspects of
working in a group.
• Group Evaluation Form 1
The aim of Group Evaluation Form 1 (Appendix J) was to observe each
respondent’s evaluation of how the group had performed as a whole. The Form
comprised seven open-ended questions, and they were on the group’s approach to
solving the Poorly-Structured Problem, whether they did equal amount of work, the
advantages and disadvantages of working in a group, how they would grade their
peers and themselves, and whether they would still want to work with the same
group. The respondents’ had to write down their responses to these questions.
• Group Evaluation Form 2
Group Evaluation Form 2 (Appendix R) aimed at determining how the
respondents felt about their group members. The form had four questions and a
51
grading scale for the respondents to base their responses on. The grading scale is
shown in Table 3.2 below:
Table 3.2: Grading Scale for Evaluation
Very Poor Poor Average Good Excellent
1 2 3 4 5
This Form also had some space for the respondents to justify the grade they
had given their group members.
(iii) Poorly-Structured Problem Evaluation Form
The Poorly-Structured Problem Evaluation Form (Appendix S) aimed to
determine if the Poorly-Structured Problem had all the necessary characteristics
typical of a PBL problem. As discussed in the review of literature, Duch (1996)
explained that the very characteristics of a PBL Poorly-Structured Problem, which
were vague, messy, unorganised and complex, formed the basis for learning to take
place. This evaluation form included six questions on the difficulty of the task,
whether the Problem was vague and had more than one solution, and whether it was
able to stimulate the respondents. Every question had a Likert scale, as illustrated in
Table 3.1, for the respondents to circle their responses.
(g) Problem Logs
The objective of the four Problem Logs was to observe how the informants
responded in the use of PBL in an EOP classroom. Each of these Logs consisted of
questions that required prior reflections and discussion of the informants before they
52
could answer them. This caused the respondents to realise their knowledge gaps
which might prove to be a hindrance in their process of meaningful learning.
(i) Problem Log 1
Problem Log 1 (Appendix H) aimed at gauging how much the respondents
had understood the Poorly-Structured Problem. The Log had six open-ended
questions for gathering the data. The questions asked if the respondents had
understood the Problem, if they had the required problem-solving skills, and some
possible ways to solve the Problem. The question also included a needs analysis
table for them to fill in details of their knowledge by listing down what they knew,
what they did not know, and what they needed to know in order to accomplish the
problem-solving task successfully. This was the start of the metacognitive aspects
where the respondents recognised, defined and analysed the problem. Incidentally, it
was also the stage where they had a lot of questions about the task.
(ii) Problem Log 2
The second Problem Log 2 (Appendix L) was aimed at observing how the
respondents gathered the relevant information for their problem-solving task. The
Log had five questions which asked the respondents the keywords or phrases that
were helpful in their search for information, the type of information and its sources,
and how they decided on the relevancy of the information. To decide if the
information was relevant and reliable, the respondents were stimulated by the
metacognitive aspect of the process of PBL to apply their analytical thinking skills
such as classifying and logical thinking to reassess their sources of information.
53
(iii) Problem Log 3
Problem Log 3 (Appendix N) aimed to determine how the respondents
reevaluated their decisions and strategies. The Log had eight questions which were
more thought-provoking because the focus was on the respondents’ probable
solutions to the Problem. The questions asked the respondents to show how they had
understood the problem correctly, list down some possible and preferable solutions,
provide justifications for their choices of solutions, list down their strategies and
their consequences, and lastly explain how they could make their proposal clear and
easy to be understood.
(iv) Problem Log 4
The aim of Problem Log 4 (Appendix P) was to see how the respondents
prepared, proposed and reevaluated their solutions. There were four questions in the
Log which asked the respondents on whether there were any more changes to the
proposal, whether there were any follow-up activities they would like to propose, the
key issues they had learnt, and whether they would solve the problem differently if
they were to do it again.
(h) Checklists
There were two checklists which focused on the effects of the use of PBL on
the respondents. The first checklist, which was the Checklist of Generic Skills,
emphasized the effects on the respondents’ generic skills whereas the second
checklist, which was the Checklist of Observation, concentrated on PBL effects on
the respondents’ language skills.
54
(i) Checklist of Generic Skills
The objective of the Checklist of Generic Skills (Appendix C) was to observe
the effects of the use of PBL in learning EOP on the respondents’ generic skills after
the PBL process. The respondents were instructed to use the Grading Scale for
Evaluation in Table 3.2 to grade their responses from 1 for very poor to 5 for
excellent.
This checklist comprised four sections which evaluated the four categories of
generic skills highly sought after by employers as according to Achan, Bromeley and
Gunjew (2006). These categories of generic skills were interpersonal skills, self-
management skills, communication skills, and problem-solving skills. Each of these
skills was sub-divided into different types of skills. There were eight types of
interpersonal skills, seventeen types of self-management skills, five types of
communication skills, and ten types of problem-solving skills. At the end of every
type of skill was a box. for the respondents to fill in their responses. They were
given half an hour to reflect on and evaluate their generic skills before they
completed the checklist.
(ii) Checklist of Observation
The aim of Checklist of Observation (Appendix F) was to gauge how the
informants responded to the use of PBL in the area of their language skills. It was
used in all the observations throughout the process of PBL. This Checklist has two
sections. The first section was for the researcher to observe the language or
languages the respondents used in their discussions and their communicative level of
effectiveness. The Checklist also enabled the researcher to observe any difficulties
the respondents faced in using the English language. The second section was to
observe any significant improvements in the language skills of the respondents.
55
3.6.2 Instruments Used in Data Analysis
There were three types of instruments in the form of assessments which were
used to grade and mark the respondents’ Pretest and Posttest letters and oral
presentation to determine the benefits of PBL on the respondents’ language skills.
These performance descriptors helped the researcher determine the items to look for
and how to place them on a continuum. According to Ronis (2001), this allowed
assessments to be done more consistently.
(a) Assessment of General Language Skills
The first assessment as shown in Table 3.3 was aimed at analysing the
respondents’ general language skills in the Pretest and Poorly-Structured Problem
Reply Letter.
Table 3.3: Assessment of General Language Skills
Analysis and Comments
Pretest Letters
Poorly-
Structured
Problem
Reply Letter
No.
Language Skills
Resp.1 Resp.2 Resp.3 Resp.4 Resp.5 Group
1 Total Number of Words
2 Average Number of Words Per Sentence
3 Total Number of Sentences
4 Types of Sentences
(a) Simple Sentences
(b) Compound Sentences
(c) Complex Sentences
5 Vocabulary
56
This Assessment of General Language Skills was divided into five aspects of
language skills namely, the total number of words, the average number of words per
sentence, the total number of sentences, the types of sentences, and the vocabulary
found in the Poorly-Structured Problem Reply Letter as well as the Pretest. These
two letters were similar in the sense that both were reply letters of complaints written
by the respondents. The differences between them were firstly, the Pretest reply
letters were written individually before the start of the PBL process, and secondly,
the Poorly-Structured Problem Reply Letter was written together by all the group
members after the end of the PBL process.
(b) Assessment of Specific Language Skills
While Table 3.3 was used to assess the respondents’ general language skills,
this assessment in Table 3.4 was to assess the respondents’ specific language skills.
Table 3.4: Assessment of Specific Language Skills
The aim of this Assessment of Specific Language Skills was to assess and
compare the language skills of the Pretest and Posttest letters. It was divided into
Total Marks No. Language Skills
Pretest Posttest
1 Grammar 10 10
2 Spelling 5 5
3 Punctuation 5 5
4 Vocabulary & Expression 10 10
5 Rhetorical Aspects
(a)Persuasive & Credible
(b)Clear & Appropriate
8
2
8
2
Total 40 40
57
five different aspects of the language skills comprising grammar, spelling,
punctuation, vocabulary and expression, and rhetorical aspects such as
persuasiveness and credibility, and clarity and appropriateness. Each of these
language skills was allocated marks with more marks for grammar, vocabulary and
expression, and rhetorical aspects, and less marks for spelling and punctuation.
Grammar, and vocabulary and expression were considered more important language
components in letter writing as according to Hildebrandt (1996: 52), accuracy in the
“grammatical pattern of a language” allowed “others to follow (your) thoughts”.
(c) Assessment of Oral Presentation
The assessment in Table 3.5 below was used to assess the language used by
the respondents in their oral presentation.
Table 3.5: Assessment of Oral Presentation
Assessment of Oral Presentation
Name of Respondent Assessed:__________________________
Criteria Marks
LANGUAGE (10 marks)
(a) Grammar Accurate (4 marks) (b) Expression Clear (2 marks) (c) Vocabulary Appropriate (2 marks) (d) Linkers Appropriate (2 marks)
Sub-total
CONTENT (4 marks) (a) Main Ideas and Supporting Details Clear (2 marks)
(b) Introduction and Conclusion Well-organised (2 marks)
Sub-total
DELIVERY (2 marks)
(a) Voice Audible (1 mark)
(b) Non-verbal Communication Appropriate (1 mark)
Sub-total
VISUALS (2 marks)
(a) Appropriate (1 mark) (b) Effective/Well-designed (1 mark)
Sub-total
Total
58
The Assessment of Oral Presentation was aimed at assessing the language
used by the respondents in their oral presentation to determine if the use of PBL in
an EOP classroom benefited their spoken language. During the presentation, the
respondents had to present their proposal to an audience on how to solve the
Problem.
The Assessment was divided into four different parts comprising content,
language, visual and delivery. Each of these parts was allocated 20 marks, and
language took up the most, which was, 10 marks. The language component focused
on grammar accuracy, appropriate vocabulary and expression, and the correct usage
of linkers and transitions. The content was allocated 6 marks, and the delivery and
visuals were each allocated 2 marks. The oral presentation was carried out at the end
of the problem-solving process after the respondents had solved the Problem, and
every respondent was involved in the presentation. There was no time limit to their
presentation. After that, a grading scale was used to grade the marks for each
respondent’s language component. The grading scale is as shown below:
Table 3.6: Grading Scale for Oral Presentation
Very Poor Poor Average Good Excellent
1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10
The above grading scale is divided into five categories ranging from 1 to
2 marks for very poor, 3 to 4 marks for poor, 5 to 6 marks for average, 7 to 8 marks
for good and 9 to 10 marks for excellent.
59
3.7 Research Procedure
This study was conducted in a class comprising five groups who all went
through the process of PBL. However, for the purpose of this study, only the data
from one group was used, and only the researcher knew which group was chosen as
the respondents. Each group consisted of five members except for the fifth group
which consisted of six members because there were thirty-one undergraduates.
3.7.1 Preliminary Study
This study was an attempt to investigate the use of PBL in an EOP classroom.
It was based on numerous accounts of PBL being used successfully in domains other
than the language classrooms, and coupled by the premise that learners in the
language classrooms needed to see the relevance of what they were learning in
relation to the real working world, that prompted the researcher to embark on this
study. Added to this was the realisation that employers’ expectations of university
graduates in the 21st century centred on their generic skills. This further reinforced
the need to investigate the role of PBL in training these graduates. The researcher
discovered that many language teachers did not have any prior knowledge of PBL let
alone tried it in their language classrooms. However, they were keen to use this
approach if it proved successful in bridging the real-world and the classrooms.
3.7.2 Preparation of Instruments
Some of the instruments were prepared by the researcher while others were
adapted from studies and research. The Questionnaire (Appendix A) was adapted
60
from a study conducted by Wee, Sim and Jingut (2003) as both studies used data
pertaining to the demography of the respondents. The Checklist of Generic Skills
(Appendix C) was also an adaptation of a Checklist used by Achan, Philip and
Gunjew (2006) because both studies collected data on the level of generic skills of
respondents from the same university. The Checklist of Observation (Appendix F)
and the three assessments, namely, Assessment of General Language Skills (Table
3.3), Assessment of Specific Language Skills (Table 3.4) and Assessment of Oral
Presentation (Table 3.5) were prepared by the researcher after carefully considering
the language aspects to observe and analyse. The Self-Evaluation Form 2 (Appendix
T) and Group Evaluation Form 1 (Appendix J) were adapted versions from Maricopa
Centre for Learning and Instruction. The Group Evaluation Form 2 (Appendix R)
and the Poorly-Structured Problem Evaluation Form (Appendix S) were adapted
from Ahlfeldt (2004) who conducted a study on the use of PBL in the public
speaking classroom. The Problem Logs (Appendices H, L, N and P) were adapted
from Fogarty (1997).
The Poorly-Structured Problem (Appendix E) was prepared by the researcher
after analysing and evaluating the situation and prior knowledge of the respondents.
The Problem was to mirror problems typical in the real working world. However,
the Poorly -Structured Problem Reply Letter (Appendix V) was never planned by the
researcher. Rather it was a direct response of the respondents to the process of
solving the Poorly -Structured Problem.
The Pretest (Appendix D) and Posttest (Appendix U) as well as the
assessments used to evaluate the letters were prepared by the researcher after
considering the language aspects that were important in writing reply letters of
complaints.
61
3.7.3 Piloting of Instruments
A pilot study was conducted on a group of thirty-three students who were
pursuing another programme in the same university. The pilot study was carried out
during lecture time and the undergraduates were given one hour to complete the
Pretest. The aim of this pilot study was to check some instruments for any problems
besides obtaining information on the relevance and clarity of these instruments, and
the time needed to complete the tasks.
The instruments tested in this pilot study were the Pretest, Poorly-Structured
Problem, and the three assessments, namely, the Assessment of General Language
Skills, Assessment of Specific Language Skills, and Assessment of Oral
Presentation. These instruments were piloted for the following reasons: the Pretest
was piloted to determine the suitability of the question for the respondents in the area
of difficulty, length and time take to complete the test. The Poorly-Structured
Problem was piloted to ensure that it was not too difficulty for the respondents, and
that it had the characteristics of a PBL Problem as discussed in the review of
literature. All the assessments were piloted to make sure that they included all the
language skills that were to be analysed, and also to determine that the marks
allocated to each of these language skills were appropriate. The other instruments
such as the Questionnaire, Checklist of Generic Skills, Evaluation forms and
Problem Logs were not pilot tested because they were adapted from previous
research and studies which had used them with success. The Posttest was not pilot
tested because it was similar to the Pretest except for minor changes to the
complainant and the type of complaint. Results from this pilot study enabled the
researcher to improve on the instruments.
62
3.7.4 Improvement of Instruments
The layout of the Pretest was changed to resemble a real complaint letter.
This was to provide an environment as authentic as possible of the working world to
the respondents when they replied the complaint formally in writing. Besides that,
the pilot study revealed that the questions in the Pretest had too many instructions.
This was definitely not the case in the real world where very seldom were
instructions or guidelines given to employees on how to respond to a complaint.
Thus, the instructions in the Pretest were changed to just informing the respondents
to reply to the complaint in a given number of words. Besides that, the time
allocated for completing the Pretest was reduced to forty-five minutes instead of an
hour. It was found in the pilot study that one hour was too long because all the
undergraduates completed their tests in less than one hour. The Poorly-Structured
Problem was found to be suitable for the respondents in terms of its level of
difficulty and ability to act as a catalyst for self-directed learning to take place.
There were some changes made to the assessments used to mark the letters.
The weightings for grammar were increased from eight to ten marks. This was
because grammar represented an important language aspect in letter writing. The
rhetorical aspects of the reply letter were increased from eight to ten marks to signify
the importance of this aspect in reply letters. This was due to the fact that letters
replying to complaints had to be persuasive and credible enough to convince the
customers to agree to what had been suggested. Besides it was also to gain back the
trust of the customers in their products or services.
63
3.8 Data Collection
The data was collected through various means which were then analysed
qualitatively to investigate how the use of PBL benefited the respondents’ language
skills, the aspects of language skills that they improved significantly when using
PBL, and their response to the use of PBL in learning EOP. The data collection
process is represented by Figure 3.2 below:
Evaluated Respondents’ Generic Skills
(using Checklist of Generic Skills)
Conducted Pretest
(evaluated using Assessment of Significant Language Skills)
Presented Poorly-Structured Problem
Defined Problem and Learning Events
(respondents worked together in groups to define Problem,
identify knowledge area and learning issues, prepare needs
analysis, and assign tasks to members)
Observed Respondents
(by researcher using Checklist of Observation)
Presented Scaffolds 1 and Problem Log 1
(respondents used the Scaffolds as guides to define and
summarise the Problem, and the Problem Log to record their
ideas and discussions)
64
Evaluated Respondents and Group
(respondents evaluated on what they had learnt and how their
group had performed)
Self-Evaluation 1
(using Self-Evaluation Form 1)
Group Evaluation 1
(using Group Evaluation Form 1)
Focused on a Problem Statement
(respondents agreed on a problem statement)
Accessed, Evaluated and Utilised Information
(respondents worked together to obtain relevant information to
solve Problem)
Reached a Consensus
(respondents agreed on proposal to solve Problem)
Synthesized and Evaluated Outcome of Plan
Presented Scaffolds 2 and Problem Log 2
(respondents used the Scaffolds as guides in their search for
information to solve the Problem, and the Problem Log to
record their ideas and discussions)
Presented Scaffolds 3 and Problem Log 3
(respondents used the Scaffolds as guides to reevaluate their
solutions to solve the Problem, and the Problem Log to record
their ideas and discussions)
Presented Scaffolds 4 and Problem Log 4
(respondents used the Scaffolds as guides to propose and
present solution to solve the Problem, and the Problem Log to
record their ideas and discussions)
65
Figure 3.2: Process of Data Collection
As shown above, the data collection started with the respondents evaluating
their own level of generic skills using the Checklist of Generic Skills. This
Checklist was distributed twice to the respondents; the first was after they had
completed filling in the Questionnaire before the start of the PBL process to
determine their skill level prior to being exposed to learning through PBL, and the
second was given at the end of the PBL process after the oral presentation to check
how they had responded to the use of PBL. The first evaluation of Generic Skills
was followed by the Pretest where the respondents had to each write a reply letter to
a complaint. The respondents wrote the Pretest letter in forty-five minutes. The test
was marked by the researcher using the Assessment of Significant Language Skills.
Presented Solutions to Problem
(respondents synthesized proposals and solutions)
(using Assessment of Oral Presentation)
Evaluated Respondents and Group
(respondents evaluated on what they had learnt and how their
group had performed)
Group Evaluation 2
(using Group Evaluation From 2)
Poorly-Structured Problem Evaluation
(using Poorly-Structured Problem Evaluation Form)
Self-Evaluation From 2
(using Self-Evaluation Form 2)
Evaluation of Generic Skills
(using Checklist of Generic Skills)
Conducted Posttest
(evaluated using Assessment of Significant Language Skills)
66
After that, the researcher presented the respondents with the Poorly-
Structured Problem, and then the respondents worked collaboratively in their group
trying to define the Problem and identify the learning issues. The respondents used
the Problem as the basis of their brainstorming and discussion sessions. They also
prepared their needs analysis to determine their knowledge level and what they had
to do. They formed a committee and assigned each respondent different portfolio
such as the general manager, secretary, production manager and human resources
manager. At the same time, the respondents were also given the first set of Scaffolds
(Appendix G) to guide them in their brainstorming session. The first Problem Log
followed suit to enable the respondents to record their ideas. The Logs were given to
the group after every set of Scaffolds. Then the respondents together wrote down
their group’s responses in the Logs during the discussions.
Next, the respondents evaluated themselves using the Self-Evaluation Form
1 which had a Likert Scale for the respondents to rank their responses. They had to
decide on the rank that best describes their responses to the questions found in the
form. This evaluation provided data on how the respondents felt about themselves in
the PBL process. They also evaluated their group members using the Group
Evaluation Form 1 which was carried out after the respondents had completed their
search for information. After that, they were given Scaffolds 2 (Appendix K) and
Problem Log 2 to record their ideas, problems encountered and possible solutions.
The process of collecting data continued with Scaffolds 3 (Appendix M) and
Problem Log 3. This was followed by Scaffolds 4 (Appendix O) and Problem Log
4, and after that, the respondents presented orally their proposal on how to solve the
Problem. One of the solutions to the Problem was the Poorly-Structured Problem
Reply Letter which was written by all the respondents. The language in this letter
written by the group was compared with the language in the Pretest letters which
were individually written. The language of these letters were analysed to see if the
respondents had benefited from the use of PBL. The researcher used the
67
Assessment of General Language Skills to analyse the letters. The respondents’
presentation was evaluated by the researcher using the Assessment of Oral
Presentation.
After this, the respondents evaluated their group again using the Group
Evaluation Form 2 where the respondents were required to grade each other’s
contribution and participation in the group based on a scale that ranged from 1 for
very poor to 5 for excellent as illustrated in Table 3.2. The evaluation was carried
out at the end of the PBL process.
Then the respondents used the Poorly-Structured Problem Evaluation
Form to evaluate the Poorly-Structured Problem. This evaluation provided data on
how the Poorly-Structured Problem affected the responses of the informants. This
evaluation was carried out at the end of the PBL process. Then the respondents
evaluated themselves using the Self-Evaluation Form 2. The respondents ended
their learning through PBL with the Posttest but not before they evaluated again
their generic skills using the Checklist of Generic Skills. Data from the two
checklists on generic skills were compared and analysed to see if the use of PBL had
any positive effects on the respondents’ generic skills. The Posttest letters were
marked using the Assessment of Significant Language Skills, and the results were
compared with that of the Pretest to determine if there had been any significant
improvements in their language.
Throughout this process of PBL, the researcher who was also the facilitator
carried out observations using the Checklist of Observation on the respondents to
find out if the use of PBL had benefited their language skills, and whether there were
any significant improvements, and also to record their response towards the use of
PBL in learning EOP.
68
3.9 Data Analysis
The data analysis was carried out using different means such as scales and
assessments. The scales were the Likert Scale used in Evaluation Form (Table 3.1)
and Grading Scale for Evaluation (Table 3.2), and the assessments were an
Assessment of General Language Skills (Table 3.3), Assessment of Specific
Language Skills (Table 3.4), and Assessment of Oral Presentation (Table 3.5). The
following shows how these scales and assessments were used to analyse the data that
was collected through the various instruments.
3.9.1 Poorly-Structured Problem Reply Letter and Pretest
The Poorly-Structured Problem Reply Letter and Pretest letters were
individually assessed using the Assessment of General Language Skills to find out
the level of language skills of the respondents in writing reply letters of complaints.
The researcher counted the total number of words, total number of sentences,
average number of words per sentence, types of sentences, and vocabulary of the
respondents’ letters. After that, the results of both tests were compared to determine
if the use of PBL had benefited their language in the Poorly-Structured Problem
Reply Letter which was written after the PBL process.
The researcher compared the Poorly-Structured Problem Reply Letter written
as a group with the Pretest letters written individually. In the vocabulary component,
the researcher wrote comments in the assessment forms on the respondents’
vocabulary in the letters.
69
3.9.2 Tests (Pretest and Posttest)
The Pretest and Posttest letters were individually assessed using the
Assessment of Specific Language Skills (Table 3.4) prepared for the purpose of this
study. This assessment focused on the language used by the respondents in writing
their letters before and after they had gone through the process of PBL. The
researcher marked the grammar in both letters out of a total of ten marks, spelling
and punctuation five marks each, persuasiveness and credibility, and clarity and
appropriateness ten marks each. The total marks were forty. After that, the
researcher compared the total marks of both letters to see if there were any
significant improvements in the respondents’ language skills after the use of PBL in
learning EOP. The table below shows the percentages of improvement that were
used to determine the types of improvements in the respondents’ Posttest letters.
Table 3.7: Types of Improvement in the Posttest Letters
No. Types of Improvement Percentages of Improvement
1 Insignificant Improvement Below 20 percent
2 Significant Improvement 20 percent and Above
From Table 3.7 above, a significant improvement referred to at least a 20
percent and above increase of marks in the Posttest letters. Any difference of marks
between the Pretest and the Posttest letters that was below 20 percent was considered
as insignificant improvement. The categories of improvement and their
percentages were determined by taking into consideration the level of proficiency of
the respondents. As most of them were from the lower and intermediate levels, any
improvement should actually be deemed as significant. For the purpose of this
study, the researcher wanted to account for all the improvements and categorise them
according to significant and insignificant improvements. Therefore, if the
70
percentages for significant improvement were to be set at a higher level, for example,
30 percent, then this study might fail to observe any improvements that could be
considered as significant because a 30 percent increase in the marks would imply at
least an increase of three marks out of a total of ten marks. A cut-off point of 20
percent was considered as a good indicator of any significant improvements in the
respondents because 20 percent was actually an increase of two marks.
3.9.3 Assessment of Oral Presentation
Among the four items assessed in the Oral Presentation, the language
component was the item most emphasized largely due to the fact that the focus of the
oral presentation was not so much in the proposed solutions to the Problem but in the
language used by the respondents. As the respondents presented, the researcher
assessed their spoken English giving more attention to the language component.
Marks were awarded for using the correct grammar, linkers and transitions, and
appropriate vocabulary and expression. After that, the researcher used the Grading
Scale for Oral Presentation in Table 3.6 to grade the respondents’ marks. A
respondent was considered to have excellent language if his or her marks for the
language component ranged from 9 to 10 marks.
3.9.4 Evaluation Forms
The data collected from the evaluation forms were analysed using different
scales such as Likert Scale used in Evaluation Form (Table 3.1) and the Grading
Scale for Evaluation (Table 3.2).
.
71
(a) Self-Evaluation Form 1
The data collected from this evaluation was analysed using the Likert Scale
used in Evaluation Form and so this data was analysed individually using the same
scale to find out how the respondents felt about their learning in a PBL environment.
After that, the researcher compared the data within the group to obtain a general
impression of the group’s response towards the use of PBL in learning EOP.
(b) Self-Evaluation Form 2
The data from this evaluation form was more descriptive as the questions
were open-ended. These answers were, firstly, analysed individually, and then
compared within the group to find any identical responses among the respondents
towards the PBL experience of learning.
(c) Group Evaluation Form 1
Firstly, the researcher analysed every response of each informant to see how
he or she felt about his or her group members and working together in a team. Then,
these responses were compared with what the other informants said to find if all the
informants felt the same way.
(d) Group Evaluation Form 2
The grades each respondent received based on the Grading Scale for
Evaluation (Table 3.2) were analysed to see if he or she was given the same grade by
the other respondents. The researcher also compared the comments given to see if
the grades given were justified.
72
(e) Poorly-Structured Problem Evaluation Form
The data collected using the Likert Scale used in Evaluation (Table 3.1) was
analysed individually to see each respondent’s feedback on the Poorly-Structured
Problem. After that, the data was compared within the group to find out if the group
had given the same feedback.
3.9.5 Problem Logs
The information given by the respondents in the four Problem Logs was
analysed to determine how they responded to the problem-solving task. As the
questions in the Logs were open-ended, the answers given were in descriptive
manner. So the researcher had to read the answers and then ascertain how the
respondents felt about learning through the use of PBL.
3.9.6 Checklists
The data collected from the two types of checklists were analysed differently
to show how the informants had responded to the use of PBL in learning EOP.
(a) Checklist of Generic Skills
There were two sets of data collected on the respondents’ generic skills. As
mentioned earlier, one was taken before the process of PBL started and the second
one was after the process of PBL. The researcher analysed one respondent at a time.
She compared the respondent’s own grading of his generic skills before going
through the PBL process with his grading of the same skills after the PBL process.
73
This enabled the researcher to find out if the use of PBL in the classroom had any
effects on the respondents’ generic skills.
(b) Checklist of Observation
The researcher analysed the respondents’ level of proficiency of the language
and their ability to communicate effectively by using the notes she had taken down
while observing the respondents in their group discussions. From the data in the
observation checklist, she was able to identify which respondent had difficulties
speaking in English. Besides that, the researcher analysed her observation checklist
for improvements in the language skills of the respondents.
3.10 Conclusion
This chapter explained the methods that were employed to collect and
analyse data in this study. Different instruments were used for this purpose. The
Pilot Study was conducted to obtain information on the reliability of some of the
instruments, and the Questionnaire and Written Essay helped in selecting the most
suitable respondents for this study. Tests, Observations and Checklists were utilised
to gauge the benefits of PBL, and Assessments and Scales were used to evaluate and
record the improvements in the respondents’ language skills. Various evaluations
were carried out throughout the process of problem-solving to determine how the
informants’ responded to the use of PBL.
74
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
This chapter analyses qualitatively the data collected to answer the research
questions of this study, and the findings are presented according to these questions.
4.2 Benefits of PBL on the Respondents’ Language Skills
The first research question (Does the use of PBL benefit the respondents’
language skills in an EOP classroom?) focused on the benefits of PBL on the
respondents’ language skills, and data was obtained through the presentation of a
Poorly -Structured Problem. It was found that the respondents had benefited in the
following aspects of their language skills.
75
4.2.1 Ability to Decide to Write a Reply Letter of Complaint
The first aspect the respondents benefited through PBL was being able to
conclude that they had to write a reply letter to one of the complainants after solving
the Poorly-Structured Problem. This decision to write this letter was generated
naturally through the problem-solving process initiated by the Poorly-Structured
Problem in PBL. This finding was supported by Bosher and Smalkosli (2002), as
discussed in the review of literature, that learners themselves decided on the type of
action to take after the completion of every task.
The decision to write this Poorly-Structured Problem Reply Letter to a
complainant was in itself an achievement as it showed that the respondents had
comprehended the problem and situation well enough to conclude that responding to
the complainant was deemed appropriate and necessary. This letter showed that the
use of PBL had benefited the respondents’ letter writing skills in particular and
language skills in general in the EOP classroom.
This result was similar to the study conducted by Wood and Head (2004) on
the use of PBL in the EAP classroom, which was discussed in the review of
literature. Wood and Head discovered that their students were able to accomplish
certain tasks important to their learning process through problem-solving. In relation
to this, Zhonglei (2004) and Dunlap (2005) reported that learners in PBL had the
initiative to find solutions to their problems by way of discovering new knowledge
themselves in this type of self-directed learning situation.
76
4.2.2 Ability to Write a Reply Letter of Complaint
The ability of the respondents to write a reply letter of complaint as part of
their group’s response to solving the Poorly-Structured Problem showed that the use
of PBL had benefited the respondents’ EOP language skills. These respondents were
never taught how to write a reply letter and neither were they informed on what the
contents of a reply letter of complaint should include. This, in PBL, was known as
their knowledge gap, and going through the process of PBL had enabled the
respondents to fill that gap. These respondents were involved in self-directed
learning.
4.2.3 Improvements in Written Language Skills
The respondents’ language skills which had benefited from PBL were also
seen in the different aspects of the language used in the Poorly-Structured Problem
Reply Letter to the complainant.
Poorly-Structured Problem Reply Letter
The aspects of the language skills which the respondents had improved in the
Poorly-Structured Problem Reply Letter were the total number of words, the average
number of words per sentence, total number of sentences such as simple sentences
and complex sentences, and vocabulary. These aspects were summarised in Table
4.1.
77
Table 4.1: Analysis and Comments of the Respondents’ Letters from the Pretest and
Poorly-Structured Problem Reply
Analysis and Comments
Pretest Letters
Poorly-
Structured
Problem Reply
Letter
No.
Language Skills
Resp. 1 Resp. 2 Resp. 3 Resp. 4 Resp. 5 Group
1 Total Number of Words 131 96 160 97 130 120
2 Average Number of
Words Per Sentence
10.9
19.2
13.3
16.2
14.4
15
3 Total Number of
Sentences
12
5
12
6
9
8
4
Types of Sentences
(a) Simple Sentences
(b) Compound Sentences
(c) Complex Sentences
2
3
7
0
3
2
4
2
6
1
1
4
2
3
4
2
3
3
5 Vocabulary Words
are used
in
context
and,
hence,
the
message
is clear
and
precise.
Lacks
words
that built
goodwill.
Choice of
words is
not
appropriate
thus
affecting
the
meaning of
the letter.
Lacked
precision in
choice of
words with
repetitions
and so the
message
appears
vague. The
tone is
neither
formal nor
convincing
in rectifying
the Problem.
Simple
words are
used and
the
respondent
shows
good
control in
the use of
these
words.
Some
words are
used out
of
context.
Phrases
are used
wrongly
thus
affecting
the
credibility
of the
letter.
A wide range of
vocabulary is
used
appropriately to
convey the
message of the
writers. The
choice of words
conveys
confidence and
credibility on the
part of the writers
in solving the
Problem.
78
Table 4.1 illustrates a comparison of the language aspects found in the Pretest
and Poorly-Structured Problem Reply Letter to show if there were any improvements
made by the respondents in the Poorly -Structured Problem Reply Letter which was
written after the process of PBL in the classroom.
(a) Total Number of Words
In terms of the total number of words, Table 4.1 above showed that the
Poorly-Structured Problem reply letter had 120 words as compared to the Pretest
letters of three respondents who had more words. Respondents 1, 3 and 5 each had
131 words, 160 words and 130 words respectively. Respondents 2 and 4 each had
less than 100 words. Even though respondent 3 had the most number of words at
160, he was not successful in conveying his message to the reader. The content of
his Pretest letter was vague as he tried to explain his point repeatedly. Take for
instance, his attempt to state the course of action to rectify the problem in these
sentences: “…we hope we can repair in immediately”, followed by “we are going to
handle your problem as soon as possible” and in the same sentence “…we are going
to replace it with the new one”. The same point was repeated and the meaning was
ambiguous and the reader was left wondering which problem would be repaired and
replaced. The respondent in his attempt to explain his actions was found lacking of
the exact words to use, and hence, he used too many words to express himself.
Besides, he had more complex than simple or compound sentences, and these
complex sentences had various grammatical errors. Wainwright (1994) stressed that
letters should avoid unnecessary repetitions of ideas and words as this would confuse
the reader. Thus, after using PBL in the classroom, the respondents successfully
wrote the Poorly-Structured Problem Reply Letter which was a better letter based on
the fact that it was not wordy but brief and concise. Alexander Communications
(2003) stressed that clarity, brevity and simplicity were the essence of effective
communication. In other words, writers should practice economisation of words in
their letters.
79
(b) Average Number of Words Per Sentence
Respondent 2 had the most number of words with an average of 19 words per
sentence followed by respondent 4 with 16 words, respondent 5 with 14 words, and
respondent 3 with 13 words. Respondent 1 had an average eleven number of words
and that was the lowest compared to the rest of the group. Meanwhile, the letter
from the Poorly-Structured Problem had an average of 15 words per sentence. This
was an improvement as compared to the letters written by respondents 1, 3 and 5
because the sentences in this Poorly-Structured Problem Reply Letter was more
concise and precise. According to Hildebrandt (1996), sentences which had 15 to 20
words were appropriate for business letters. He explained that the average number
of words per sentence in letters was important because it would determine the
grammatical complexity of the sentences. Shorter sentences would have fewer
grammatical problems if compared to long sentences. This was true for respondent
2’s Pretest letter which had sentences ridded with grammatical errors. Her letter had
the lowest number of total words and sentences but her sentences were the longest
with an average of 19.1 words.
(c) Total Number of Sentences
Respondents 1 and 3 had the most number of sentences with twelve sentences
each. Respondent 2 had only five sentences but as mentioned earlier her sentences
were long. Respondent 5’s Pretest had the least number of sentences and even
though these sentences were within the recommended average number of words,
which was between 15 to 20 words, as explained earlier, there were a lot of mistakes
in her sentences. This was caused by her weak command of the language. The letter
generated from the Poorly-Structured Problem had eight sentences, and this letter
had a good balance of different types of sentences with three compound and complex
sentences each and two simple sentences.
80
Even though the Poorly-Structured Problem Reply Letter was written
collectively by the group, the reduced length of the letter showed some
improvements in the language skills of the group members as a whole in writing
reply letters which were clear and concise. These improvements were the benefits of
PBL on the respondents’ EOP language skills.
(i) Simple Sentences
The number of simple sentences ranged from none, which is, no simple
sentence in respondent 2’s Pretest to four simple sentences in respondent 3’s Pretest.
The Poorly-Structured Problem Reply Letter was an improved letter with two simple
sentences. Too many simple sentences would hinder the smooth flow of the letter.
(ii) Complex Sentences
Respondents 1 and 3 had seven and six complex sentences respectively.
Respondent 2 had the fewest with only two complex sentences. The rest had four
complex sentences. The Poorly-Structured Problem Reply Letter had three complex
sentences, and this was an improvement for some of the respondents as too many
complex sentences not only increased the chances of making grammatical errors but
might prove to be difficult for the readers to understand the flow of thoughts and
ideas.
Respondent 5’s language skills were weak. Her Pretest had more complex
sentences than simple or compound sentences, and since she had a weaker command
of the language, she made a lot of grammatical errors in her complex sentences
especially in the use of the perfect tenses. These errors affected the credibility of her
letter. In contrast, the Poorly-Structured Problem Reply Letter had a good control of
81
the grammatical structures, and so, there were minimal grammatical errors on tenses.
It projected a better image to the reader with its good grammar.
(d) Vocabulary
The vocabulary here referred to the use of words or phrases which were
appropriate for reply letters of complaints such as vocabulary which must be clear,
precise and effective in conveying a persuasive yet credible message to the reader.
The diction must also be in its proper context.
It was found that respondent 1’s Pretest lacked words that built goodwill even
though his words were used in context. Respondent 2’s choice of words was not
appropriate because she used diction which was out of context. So it affected the
meaning of her message. Meanwhile, respondent 3 lacked precision in his choice of
words thus rendering his letter too wordy and repetitive. The same was true for
respondent 5 whose choice of words was out of context. However, respondent 4’s
sentences were well-constructed with good language and structure. This was
because she had a better command of the language.
Table 4.1 showed that the respondents displayed a wide range of vocabulary
in the Poorly-Structured Problem Reply Letter written in the group. The words and
phrases used were suitable in conveying the meaning clearly to the complainant.
Alexander Communications (2003) explained that using simple words did not mean
limiting the writer’s vocabulary. On the contrary, it meant that the writer had a
bigger repertoire of vocabulary that enabled him to express himself clearly and
precisely in as few words as possible. This view was shared by Hildebrandt (1996)
who said that one of the seven principles of effective business correspondence was
clarity in the choice of words. The other principles or Cs were correctness,
82
completeness, courteousness, conciseness, consideration and concreteness. The
diction was appropriate in creating credibility and confidence in the reader.
Hence, there was an improvement in the general language skills of the
respondents with regard to the respondents’ ability to write a reply letter in response
to the Poorly-Structured Problem, and their control of the vocabulary, sentence
patterns and grammatical structures in this letter. These improvements were only
obvious after the respondents were exposed to PBL in the classroom activity. As
what Ahlfeldt (2003) had also discovered, learners in PBL were responsible for their
own learning by determining their own boundaries of learning through deciding what
and how to learn.
Thus, from the improvements in the different aspects of the respondents’
written language skills in the reply letter written in the group, it was obvious that the
use of PBL in an EOP classroom had benefited these respondents’ general language
skills. All these findings as discussed above showed that the respondents’ language
skills had benefited from the use of PBL in an EOP classroom.
4.2.4 Discussions of Respondents’ Overall Performance
The mere fact that the respondents were able to conclude that one of the
solutions to the Poorly-Structured Problem was to respond formally in writing to one
of the complainants showed that the use of PBL had benefited the respondents’
language skills. Writing the reply letter using the correct format and content, and in
language and structure that was more effective than the Pretest was indeed an
improvement.
83
In the process of arriving at this solution and writing the reply letter, the
respondents were unconsciously involved in the cognitive process of seeking
knowledge to fill in their knowledge gap. Duch (1995) found that her learners
identified gaps in their knowledge and successfully filled in those gaps. These
respondents sought the knowledge of specific facts which helped them to recognise,
acquire and identify factual information which were pertinent in understanding the
Problem. Besides, the knowledge on sequencing enabled them to recognise and
identify developments, sequences, and cause and effect relationship in solving the
problem, and the knowledge of interpretation and being analytical assisted them in
deducing statements and arguments which made them see the need to respond with a
reply letter. In short, the need to arrive at a solution in this problem-based situation
had put the respondents through a process of constructing knowledge where gaps
pertaining to and skills required in problem-solving were filled. More importantly,
this method of learning in a simulated situation enabled the respondents to realise the
need to respond appropriately, and that is to reply formally to a complaint. The
analysis of the group reply letter as discussed earlier showed that the respondents’
language skills had benefited from the use of PBL in an EOP classroom.
4.3 Aspects of Language Skills the Respondents Improved Significantly
Data on the second research question (What aspects of language skills do the
respondents improve significantly when using PBL in learning EOP?) was obtained
through the use of instruments such as the Pretest and Posttest, and an Observation
Checklist of Significant Improvements in the Oral Language Skills. It was found
that the respondents had improved significantly in the written as well as the oral
aspects of their language skills.
84
4.3.1 Significant Improvements in Written Language Skills
As mentioned earlier in the methodology and illustrated in Table 3.7,
significant improvements referred to an increase in the marks of the respondents’
Posttest by a margin of 20 percent and above. Any percentage increase that was
below 20 percent was considered as insignificant improvement.
The written aspects of the language skills that the respondents improved
significantly were grammar, punctuation, vocabulary and expression, and rhetorical
aspects. The comparison of marks obtained by them in the Pretest and Posttest
letters are summarised in Table 4.2 below:
Table 4.2: Marks obtained by the Respondents in the Pretest and Posttest Letters
Marks
Resp. 1 Resp. 2 Resp. 3 Resp. 4 Resp. 5
No.
Language Skills
Pre
test
Post
test
Pre
test
Post
test
Pre
test
Post
test
Pre
test
Post
Test
Pre
test
Post
test
1 Grammar 3 5.5 0 1.5 3 6.5 7 7 1 2
2 Spelling 4 4.5 4.5 4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 5 4
3 Punctuation 4.5 4.5 4.5 4 4.5 4 2.5 5 4.5 4
4 Vocabulary and
Expression
6
10
8
8
3.5
10
8
10
7
6
5 Rhetorical
Aspects
(a)Persuasive &
Credible
(b)Clear &
Appropriate
6
1.5
8
1.5
7
1
8
0.5
5
1
7
1.5
6
1
7.5
1.5
2.5
1
5.5
1
Total 25 34 25 26.5 21.5 33 29 35.5 21 22.5
85
Table 4.2 shows the marks obtained by the respondents in their Pretest and
Posttest. Any increase in the marks in the Posttest was then categorised as either
within the range of significant or insignificant improvements using the percentage
scales specified in Table 3.5. These improvements are reflected in Table 4.3 below:
Table 4.3: Types of Improvement Obtained by the Respondents in the Posttest
Letters
Categories of Improvement
No.
Aspects of
Language
Skills Resp. 1 Resp. 2 Resp. 3 Resp. 4 Resp. 5
1 Grammar Significant Insignificant Significant Nil Insignificant
2 Spelling Insignificant Nil Nil Nil Nil
3 Punctuation Nil Nil Nil Significant Nil
4 Vocabulary &
Expression
Significant
Nil
Significant
Insignificant
Nil
5 Rhetorical
Aspects
(a)Persuasive &
Credible
(b)Clear &
Appropriate
Significant
Nil
Insignificant
Nil
Significant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Significant
Nil
Table 4.3 shows the types of improvement the respondents had made in the
different aspects of language skills in the Posttest. The written aspects of the
language skills that the respondents improved significantly after the use of PBL in
the EOP classrooms are as follows:
86
(a) Grammar
As shown in Table 4.3, respondents 1 and 3 made significant improvements
in the grammatical aspect scoring more than 20 percent in the marks in the Posttest.
Respondents 2’s and 5’s improvements were insignificant because their
improvements were less than 20 percent. There were a lot of grammatical errors in
their Posttest letters. Respondent 4 whose command of the language was in the
advanced level did not record any improvements at all. She obtained the same marks
for her Pretest and Posttest.
In the grammatical construction of the sentences, it was observed that the
sentences in respondents 1’s and 3’s Posttest letters were in the active voice instead
of the passive, and as such their sentences were easier to read and had fewer
mistakes. According to Lawrence & Tebeaux (1982), active sentences were more
direct and brief because they used the natural subject-verb-object arrangement. They
were shorter, simpler to construct and more similar to spoken English. This could
account for the fewer grammatical mistakes found in respondents 1’s and 3’s
Posttest, and hence, they made significant improvements in their Posttest. Active
voice sentences emphasized the verb while passive voice sentences stressed on the
noun. Besides, sentences in the passive voice had too many prepositional phrases
and the subjects of the sentences disappeared from their initial positions in the
sentences. Therefore, Wainwright stressed that writers “should never use the passive
voice” and he added that it was because the passive voice would “cost some potential
loss of clarity, especially if the reader is not a particularly efficient one” (1994: 8).
In addition, every sentence should consist of a subject and each paragraph
ought to be confined to the discussion of one topic only. Some of the respondents,
especially respondents 2 and 5, did not decide on the main theme of their sentences
before they composed them, and hence, many of their sentences contained several
thoughts. So the reader had to rearrange the thoughts expressed in the sentences and
87
put them into separate thought units. The two respondents crammed a lot of points
in their sentences and paragraphs, and in the process not only made numerous errors
but also confused the reader. Respondent 5’s paragraphs were crowded with more
than one idea. The focus of the respondents should be on the reader and his
problems, and helping him to understand the letter in simple and short sentences.
The sentences in the respondents’ replies should aim at carrying the intended
message, and careful arrangement of the parts of the sentences in their proper order
would ensure a clear and complete message.
(b) Punctuation
There were no improvements made by the respondents in the marks for
punctuation except for respondent 4 who made significant improvement. She did not
make any punctuation mistakes at all in her Posttest.
Punctuation is an important component in letter writing. Letters played a
prominent role in projecting the image of any organization, and letters that were full
of punctuation mistakes either portrayed a negative image of the organisation or
caused the message to be misunderstood. Wainwright (1994) rationalised that
choosing shorter sentences over longer ones will minimise punctuation and spelling
errors.
(c) Vocabulary and Expression
As could be seen from Table 4.3, respondents 1 and 3 obtained significant
improvements in their vocabulary and expression, and of the two of them,
respondent 3 had the biggest difference of marks, which was six and a half marks,
between his Pretest and Posttest. Respondent 1 improved by four marks.
Respondent 3 used more appropriate vocabulary and expressions in his Posttest
88
compared to his Pretest which was too wordy, repetitive and lacking in the necessary
expressions. In replies to complaints, it was important that the writer wrote using
appropriate vocabulary and effective expressions which would convey the intended
message to the complainant. Otherwise, the latter might misinterpret the actions of
the writer.
Respondent 4 also obtained full marks for her Posttest (ten marks) but her
improvement was not significant because being already good in the language, her
marks for the Pretest was also high (eight marks). Therefore, the difference in marks
between her Pretest and Posttest, which was two marks, was not a lot and was not
significant. Respondent 5 who did not make any improvement actually obtained
lower marks for her Posttest (seven marks) as compared to her Pretest (six marks).
She was the only respondent whose Posttest marks were lower than her Pretest. In
her Pretest, she used words out of their context, and phrases were wrongly used as
well. These same problems existed in her Posttest thus affecting the credibility of
her letter.
(d) Rhetorical Aspects
This language skill which was divided into two aspects only witnessed
significant improvements in the aspect of persuasiveness and credibility. The
rhetorical aspects referred to language and expressions used to establish trust by
acknowledging concern with sincerity, words and phrases with positive tones, and
language that built goodwill. The findings did not record any significant
improvements in clarity and appropriateness.
89
Persuasive and Credible
All the respondents scored higher marks for persuasiveness and credibility in
the rhetorical components in their Posttest. Respondents 1, 3 and 5 improved
significantly in this area, especially respondent 5 with the highest difference of
marks between her Pretest (two and a half marks) and Posttest (five marks).
Respondents 2’s and 4’s improvements were insignificant. Respondent 2’s letter
was too wordy, and, hence it was difficult to follow her arguments. Whether she
meant her letter to be wordy for emphasis or otherwise, this decision might irritate
the reader. If the respondents were unclear in their letters, then the reader would be
unclear too.
Respondent 3 showed a more controlled use of the language which was
persuasive and yet credible. He displayed ability to persuade the reader towards his
ideas by the tone and words he used. He used a lot of inclusive language such as
“we” and “us” to foster inclusion besides apologising and admitting the mistakes the
company had made. This gave a sense of genuine regret on their part over the
mistakes made. Respondent 4 all the while had a better command of the English
language where she demonstrated her ability to use the language well be it in oral or
written form. The significant improvement in her Posttest showed that she had
benefited from this PBL task. Her Posttest was more persuasive and credible due to
her use of the right diction to gain back the trust of her complainant.
The respondents used their rhetorical appeals well in persuading their readers.
These appeals in the forms of writer credibility, logical appeals, and emotional
appeals were found in the different parts of the replies (Ahlfeldt, 2003). They wrote
with credibility by giving strong evidences, and presented their points and the
solutions to the problems of the complainant through logical reasoning, which was
by admitting their faults, explaining how they occurred, and how they were going to
rectify the problems.
90
Wainwright said that in order to be persuasive and effective, the respondents
had to ensure that their letters were “simple, positive, active and concise” (1994: x).
Concise writing emphasized writing that was clear, brief and direct. It would not
waste time as opposed to wordy writing which could make the message confusing.
Clarity in the letter was of paramount importance that could never be compromised
in ensuring a quick and accurate response.
4.3.2 Discussions of Respondents’ Overall Written Performance
These findings were significant because it could be seen that those
respondents who participated actively in the PBL discussions were the ones who
made significant improvements in their language skills. While the overall total
marks for all the respondents’ were better in the Pretest, respondents 1 and 3 who
had been very responsive from the beginning to the end of the PBL task had the most
number of significant improvements. Both made significant improvements for
being grammatically accurate, correct usage of vocabulary and expression and for
being persuasive and credible in their letters. Respondent 3 made the most
significant improvement in his Posttest with a marked increase of 11.5 marks. He
scored one of the lowest marks in the Pretest for grammar but he improved the most
in the Posttest. Respondent 5 who hardly participated had no improvements at all in
four of the language components, and her marks actually went down in three of these
components. There was not much improvement in her overall marks. She scored the
lowest in the Pretest and also appeared to be the weakest of the group in the Posttest.
The PBL task also seemed to benefit the weaker respondents such as
respondents 1 and 3 because they improved the most as discussed above. However,
the same was not true for respondents 2 and 5 who were also considered weak
respondents in their command of the language. This could be due to the fact that
though they were weak in their command of the language, they did not participate a
91
lot in the problem-solving process. Respondent 5 was extremely quiet and hardly
contributed to the discussions. Therefore, she did not benefit much from the use of
PBL in self-directed learning and filling in her knowledge gaps of the language. As
discussed in the review of literature, Ahlfeldt (2993) said that learners had to take
charge of their own learning in order to benefit from any learning situation.
Finucane, Johnson and Prideaux (1998) stressed that the key to effective learning
was through participation, collaboration and cooperation in groups. They explained
that learning could not be done alone.
Meanwhile, respondent 2 who also did not benefit much from the use of
PBL also contributed very little to the early discussions and throughout the PBL
process, she resorted to using a lot of the local Malay dialect whenever she
encountered problems in expressing herself in English. According to Mardziah
(1998), as explained in the review of literature, learners would make progress in their
command of the language if they were to use that target language to negotiate,
communicate and express their opinions. Thus, respondent 2 might have made
progress in her level of proficiency in English if she had used the language more.
Respondent 4 was already good in her command of the language and she continued
to make significant improvement in her punctuation, besides being persuasive and
credible in her Posttest. She remained the highest scorer for both letters.
The Pretest and Posttest had enabled the researcher to determine the level of
the respondents’ language skills before and after they were exposed to PBL. It was
useful to ascertain if exposure to PBL had created any impact on the language skills
of the respondents, and if it had, were these improvements significant. The
assessments (Tables 3.3 and 3.4) used to evaluate the letters were the indicators of
measurement and the difference in marks showed if language skills had improved
significantly or otherwise. It could be seen from the findings that exposing the
respondents to problem-solving strategies through PBL has brought about significant
improvements in the language skills of these respondents especially in the areas of
92
their grammar, vocabulary and expressions, and rhetorical aspects. These
respondents had acquired the specific language skills that were essential for replies
to letters of complaint in the EOP environment. All these were made possible
through the use of PBL where the cognitive process involved in problem-solving had
enabled the respondents to analyse the situation and decide on the language skills
that were appropriate. They identified the tenses to use, distinguished the most
appropriate vocabulary and expressions, and deduced suitable and persuasive
rhetorical tone for the statements and arguments in the Posttest. This was in line
with what Ahlfedlt (2003) had said, as reviewed in the literature, that PBL allowed
learners to explore the new knowledge themselves, and this would lead to better
retention of the new information.
On top of the improvements in the language skills, these respondents showed
that they understood the writing principles in replies, and they acquired the
relevant formats, styles and conventions for the purpose of replies. Besides, they
also succeeded in applying the relevant knowledge to a new situation in this
problem-solving task, and they could analyse and acquire proper organisation of
ideas. Again it must be mentioned that these respondents were never taught the
content that should be included in an effective reply letter of complaints. Neither
were they given any treatment prior to the Posttest. Therefore, to be able to each
produce a reply letter in the Posttest with all the complete parts, as well as content
that should be found in a reply, was indeed a remarkable achievement on the part of
the respondents. The use of PBL has created that realisation of a knowledge gap
that had to be filled with specific facts such as recognising what had to be done and
included in the reply, extracting relevant information from the letter of complaint,
acquiring the necessary skills and identifying the factual information that should
form the basis of the reply letter. Albanese and Mitchell (1993) explained that PBL
helped learners made the unknown known, whereby a gap in their knowledge would
be realised and filled.
93
Therefore, without doubt, the use of PBL has definitely benefited the
respondents’ language skills in an EOP classroom. This was evident in the earlier
discussions on research question 1, even though the language skills the respondents
had improved significantly in the use of PBL in learning EOP in research question 2
were confined to certain respondents and language skills.
4.3.3 Significant Improvements in Oral Language Skills
The oral aspects of the respondents’ language skills that improved
significantly through the use of PBL were as follows.
(a) Language Used When Communicating with Group Members
It was found that all the five respondents started their brainstorming
discussion using the local Malay dialect and no one in the group made any attempt to
check or remind each other to speak in English. However, it was observed that as
the discussions progressed, the respondents used more English in their discussions,
and towards the end of the problem-solving task, all the respondents spoke in
English. Their spoken English was initially confined to words that gradually
developed into phrases and short sentences. Then they progressed slowly to
speaking more in English and in proper sentences even though marred with
grammatical errors. This was the most significant improvement in the respondents’
oral language skills, and this could be attributed to their increased level of
confidence as they worked through the PBL process of problem-solving. As
mentioned in the review of literature, Mardziah (1998) explained that when working
in groups as in PBL, learners’ needs to document facts, argue points and present
ideas, required them to continuously practice using all the four language skills. In
the process, they improve on these skills.
94
Despite the fact that respondent 5 did not participate as much as the other
respondents in all the discussions, she also made some attempts to speak in English.
She was very quiet and hardly participated in the discussions. The very few times
that she spoke, she only managed to respond with one-word answers such as “yes”
and “ok”.
However, towards the end of the PBL process, she made attempts to speak
not only phrases in English but sentences as well. This was the other significant
improvement in the respondents’ language skills where they were able to present
their viewpoints and ideas in English. Allen (1996) explained that learning would be
purposeful when knowledge was integrated with communication skills.
It was observed that respondent 4 conversed more in English than the others
even though she also started the PBL discussions in the local Malay dialect. She had
a higher level of proficiency, and she even responded in English to some of her
group members who asked her questions in the local Malay dialect.
This change in the languages used by the respondents in their discussions was
a significant improvement in their oral language skills. It must be noted that the
facilitator at no time whatsoever indicated to the respondents the language they
should use in their discussions, but it was the whole process of using PBL in the
classroom that led the respondents to decide which language to use. Exposing the
respondents to PBL and its problem-solving task in an EOP classroom had benefited
this aspect of their language skills especially where speaking in English and using its
appropriate language expressions were concerned.
95
(b) Effectiveness in Oral Language Skills
As the process of PBL progressed, it was observed that respondents 1, 2 and
3 had difficulties expressing themselves in English. They had to repeat themselves
at least more than once or rephrase what they had said in order to be understood.
However, despite this, it was noted that respondents 2 and 3 who started off
in the basic level of proficiency improved significantly in the later part of the
discussion. They became more fluent speakers. Respondent 1 who was in the
intermediate level also experienced significant improvement in his level of
proficiency while respondent 4, who had a better command of the language, was
observed to have gained more confidence. It was difficult to gauge if there was any
improvement in respondent 5’s level of proficiency as she did not speak much during
the discussions. This improved level of proficiency was a direct benefit of PBL on
the respondents’ language skills.
The respondents’ efforts in speaking in English were not deterred by the fact
that their sentences were characterised by grammatical errors. Most of the errors
were in the subject-verb agreement such as the following examples of errors in the
respondents’ sentences. Respondent 4 was heard saying “we…maintains good
business relationship with them…”, and respondent 3 uttering “…we promotes the
product…” and “…the problem resolve…”. Other major grammatical errors were
found in the use of the perfect tenses where either the “be” verbs were missing or
action verbs were not in the participle forms.
However, these errors did not affect the message intended by the respondents
as they were able to understand each other. It was observed that none of the
respondents corrected each others’ grammatical errors. This could be due to the fact
96
that either they did not see the need to do so or they were unaware of the errors
made.
Therefore, except for the errors in the sentences, the respondents expressed
themselves well in the discussions using proper expressions such as those pertaining
to asking for and giving specific information, justifying their opinions, responding to
agreement and disagreement, and turn taking. These expressions were pertinent in
group interaction. The mere fact that these respondents conducted their discussions
in English was a significant achievement in itself as it spoke much of their
confidence and determination to better themselves.
It was observed that respondent 1 played an active role in all the discussions
by contributing his ideas and asking questions to stimulate his group members to
think over certain points. He volunteered to take notes generated from the
discussions but he was unable to summarise in writing what was being discussed.
He needed the other respondents, especially respondents 3 and 4, to dictate to him
word for word the summarised problem statement. However, towards the end of the
PBL process, he was able to take down in point form the discussions and at the same
time he could summarise the main issues discussed.
Respondent 4 asked the others to clarify their points when she could not
understand what they were saying, and she even encouraged respondent 2 to share
her opinions when she found that the latter was not saying much. All these were
carried out in English. Respondent 3 was not as responsive towards the last stage of
the problem-solving activity but he could be seen making the effort to speak in
English, and to explain himself whenever the other members could not understand
him.
97
Meanwhile, respondents 2 and 4 were both very persuasive and assertive
towards the final discussion session. They spoke in English giving their view points
and suggestions on how the problem could best be solved, initiated the discussions,
and they interacted well with the others. Respondent 2 showed more enthusiasm
by repeating various parts of the problem aloud as though to fully understand what
they meant. There was an instance when all the group members had different
interpretations on how to solve the problem, and she took the initiative to read aloud
the given Poorly-Structured Problem and then to explain her interpretation to them.
Even though she still spoke in the local Malay dialect, especially whenever
her members could not understand her, she was seen to have made attempts to use
the English language. She continued to play a more active role in the discussion, and
she even dictated to respondent 1 in English on the points to be included in the
Problem Log.
4.3.4 Discussions of Respondents’ Overall Spoken Performance
From the findings, it was obvious that the problem-solving task had benefited
the respondents’ oral language skills by exposing them to opportunities to speak in
English. Allen (1996) stated that the enthusiasm and eagerness of the learners
towards the learning experience would create self-learning to take place in them.
These improvements in the respondents’ use of the language especially in their
ability to use the language effectively in their group discussions without being taught
by the facilitator was an indicator of them being involved in self-directed learning.
This was a direct result from the use of PBL in the classroom.
These observations of significant improvements in the oral aspects of the
respondents’ language skills could be further explained in the review of literature
where Mardziah (1998) stated that learners could learn a language in PBL and its
98
problem-solving activities provided these problems mirrored real-world problems.
Here, the occupational domains of the real world would be brought into the
classroom. They learnt to use the right words in context, and spoke and wrote
grammatically correct sentences as what they would be expected to do in the real-
world.
This thus proved that PBL has been instrumental in helping the respondents,
in their attempt to solve the problem, construct the necessary language skills and fill
in the language gaps in the production of the reply letter.
4.4 Informants’ Responses to the Use of PBL in Learning EOP
The data for the third research question (How have the informants responded
to the use of PBL in learning EOP?) was gathered through various forms and
checklists, namely, Self-Evaluation, Group Evaluation, and Poorly-Structured
Evaluation forms, Checklist of Generic Skills and the Problem Logs.
The data showed that the informants responded positively to the use of PBL,
especially in their generic skills such as interpersonal skills, self-management skills,
communication skills and problem-solving skills. As mentioned in Chapter 1, these
were the four main generic skills being focused in this study. The following sections
discussed how the informants’ responded to PBL.
99
4.4.1 Interpersonal Skills
The data collected showed that the respondents had improved in various
interpersonal skills as listed in Table 4.4 below:
Table 4.4: Checklist of Generic Skills: Self-Evaluation of Interpersonal Skills Before
and After the Use of PBL in Learning EOP
Key:
Very Poor Poor Average Good Excellent
1 2 3 4 5
Table 4.4 shows the informants’ responses to the eight types of interpersonal
skills before and after going through the process of PBL. It could be seen that
respondent 3 felt that he had improved from average to good in all the eight skills
after the PBL process. Respondent 1’s evaluation of himself also showed an
improvement in all the skills except for one skill, which was, effective
communication. He rated himself as good before and after the PBL process.
Inter-personal
Skills
Respondent 1
Respondent 2
Respondent 3
Respondent 4
Respondent 5
Types Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After
Interact with
others
4 5 4 5 3 4 4 4 3 4
Understand
others
3 4 4 5 3 4 4 4 3 4
Communicate
effectively both
verbally & non-
verbally
4
4
4
5
3
4
3
4
3
3
Listen to others 4 5 4 5 3 4 4 4 4 4
Negotiate &
solve conflicts
3 4 3 5 3 4 4 4 3 3
Cooperative 3 4 4 5 3 4 4 4 2 3
Support
outcomes
3 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4
Respect thoughts
& opinions of
group members
3
4
5
5
3
4
4
4
5
5
100
Respondent 2 felt that she made excellent improvements in seven of the eight skills.
In her self-evaluation form, she commented that she improved and learnt the most in
the interpersonal skills. Respondent 4 felt that all her interpersonal skills did not
improve even after being exposed to PBL except for her ability to communicate
effectively. However, this could be due to the fact that she rated all the other seven
skills as good even before joining the PBL discussions.
Similarly, respondent 5’s ratings also did not show much improvement. She
only improved in two skills, namely, understanding others and interacting with
others. This could be because she did not communicate much with her group
members nor did she participate much in the group discussions as observed by the
researcher. Even her group members commented in their group evaluation that she
did not contribute to the discussions. So, she could not decide whether she was an
asset to her group. However, the comments in her self-evaluation revealed the
opposite as she said that she had learnt and improved the most in her interpersonal
skills. She recognised that interpersonal skills were important in group work.
Nevertheless, based on Table 4.4, the three types of interpersonal skills that
the respondents improved the most were interaction and listening to others, and
respecting the thoughts and opinions of the group members. These same findings
were also obtained from the respondents’ Self and Group Evaluations at the end of
the PBL process. They indicated that their opinions were well-received by the other
group members, and they were receptive to each others’ differing opinions. They
were also opened to criticisms from each other. The respondents commented that
this was the result of participating in the problem-solving activity, and they added
that these skills were important and should be present in any organisation. All of
them agreed that the PBL task which required them to work in a group to solve
problems gave them the opportunity to develop these skills.
101
4.4.2 Self-Management Skills
The respondents also showed positive response in their self-management
skills after using PBL in learning EOP as illustrated in Table 4.5:
Table 4.5: Checklist of Generic Skills: Self-Evaluation of Self-Management Skills
Before and After the Use of PBL in Learning EOP
Key:
Very Poor Poor Average Good Excellent
1 2 3 4 5
Self-Management
Skills
Respondent 1
Respondent 2
Respondent 3
Respondent 4
Respondent 5
Types Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After
Understand ethics &
implication of
decisions
3 4 3 5 3 4 3 3 5 3
Positive attitude 4 4 3 5 3 4 4 4 5 5
Responsibility
&accountability
3 3 3 5 3 4 3 4 5 5
Work independently
without/with
supervision
4 5 4 5 3 4 4 4 5 5
Work as a team 4 5 4 5 3 4 5 4 3 3
Multi-tasking 3 5 3 5 3 4 4 4 4 5
Innovative &
resourceful
3 4 3 5 3 4 4 4 4 4
Positive to change 3 4 5 5 3 4 4 4 4 4
Learn from mistakes
& open to feedback
3 5 5 5 3 4 5 5 4 5
Continuous
improvement
4 4 5 5 3 4 5 5 4 5
Self-esteem &
confident
3 4 4 5 3 4 4 4 3 3
Honest & transparent 4 4 4 5 3 4 4 5 3 3
Recognise & respect
individual difference
4 5 4 5 3 4 4 4 4 5
Punctual 4 5 4 5 3 4 3 4 3 3
Follow instructions 4 5 4 5 3 4 3 3 5 4
Handle stress 3 4 4 5 3 4 4 4 3 4
Personal grooming 4 5 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5
102
Table 4.5 shows the informants’ responses to the seventeen different types of
self-management skill before and after the process of PBL. As can be seen from it,
respondent 3 felt he had improved to good for all the skills after going through the
PBL process. This is supported by his comment in his Self-Evaluation form where
he stated that he learnt to work with others through cooperation and understanding
each other. The researcher observed that in all the discussions, this respondent
played a prominent role in contributing ideas to the group.
Respondents 1’s and 2’s ratings also showed improved ratings in almost all
the skills except for respondent 1 who already considered his skills on demonstrating
positive attitudes and behaviours and continuous improvement as average or good.
He did not give himself an improved rating for his sense of responsibility and
accountability even though he stated in his self-evaluation that he was very
responsible in completing his tasks.
Respondents 4 and 5 rated themselves lower after the PBL process for certain
skills. Respondent 4 felt that she dropped from excellent to good with regard to team
work. This could be due to the fact that, as recorded during her group evaluation,
she found that the amount of work was not equally distributed to the group members.
She also indicated in the group evaluation that she did not wish to work with the
same team members again. The researcher also observed that towards the end of the
PBL process, this respondent did not speak as much as during the initial part of the
problem-solving activity. She just took down notes from the discussions.
Respondent 5 also gave herself lower rating than before the PBL process in
three skills. She gave herself an average for understanding the ethics and
implications of decisions, and a good instead of excellent for following instructions.
During the group evaluation, the other group members felt that she did not cooperate
and did not do what she was told. This was similar to the researcher’s observation.
103
She was rated as poor for her performance as a team member. This respondent felt
that she was not an asset to the group but when she evaluated herself, she stated that
she would want to try PBL again, and this time she wanted to be more committed.
The respondents were also quick to add that there were disadvantages to
working in a team. Some explained that certain members hardly participated in the
discussions while others were not committed and did not do what they were assigned
to. Thus, three of them said that if given a choice, they would not want to work with
the same group members in future.
Despite these findings, all the informants responded well to each other when
using PBL in their EOP classroom. The ratings that each informant received from
his or her group members are illustrated in Table 4.6 below:
Table 4.6: Ratings obtained by the Respondents in the Group Evaluation
Respondents
Ratings Resp. 1 Resp. 2 Resp. 3 Resp. 4 Resp. 5
5 (Excellent) None None None None None
4 (Good) 3 times 3 times 1 time 3 times None
3 (Average) 1 time 1 time 3 times 1 time 3 times
2 (Poor) None None None None 1 time
1 (Very Poor) None None None None None
As can be seen from Table 4.6, all the respondents were evaluated and rated
by their group members. Three respondents, namely, respondents 1, 2 and 4 were
rated good three times each, and average once each. They stood out among the rest
as having received high ratings because they were considered by their fellow
104
members as good contributors of ideas, proactive in discussions and responsible in
carrying out their tasks. These seemed to be the qualities that the respondents
regarded as important for a group member to posses as indicated in their evaluation.
The respondents gave respondents 1 and 2 good ratings even though they
commented that both had difficulties in expressing themselves.
Respondent 4 said that respondent 1 could not express himself well and he
also could not elaborate his points. However, she rated him as good. The same was
also true for respondent 2 because despite the fact that three respondents said her
ideas were irrelevant, they still rated her as good. They added that she had the ability
to understand the problem better than the others. Thus, it seemed that the
respondents were able to overlook certain weaknesses of the respondents as long as
they were active participants in the discussions.
Respondents 3 and 5 were rated average three times. Respondent 3 was
viewed as a good contributor but he was not rated as highly as respondents 1, 2 and 4
because all the respondents cited that he was not responsible as a group member.
One respondent even said that as the General Manager of the group, he should not
have absent himself from the oral presentation without informing them.
Respondent 5 was given the lowest rating of poor once. The other
respondents commented that she hardly participated in their discussions and had
difficulties interacting with them. However, respondent 1 said that despite these
weaknesses, she still had the potential to adjust herself accordingly at her work place.
105
4.4.3 Communication Skills
The findings revealed that the respondents had improved in their
communication skills as shown in Table 4.7 below:
Table 4.7: Checklist of Generic Skills: Self-Evaluation of Communication Skills
Before and After the Use of PBL in Learning EOP
Key:
Very Poor Poor Average Good Excellent
1 2 3 4 5
Table 4.7 above illustrates the respondents’ improvements in the ratings of
the five different types of communication skills. Respondents 1 and 3 showed they
Communica
tion Skills
Respondent 1 Respondent 2 Respondent 3 Respondent 4 Respondent 5
Types Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After
Understand
information
presented in
various
forms
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
3
3
5
Speak so
others
pay attention
& understand
3
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
Listen & ask
question to
understand
others' view
points
3
4
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
4
Speak &
understand
the language
used to
conduct
business
3
4
3
4
3
4
4
3
2
3
Write
effectively
in language
used
to conduct
business
3
4
2
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
106
had improved in all the five types of communication skills by rating themselves
higher than the ratings before they started the PBL process. This was supported by
what respondent 1 said in his self-evaluation that he learnt and improved the most in
his communication skills. He added that these skills were important in problem-
solving tasks. Respondent 3 said in his self-evaluation that one of the main lessons
he learnt as a result of PBL was to communicate using appropriate language in order
to be understood.
Respondent 4 did not feel she had made any improvements. This could be
due to the fact that she was already communicating well even before using PBL. Her
group members commented in their group evaluation that she had good
communication skills and that she had a good command of the language.
Respondent 5 gave herself a rating of average for her ability to get others to
pay attention to what she said. The researcher observed that this respondent
understood the situation well but she had difficulties getting the attention of her
group members whenever she spoke. Besides, the researcher also observed that her
opinions were not sought by her peers. In spite of this, she indicated that using PBL
had helped her to understand information presented in various forms.
The respondents’ communication skills in their oral presentation were also
seen as a response to the use of PBL in learning EOP which required among other
things, the respondents to be fluent when presenting their reports. Table 4.8
summarises the different language aspects of oral presentation and the marks
obtained by all the respondents in their group presentation.
107
Table 4.8: Marks obtained by the Respondents in the Oral Presentation
Marks
Criteria Resp.
1
Resp.
2
Resp.
3
Resp.
4
Resp.
5
LANGUAGE (10 marks)
(a) Grammar Accurate (4 marks)
(b) Expression Clear (2 marks)
(c) Vocabulary Appropriate (2 marks)
(d) Linkers Appropriate (2 marks)
3
1.5
1.5
1
2.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
3.5
2
1.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Sub-total 7 7 8.5 7
CONTENT (4 marks)
(a) Main Ideas and Supporting Details Clear (2 marks)
(b) Introduction and Conclusion Well-organised (2 marks)
1.5
1.5
2
1.5
Absent
Absent
2
2
1.5
1.5
Sub-total 3 3.5 4 3
DELIVERY (4 marks)
(a) Voice Audible (2 marks)
(b) Non-verbal Communication Appropriate (2 marks)
2
1.5
1.5
1.5
Absent
Absent
2
1.5
1.5
1
Sub-total 3.5 3 3.5 2.5
VISUALS (2 marks)
(a) Appropriate (1 mark)
(b) Effective/Well-designed (1 mark)
0
0
0
0
Absent
Absent
0
0
0
0
Total 14 13.5 16 12.5
From Table 4.8, it can be seen that respondent 4 had the highest marks while
respondent 5 scored the lowest with 12.5 marks out of 20 marks. Respondent 4
presented her points competently. Her sentences were grammatically accurate with
proper usage of the sentence linkers and appropriate choice of words. She displayed
very confident control of her language by presenting her points in fluently English.
Her expressions also befitted the audience and situation when she greeted the
audience and thanked them for coming. She also introduced the group members and
the purpose of their presentation.
The other three respondents obtained similar marks for their language
component. They used appropriate language structures, such as simple and short
108
sentences with the right tenses. Thus, they could be understood with no difficulty.
They also used appropriate sentence linkers, such as, firstly, then, next, in addition,
to link their points together and create the tone for the next point. It must be noted
that respondent 2 made good progress in her language considering the fact that in the
earlier discussions, her spoken English was mixed with the local Malay dialect.
All the respondents were audible in their delivery with loud and clear voices.
They accentuated their presentation with variations in the use of appropriate gestures
and voice levels. Their articulation was clear with appropriate speed which did not
impede the audience’s comprehension. It was noted that respondent 5 showed
significant improvement especially in being more vocal. She showed attempts to
communicate her points, and in spite of her nervousness, she successfully delivered
an effective presentation. Though she lacked fluency in her command of the
language with occasionally halting in her delivery, she could still be understood.
Meanwhile, respondent 4 was fluent in her delivery pausing at the right
places, and she could be understood without any difficulty. Her pronunciation and
articulation were clear and accurate.
One significant response to the use of PBL that was observed throughout the
oral presentation was the confidence shown by all the four respondents. It was
discussed in the earlier part of this chapter that these respondents only conversed in
the local Malay dialect at the start of PBL task. However, at this oral presentation
which was conducted at the end of the PBL task, these respondents presented their
points and ideas confidently in English. Even though their spoken English had
errors, they did not in any way allow that to mar their presentation.
The respondents presented their points well with good organisation which
flowed logically from the beginning to the end. Respondent 4 started the
109
presentation with an attention-getting material where she talked on the relevance of
the presentation to the audience. This was important because according to Ahlfedt
(2003), the interest of the audience in presentations was due to how relevant the
subject matter was to them. After that, she did a preview of what the other members
would be presenting.
This was subsequently followed by the respondents fulfilling their assigned
tasks with their explanation of their ideas substantiated by supporting details. It was
noticed that the respondents did not use any visuals in their presentation but the
cohesiveness in their presentation, especially in the way the ideas and points were
interrelated enabled the audience to understand their arguments without difficulty.
The content of the presentation was supported with proper synthesis of the relevant
information instead of a mere presentation of a list of ideas and points. The
respondents explained their points in detail by giving examples and proper
elaborations.
A significant observation in the respondents’ presentation was the high level
of credibility they demonstrated in their speeches. They managed to get the attention
of the audience right from the beginning of their presentation by referring to reliable
and credible sources of information such as their manuals, Internet materials and
reference books. To Ahlfedt (2003), this would make the presenters more credible.
She found that “students prepare better speeches in a PBL course than in a traditional
course” and the “levels of student engagement are higher in a PBL classroom than in
a traditional classroom” (2003:141).
110
4.4.4 Problem-Solving Skills
The informants’ problem-solving skills had improved after going through the
process of PBL as illustrated in Table 4.9 below:
Table 4.9: Checklist of Generic Skills: Self-Evaluation of Problem-Solving Skills
Before and After the Use of PBL in Learning EOP
Key:
Very Poor Poor Average Good Excellent
1 2 3 4 5
Problem-Solving
Skills
Respondent
1
Respondent
2
Respondent
3
Respondent
4
Respondent
5
Types Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After
Assess situations &
identify problems 4 4 4
5 3 4 3 4 3 4
Seek different
opinions & evaluate
them based on facts
4
4
4
5
3
4
4
4
3
3
Recognise human
& interpersonal
dimension of a
problem
4
4
4
5
3
4
3
3
3
3
Identify the root
cause of a problem 4 4 4
5
3
4
3
3
4
4
Creative &
innovative in
exploring possible
solutions
4
4
4
5
3
4
4
3
3
3
Ready to use
science, &
technology as ways
to think, gain &
share knowledge,
solve problems &
make decisions
4
4
4
5
3
4
3
3
4
4
Evaluate solutions
to make decisions
4
4
4
5
3
4
4
4
3
4
Implement solutions 3 3 4 5 3 4 4 4 3 5
Check to see if a
solution works 4
4 4 5 3 4 3 4 4 5
Act on opportunities
for improvement 4
4
4
5
3
4
4
5
4
5
111
Table 4.9 shows how the respondents had rated themselves based on the ten
types of problem-solving skills. Respondents 2 and 3 experienced very positive
responses to the use of PBL in their problem-solving skills with both of them giving
themselves improved ratings in all the different types of the problem-solving skills.
Respondent 2 rated all her skills as excellent after the process of PBL, and
respondent 3 rated himself as good. However, respondent 1 felt that going through
the process of PBL did not have any effect on his skill level. Respondent 4
indicated two of her skills, which were, checking if a solution worked, and acting on
opportunities for improvement, had improved after the PBL process. Even though
respondent 5 participated in a limited way in solving the problem, she felt that her
problem-solving skills had benefit from PBL. These skills were the ability to assess
situations and identify problems, to evaluate solutions in order to make
recommendations or decisions and implement them, to make sure the solution
worked, and to seize opportunities for improvement.
The findings from the self-evaluations also revealed that all the informants
responded positively to the use of PBL because they all agreed that they would
recommend this method of learning to their friends. Respondent 1 said that PBL
made learning interesting and it enabled learners to gain knowledge and
experience. His view point was shared by respondent 5. Respondent 1 also used
this opportunity to transfer information from his other subjects on Office
Management and Technology, and experiences gained from his training into solving
the Problem. Information transfer is a characteristic of PBL where the prior
information or knowledge is used to serve as a guide to enable the respondent to
construct new knowledge independently. From the evaluations, it was discovered
that this problem-solving task enabled the respondents to use some of their skills and
attitudes. PBL helped the respondents see the need to understand what they had to
bring to the discussions to help them solve their problem. This agreed with
Montgomery, Bull and Kimball (1999) who argued that learners’ learning
experiences would support their interaction, discussions and the sharing of relevant
112
knowledge. Tan (2003) stressed that the main reason why PBL was recommended in
various curricula was the fact that in PBL, learning was made borderless. So,
learners themselves learn how to learn by subscribing to this life-wide approach to
learning the independent way.
There were other responses of the informants to the use of PBL in learning
EOP. For example, respondent 2 felt that the discussions and brain-storming
activities in PBL would benefit her friends, and respondent 3 added that the PBL
experience helped her think positively. This PBL task had exposed the respondents
to the real-world by giving them a simulated fore-taste of what to expect when they
start work later. Respondent 1 felt that working together as a group in this task
helped him realise the challenges he would face later in the working world.
Meanwhile, respondent 3 said that the PBL activity provided him with more
knowledge on team work. He further added that the PBL task also prompted him to
be more proactive in his group in order to achieve better results. He shared his
opinion with respondent 4 who said that she must participate actively in her team to
be an outstanding employee in her organisation.
The whole process of PBL had involved the respondents in decision-making,
interaction, communication, and enhancing attitudes of tolerance,
cooperativeness, and acceptances of others’ opinions and criticisms. The
respondents responded well in working collaboratively in a group. On top of that,
PBL also enabled the respondents to pick up a higher order thinking skills such as
providing constructive criticisms, clarifying and developing ideas and paraphrasing
them to demonstrate understanding, synthesizing ideas generated by the discussions,
analysing the group’s decisions and evaluating each other. Montgomery, Bull and
Kimball (1999) stated that working in a group also caused the respondents to
develop a sense of identity of shared beliefs, values and goals.
113
Another response from the use of PBL as found in the Problem Logs was the
respondents showing a deeper understanding and knowledge of the Problem.
They were aware of their level of knowledge and skills, such as of how much they
knew and did not know, and what they had to do. This prior knowledge, as
discussed earlier acted as scaffolds for the respondents to construct knowledge to
close their knowledge gaps.
The respondents formulated some questions which helped them devise an
action plan that focused on certain issues so that nothing important was left out in the
process of solving the Problem. The process of solving the problem generated
possible solutions only to be replaced with other better solutions as the respondents
developed their skills in problem-solving and critical thinking.
The data from the Problem Logs showed that the respondents used their
metacognitive aspect of the problem-based learning process to decide on the
relevancy of the information they had collected. This motivated the respondents to
apply their analytical thinking skills in reassessing their sources of information.
The respondents realised that problems in the real-world have no simple
solutions. This method of learning was in agreement with what Tan described as
one which involved the respondents in “active mediation of purpose, meaning,
transfer of learning, optimistic seeking of alternatives, goal-directedness, challenge,
collaboration, and self-reflection” (2004: 14). He added that these “metacognitive
and self-regulatory processes are keys to enhancing thinking in the 21st century”
(2004: 14).
114
4.4.5 Discussion on Respondents’ Overall Responses to the Use of PBL in
Learning EOP
Taking into consideration the recurring results gathered from different
instruments, the respondents had approached the problem-solving task
systematically. They successfully went through the process of problem-solving
without any prior explanations of how PBL worked or any specific instructions from
the facilitator on how to solve problems. Through this process, they discovered that
they had not only improved on their language skills but had enhanced their other
problem-solving skills as well.
The data discussed earlier showed that the respondents had responded
positively in their generic skills after being exposed and guided through the process
of PBL in an EOP classroom. This was in line with what Wright (n.d.) had said that
undergraduates’ acquisition of knowledge must happen alongside the development of
generic skills so that both could complement each other. The respondents were able
to reinforce and improve on all the four main types of generic skills often sought
after by employers.
4.5 Conclusion
As could be seen from the discussion in this chapter, the use of PBL in an
EOP classroom had benefited the respondents’ language skills. Besides that, PBL
had also been instrumental in developing their generic skills.
115
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter provides the conclusion and recommendations to this study on
the use of PBL in an EOP classroom. These conclusion and recommendations are
based on the data collected by the researcher using the prepared instruments. It also
discusses the pedagogical implications of the findings and the impact PBL will
create if it is used in language teaching and learning. This chapter concludes with
suggestions for further research on the use of PBL in a language classroom.
5.1 Conclusion
Based on the findings, the following can be concluded on the use of PBL in
an EOP classroom.
5.1.1 The respondents’ language skills have benefited from the use of PBL in an
EOP classroom. Firstly, it was shown in the ability of the respondents to decide that
they had to respond to one of the complainants by writing a formal reply letter.
Secondly, the respondents wrote the reply letter using knowledge which they
constructed through the process of PBL.
116
5.1.2 All the respondents improved in their language skills, and four of them
experienced significant improvements in at least one aspect of their language skills.
This was evident in their written and oral language skills. As was seen in their
Posttest letters, the respondents showed significant improvements in their grammar,
punctuation, vocabulary and expression, and the rhetorical aspects of letter writing
which were persuasive and credible. The respondents also improved significantly in
their oral language skills by communicating more in English, and their level of
proficiency improved significantly as well. Besides that, they became more fluent in
speaking in English.
5.1.3 The respondents also became more confident in speaking in English. They
spoke more in English towards the end of the PBL process.
5.1.4 The use of PBL enabled respondents from different levels of proficiency to
work and learn together. It provided the environment for these respondents to
participate in group discussions and contribute towards accomplishing their tasks as
a team. Respondents who were from the lower language proficiency were able to
learn at their own pace.
5.1.5 The informants responded positively to the use of PBL in learning EOP.
They found PBL helpful in reinforcing the importance of developing their generic
skills which would increase their rate of employability. Besides that, the PBL task
provided them with opportunities to integrate the generic skills in the learning
process.
117
5.1.6 Some of the respondents did not like working in groups especially if the
group comprised members who did not do equal amount of work or were not
responsible in completing their assigned tasks.
5.1.7 The main focus of the use of PBL in an EOP classroom was not on the
solution to the Problem. Nor was it on the product. Though the solution or product
may be the logical outcome, the emphasis was on how the process of solving the
Problem benefited the respondents’ language skills.
5.1.8 The respondents participating in a PBL situation tend to be influenced by
whether their group members were active or not in the group work. In other words,
although in reality a group member lacked performance in terms of grammatical
element, he could still be rated as excellent based on his active participation.
5.1.9 All the respondents had to be actively involved in the process of PBL in order
to benefit from it. Those respondents who were weak in their language but
participated actively in the group discussions benefited more in terms of language
and generic skills compared to those who were weak and did not participate actively.
118
5.2 Recommendations
The findings and conclusions of this study have led the researcher to
recommend the following:
5.2.1 Create Awareness on the Benefits of the Use of PBL in Language
Teaching and Learning
The present situation is such that many teachers are not aware of the benefits
of the use of PBL in language teaching and learning. In actual fact, there are a lot of
teachers who do not have any inkling of what PBL is all about. They either have
very little knowledge about PBL or the fact that this method can be used in teaching
language. They may be ignorant of the benefits of this method of teaching and
learning language. If these teachers are provided with information pertaining to how
beneficial PBL can be in the language classroom, they will be more confident to use
PBL and might want to incorporate this method in their teaching.
5.2.2 Train the Teachers and Lecturers on How to Use PBL in Teaching
Language
Teachers and lecturers alike can be trained to use PBL as a novel way of
teaching and learning which allows the learners to take charge of their learning
experience. Special courses can be conducted to share with these educators the hows
in the use of PBL in the classroom. However, probably the best way to train these
educators is to let them learn PBL hands-on, which is, to go through the PBL process
119
themselves. Then they will understand what is meant by active participants in using
prior knowledge and knowledge gaps to construct new knowledge
5.3 Pedagogical Implications
PBL is an agent of change. It is a catalyst that triggers the teaching and
learning experience to divert from one that is teacher-centred to one that is learner-
centred. Using PBL is akin to bringing the world into the classroom and providing
the learners a glimpse of what reality is so that they can experience real-world
situations. Every day learners come face to face with the daunting task of solving
problems – in varying degrees of magnitude. Life is all about decision-making and
making the right decisions, and if educators are to prepare their learners for the
outside world, they can only do justice to their vocation if they are to teach these
learners using the very method they will later use in coping with problems in their
careers or at their work place. The process of teaching and learning will never be
boring again to the learners because they actively determine what and how much to
learn. Teaching and learning become intentional and purposeful where the learners
have the upper hand in constructing knowledge instead of mere recipients of
knowledge. So, Duch (1995) and Dunlap (2005) argue that PBL provides an
authentic environment for real-life solving skills to be developed while the learners
learn and improve on their occupational skills.
Based on this study, it is obvious that the use of PBL in an EOP classroom
has benefited the language skills of the EOP students. This innovative method of
learning and teaching is important especially for classes which have learners from
different levels of proficiency. They can still learn together in the same class but
those students who are better in their command of the language can learn faster while
those who are weaker learn at a slower pace.
120
Besides that, the interaction between the teachers and the students will create
a strong rapport which will facilitate more learning to take place. The learning
environment is not stressful as the students work together in groups determining for
themselves how much to learn at one time.
It cannot be denied that there are challenges to be ironed out if PBL is used in
the language classrooms, and after that there will still be more challenges. However,
if PBL is an approach that can prove beneficial, then no matter how challenging the
task may be in using PBL in the language classrooms, language teachers should be
all out for it. If a paradigm shift is deemed necessary, then no matter how
challenging the task may be, a shift in paradigm will be the answer.
5.4 Suggestions for Further Research
There are areas in PBL that can be explored in context of its relevance in
language teaching and learning. Some of these suggestions are discussed below:
5.4.1 Conduct Research on the Use of PBL amongst Language Teachers and
Lecturers
The benefits of using PBL should not be just limited to the medical or
science-based content. It is high time that educators think outside the box; move on
with the times, and allow PBL to make its presence felt in language proficiency
courses so that after graduation, these learners will be responsible for their own life-
long education. In their work place, they will be better equipped to work
collaboratively with their team members.
121
So, more research can be conducted on the use of PBL in the language
classrooms in Malaysia. The findings generated from the research can serve as
either impetus or guidelines for greater use of PBL in the teaching and learning of
language. They can act as the platform for PBL to play a more important role in the
language classrooms.
5.4.2 Conduct an Experimental Study on the Use of PBL in a Language
Classroom
Another similar study can be carried out but this time using a control group.
Both groups go through the PBL process but one group undergoes treatment of the
targeted aspects of the language while the experimental group does not receive any
treatment. Then the findings of both groups are compared to determine the
development of knowledge of the experimental group.
The number of respondents in this suggested study can be increased to
include more respondents, and from the other races not included in this study. Then,
the findings of the study can be used to represent the real population.
5.5 Limitations of the Study
There are several limitations in this study that must be acknowledged. The
major limitation is time constraint. As this study had to be completed within the
time frame of one semester, which is, about five months, the time allotted for data
collection was only about a month. This short period of time for data collection had
thus determined the size of the respondents which could not be too big a group. If
122
more time was available, data could be collected from more groups of EOP students.
Besides that, qualitative studies needed in-depth reporting and this made it necessary
to have more time.
The racial composition of the respondents was confined to only the
Bumiputeras, namely, the indigenous races from East Malaysia and the Malays. This
was because all the undergraduates from this university were Bumiputeras.
Therefore, again, the data collected from this study cannot be generalised to include
all the races.
However, despite these limitations, this study had already been conducted
and the findings would serve as a catalyst for more representative and conclusive
studies in the near future.
123
References
Achan, P., Philip, B., and Gunjew, M. (2006). Generic skills for the workplace: A
study of graduating students at UiTM Sarawak. Bureau of Research and
Consultancy. Sarawak: UiTM.
Ahlfeldt, S. L. (2004). Problem-based learning in the public speaking classroom.
North Dakota State University: Ph.D. Dissertation. ProQuest Educational
Journals.
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=765271701&sid=1&Fmt=2&clientld=2840
3&RQT=309&VName=PQD. Online 9 May 2006.
Albanese, M. (2000). Problem-based learning: Why curricula are likely to show little
effect on knowledge and clinical skills. Medical Education. 34: 729-738.
Albanese, M. A., and Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem based learning: A review of
literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine (68):
52-81.
Aldred, S. (n.d.). Problem-based learning. Geelong Professional Development
Session. http://www.pbl.cqu.edu.au/docs/geelong-pbl.ppt. Online 17 May 2006.
Allen, D. E. (1996). Can undergraduates effectively guide students’ problem-based
learning groups? ABOUT TEACHING, 50. http://www.udel.edu/pbl/cte/spr96-
bisc.html. Online 26 May 2006.
Allen, D. E., Duch, B. J., Groh, S. E., Watson, G. B., and White, H. B. (2003).
Scaling up research-based education for undergraduates: Problem-based
learning. University of Delaware.
http://www.cur.org/publicatinos/AIRE_RAIRE/delaware.asp. Online 24 April
2006.
Alexander Communications. (2003). Articles.
http://www.alexcommunications.com/articles.htm. Online 9 August 2006.
Bailey, S. (2004). A problem-based learning approach to company law.
http://www.ukcle.ac.uk/interact/lili/2004/papers/bailey.html. Online 26 May
2006.
124
Barrows, H. (1985). How to develop a problem-based curriculum for the preclinical
years. New York: Springer.
Biley, F. C., and Smith, K. (1998). Exploring the potential of problem-based learning
in nurse education. Nurse Education, 18(5): 353-361.
Blumberg, P., Soloman, P., and Shehata, A. (1994). What is PBL?
http://www.cscserver.cc.edu/johnsonp/edu634/pbl.htm. Online 26 May 2006.
Bohannon III, J. N., and Bonvillian, J. D. (1997). Theoretical approaches to language
acquisition. In J. B. Gleason. (1997). The Development of Language Fourth
Edition. MA: Macmillan Publishing Company. 259-316.
Bosher, S., and Smalkosli, K. (2002). From needs analysis to curriculum
development: Designing a course in health-care communication for immigrant
students in the USA. English for Specific Purpose. 21(1): 59-79.
Brooks, J.G., and Brooks, M.G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for
constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum. [ED366428].
Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching. Eglewood
Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching fourth edition.
New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., and Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture
of learning. Educational Researcher. 18: 32-42. [EJ386603].
Camp, G. (n.d.). Problem-based learning: A paradigm shift or a passing fad? Medical
Education Online. http://www.med-ed-online.org/f0000003.htm. Online 26 May
2006.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Cole, M., and Engestrom, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed
cognition. In S. Gavriel. (Ed.). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and
educational considerations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
125
Duch, B. J. (1995a). Problem-based learning in Physics: The power of students
teaching students. ABOUT TEACHING. 47. http://www.udel.edu/pbl/cte/jan 95-
phys.html. Online 26 May 2006.
Duch, B. J. (1995b). What is problem-based learning? ABOUT TEACHING. 47.
http://www.udel.edu/pbl/cte/jan 95-what.html. Online 26 May 2006.
Duch, B. J. (1996). Problems: A key factor in PBL. ABOUT TEACHING. 47.
http://www.edu/pbl/cte/spr96-phys.html. Online 24 April 2006.
Duffy, T. M., and Cunningham, D. J. (1997). Constructivism: Implications for the
design and delivery of instruction. In D. Jonassen (Ed.). Handbook of research in
education, communication, and technology. New York: Macmillan. In H. A.
Mardziah. (1998). Problem-based learning in language instruction: A
constructivist method. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading,
English, and Communication Digest #132. ( ERIC Digest EDO-CS-98-5)
http://www.indiana.edu/~reading/ieo/digests/d132.html. Online 24 April 2006.
Dunlap, J. (2005). Changes in students’ use of lifelong learning skills during a
problem-based learning project. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 18(1): 5-
33. ProQuest Educational Journals.
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=866823711&sid=1&Fmt=4&clientld=2840
3&RQT=309&VName=PQD. Online 10 May 2006.
Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom second language development: A study of classroom
interaction and language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press.
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Mass.: Blackwell
Publishers Ltd.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
126
Ellis, A. P. J., Bell, B. S., Ployhart, R. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., and Iigen, D. R. (2005).
An evaluation of generic teamwork skills training with action teams: Effects on
cognitive and skill-based outcomes. Personnel Psychology. 58(3): 641-672.
ProQuest Educational Journals.
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=893329181&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientld=2840
3&RQT=309&VName=PQD. Online 26 May 2006.
Endlex Life Skills. (2006). How to solve problems: Constructive approaches to
improving problem-solving skills.
http://lifeskills.endlex.com/article/solving_problems.html. Online 25 September
2006.
Fekete, A. (1987). Enhancing students learning of generic skills. Sydney University.
http://www.cs.newcastle.edu.au/Seminars/2000/May16.html. Online 26 May
2006.
Finucane, P. M., Johnson, S. M., and Prideaux, D. J. (1998). Problem-based learning:
Its rationale and efficacy. The Medical Journal of Australia.
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/may4/finucane/finucane.html. Online 26
May 2006.
Fogarty, R. (1997). Problem-based Learning and Other Curriculum Models for the
Multiple Intelligences Classroom. Illinois: Arlington Heights.
Gavriel, S. (Ed.). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational
considerations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gleason, J.B.(1997). The development of language fourth edition. MA: Macmillan
Publishing Company.
Gordon, R. (1998). Balancing real-world problems with real-world results.
http://www2.imsa.edu/programs/pbln/articles/balance.pdf. Online 24 April 2006.
Hildebrandt, H. W. (1996). Effective business communication for Asian managers.
Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
127
Hmelo, C. E., and Evensen, D. H. (2000). Problem-based learning: Gaining insights
on learning interactions through multiple methods of inquiry. In R. Murray-
Harvey, D. D. Curtis, G. Cattley, and P. T. Slee. (2004). Enhancing learners’
generic skills through problem-based learning. Paper prepared for the annual
conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Melbourne,
Australia.
http://www.aare.edu.au/04pap/mur04286.pdf#search=’Problem%20based%20lea
rning%20Enhancing%20generic%20skills’. Online 27 May 2006.
Huey, D. (2001). The potential utility of problem-based learning in the education of
clinical psychologists and others. Education for Health. 14(1): 11-19.
Jonassen, D. (Ed.). Handbook of research in education, communication, and
technology. New York: Macmillan.
Krashen, S. & Terrell D.T. (1983). The natural approach language acquisition in the
classroom. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. (1987). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. N.J.:
Prentice Hall International.
Kennedy, M. (2001). Teaching communication skills to medical students:
Unexpected attitudes and outcomes. Teaching in Higher Educatio. 6(1): 119-123.
Lam, D. (2004). Problem-based learning: An integration of theory and field. Journal
of Social Work Education. 40(3): 371-90. ProQuest Educational Journals.
http://proquest.umi.com/pqbweb?index=258&did=884357201&sid=1Fmt=4&cli
entld=28403&RQT=309&VName=PQD. Online 9 May 2006.
Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral
participation. Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press.
Lawrence, N. R., and Tebeaux, E. (1982). Writing communications in business and
industry. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Lenneberg, E. (1962). Understanding language without the ability to speak: A case
report. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 65: 419-425.
128
Levine, A. (2001). Maricopa Centre for Learning and Instruction.
http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/pbl/ubuytutor/pbl_eval.html. Online 20 June
2006.
Lightbown, P., and Spada, N. (1993). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Littlewood, W. (1984). Foreign and second language learning language acquisition
research and its implications for the classroom. UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Lohman, M. C., and Finkelstein, M. (2000) Designing groups in problem-based
learning to promote problem-solving skill and self-directedness. Instructional
Science. 28(4: 291-307.
Long, M. (1980). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. University of
California at Los Angeles: Ph.D. Dissertation. Unpublished.
Macquarie University. (2001). Graduate attributes and generic skills (Macquarie
University). EAP Research generic skills.
http://www.ling.mq.edu.au/ling/programs/eap/generic.html. Online 26 May 2006.
Mardziah, H. A. (1998). Problem-based learning in language instruction: A
constructivist method. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading,
English, and Communication Digest #132. (ERIC Digest EDO-CS-98-5)
http://www.indiana.edu/~reading/ieo/digests/d132.html. Online 24 April 2006.
Mayo, W. P., Donnelly, M. B., Nash, P. P., and Schwartz, R. W. (1993). Student
perceptions of tutor effectiveness in a problem-based surgery clerkship. Teaching
and Learning in Medicine. 5(4): 227-33.
Mayo, W. P., Donnelly, M. B., Nash, P. P., and Schwartz, R. W. (1995).
Characteristics of the ideal problem-based learning tutor in clinical medicine.
Evaluation and the Health Professions 18(2): 124-136.
Mierson, S. (1995). A students-centered model of PBL. ABOUT TEACHING. 47.
http://www.udel.edu/pbl/cte/jan95-bisc.html. Online 26 May 2006.
Mohd. Najib A. G. (2003). Reka bentuk tinjauan soal selidik pendidikan. Johor:
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
129
Montgomery, D., Bull, K. S., and Kimball, S. (1999). Case and problem based
learning processes. OK: Oklahoma State University.
http:///www.home.okstate.edu/hompages.nsf/toc/EDU C591 Oiep19. Online 24
April 2006.
Murray-Harvey, R., Curtis, D. D., Cattley, G., and Slee, P. T. (2004). Enhancing
learners’ generic skills through problem-based learning. Paper prepared for the
annual conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education,
Melbourne, Australia.
http://www.aare.edu.au/04pap/mur04286.pdf#search=’Problem%20based%20lea
rning%20Enhancing%20generic%20skills’. Online 27 May 2006.
Norman, G. R., and Schmidt, H. G. (1992). The psychological basis of problem-
based learning: A review of the evidence. Acad. Med. 67(9): 557-65.
Oliver, R., and McLoughlin, C. (2001). Exploring the practice and development of
generic skills through web-based learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia
and Hypermedia 10(3): 207-226.
http://elrond.scam.ecu.edu.au/oliver/2001/jemh.pdf. Online 17 May 2006.
Peterson, M. (1997). Skills to enhance problem-based learning. http://www.med-ed-
online.org/f0000009.htm. Online 26 May 2006.
Pica, T. (1990). The textual outcomes of NS-NNS negotiation: What do they reveal
about second language learning? Paper given at Conference on Text and
Context: Cross-Disiplinary and Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Language Study.
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Pica, T., Doughty, C., and Young, R. (1986). Making input comprehensible: Do
interactional modifications help? ITL Review of Applied Linguistics. 72: 1-25.
Ronis, D. (2001). PBL for Math and Science: Integrating inquiry and the Internet.
Ill: Skylight Professional Development.
Salomon, G. (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational
considerations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sadtono, E. (ed.). (1991). Language acquisition and the second/foreign language
classroom. Singapore. RELC.
130
Savery, J. R., and Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional
model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology. 35(5): 31-7.
Short, K. G., Harste, J., and Burke, C. (1996). Creating classrooms for authors and
inquiries (2nd
edition). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Tan, O. S. (2003). Problem-based learning innovation: Using problems to power
learning in the 21st century. Singapore: Thomson Learning.
Wainwright, G. (1994). Tricky business letters. London: Pitman Publishing.
Watson, J. (1924). Behaviourism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. In J.B.
Gleason. (1997). The development of language fourth edition. MA: Macmillan
Publishing Company.
Wee, R., Sim, J., and Jingut, R. J. (2003). The reading habits of first-semester
diploma UiTM students in Sarawak campus. Bureau of Research and
Consultancy, Sarawak: UiTM.
Whitethurst, G. and Zimmerman, B. (1979). (Eds.). The functions of language and
cognition. New York: Academic Press.
Wood, A., and Head, M. (2004). ‘Just what the doctor ordered’: The application of
problem-based learning to EAP. English for Specific Purposes. 23(2004): 3-17.
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/esp.
Wood, D. F. (2003). ABC of learning and teaching in medicine: Problem-based
learning. BMJ Clinical Review. 326.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/326/7384/328.pdf . Online 17 May 2006.
Wright, L. (n.d.). Integrating generic skills into the curriculum.
http://cedir.uow.edu.au/CEDIR/overview/overview4n2/Wright.pdf#search=’gene
ric%20skills’. Online 27 May 2006.
Zhonglei, M. (2004). A problem-based learning course for fostering generic skills.
The China Papers. July.
http://www.science.uniserve.edu.au/pubs/china/vol3/CP3_P2.pdf. Online 17
May 2006.
131
Zimmerman, B., and Whitehurst, G. (1979). Structure and function: A comparison of
two views of the development of language and cognition. In G. Whitethurst and
B. Zimmerman (Eds.). (1979). The functions of language and cognition. New
York: Academic Press.
132
Dear Respondent,
The purpose of this questionnaire is to collect information pertaining to the use of
Problem-based learning in the English for Occupational Purposes classroom. Your responses
will be treated as confidential and will be used for the purpose of this survey only.
Your cooperation in completing this questionnaire is very much appreciated.
For Office UseThe Use of Problem-based Learning in an English for Occupational
Purposes Classroom Among Final Semester Students of Diploma in
Office Management and Technology
Questionnaire No. : A1
Please complete this questionnaire by ticking the relevant box(es) √
and providing the relevant information.
Demography
1. Age:
Below 20 years 1
21-22 years 2
23-24 years 3
25 years and above 4 B1
2. Race:
Malay 1
Iban 2
Melanau 3
Bidayuh 4
Kadazan 5
Bajau 6
Lun Bawang 7
Others 8 B2
(Please specify)
3. Gender:
Male 1
Female 2 B3
4. Hometown: Town
State
5. Please write down the name of your school:
Lower Secondary (Forms 1-3)
Upper Secondary (Forms 4-5)
Form Six (if applicable)
QUESTIONNAIRE
APPENDIX A
133
For Office Use
6. Academic Qualification:
SPM 1 B4
STPM 2 B5
Others (Please specify): 3 B6
7. Present semester:
Semester 5 1
Semester 6 2
Semester 7 3 B7
8. Have you failed any subjects before?
Yes 1
No 2 B8
If No, please proceed to question 10.
9. What subject (s) did you fail?
10. Current CGPA :
3.50 - 4.00 1
3.00 - 3.49 2
2.50 - 2.99 3
2.00 - 2.49 4
Below 2.00 5 B9
11. Where do you stay?
In the hostel 1
Outside UiTM 2 B10
12. Where did you do your practical training?
13. How long was your practical training?
14. Which section were you attached with?
15. Source of Financial Support:
PTPTN 1
MARA 2
Parents 3
Others (Please specify): 4 B11
134
For Office Use
16. Father's Occupation:
Government Employee 1
Private Sector Employee 2
Businessman 3
Self-employed 4
Others (Please specify): 5 B12
17. Mother's Occupation:
Government Employee 1
Private Sector Employee 2
Businesswoman 3
Self-employed 4
Others (Please specify): 5 B13
18. Father's Monthly Income:
Below RM500 1
RM500 to less than RM1500 2
RM1500 to less than RM2500 3
RM2500 to less than RM3500 4
RM3500 to less than RM4500 5
RM4500 and above 6 B14
19. Mother's Monthly Income:
Nil (no income) 1
Below RM500 2
RM500 to less than RM1500 3
RM1500 to less than RM2500 4
RM2500 to less than RM3500 5
RM3500 to less than RM4500 6
RM4500 and above 7 B15
20. Father's Academic Qualification:
No formal education 1
Primary school 2
Secondary 3
Diploma 4
Bachelor 5
Others (Please specify): 6 B16
21. Mother's Academic Qualification:
No formal education 1
Primary school 2
Secondary 3
Diploma 4
Bachelor 5
Others (Please specify): 6 B17
22. Number of brothers and sisters (excluding yourself):
Source: Adapted from Wee, Sim and Jingut. (2003). The reading habits of first semester UiTM
students in Sarawak campus . Bureau of Research and Consultancy. Sarawak: UiTM
135
Written Essay
Name of Student: _____________________________
Describe yourself.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX B
136
Checklist of Generic Skills
Use the scale below to rank your skills.
Very Poor Poor Average Good Excellent
1 2 3 4 5
Interpersonal Skills Types of Interpersonal Skills
(a) Interact with others aaa
(b) Understand others aaa
(c) Communicate effectively both verbally and non-verbally aaa
(d) Listen to others aaa
(e) Negotiate and solve conflicts aaa
(f) Cooperative aaa
(g) Support outcomes aaa
(h) Respect thoughts and opinions of group members aaa
Self-Management Skills Types of Self-Management Skills
(a) Understand ethics and implications of decisions aaa
(b) Positive attitude aaa
(c) Responsibility and accountability aaa
(d) Work independently without/with supervision aaa
(e) Work as a team aaa
(f) Multi-tasking aaa
(g) Innovative and resourceful aaa
(h) Positive towards change aaa
(i) Learn from mistakes and open to feedback aaa
(j) Eager to learn more and improve aaa
(k) Self-esteem and confident aaa
(l) Honest and transparent aaa
(m) Recognise and respect individual difference aaa
(n) Punctual aaa
(o) Follow instructions aaa
(p) Handle stress aaa
(q) Personal grooming aaa
APPENDIX C APPENDIX C
137
Communication Skills Types of Communication Skills
(a) Understand information presented in various forms aaa
(b) Speak so others pay attention and understand aaa
(c) Listen and ask question to understand others’ view points aaa
(d) Speak and understand the language used to conduct business aaa
(e) Write effectively in language used to conduct business aaa
Problem-Solving Skills Types of Problem-Solving Skills
(a) Assess situations and identify problems aaa
(b) Seek different opinions and evaluate them based on facts aaa
(c) Recognise human and interpersonal dimension of a problem aaa
(d) Identify the root cause of a problem aaa
(e) Creative and innovative in exploring possible solutions aaa
(f) Ready to use science and technology as ways to think, gain
and share knowledge, solve problems and make decisions aaa
(g) Evaluate solutions to make decisions aaa
(h) Implement solutions aaa
(i) Check to see if a solution works aaa
(j) Act on opportunities for improvement aaa
Source: Adapted from Achan, Philip and Gunjew. (2006). Generic Skills for the
Workplace: A Study of Graduating Students at UiTM Sarawak. Bureau of
Research and Consultancy. Sarawak: UiTM.
138
Pretest
You have received the following letter of complaint from a tenant renting an office
suite from your company. Write a suitable reply to the letter in not more than 250
words.
Perdana Tours Sdn Bhd
Meadow Suites
Block A #21 -1
Jalan Masahor
93350 KUCHING
Your ref: PTSB 36/7/06
Our ref: SSSB 9/3/06
20 July 2006
The Manager
Service Suites Sdn Bhd
16th
Floor Merriot Tower
94550 KUCHING
Dear Sir
Roof Leakage
We have been the tenant of your office suite for several years. We are happy to say
that we had no complaints with the maintenance of the premises until recently.
We regret, however, to mention that we did not receive any action on your part when
we informed you of the discovery of the water leakage in the ceiling of the managing
director’s room. Rainwater was found leaking into the room when it was raining
heavily last week. The carpet and sofa were damaged. A report was made
immediately the following day but until today no repairs have been made. Our
managing director who is away, will return next week and it is therefore important
that the problem be attended to immediately.
We appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
Yours faithfully
Cecily Si
Executive Manager
APPENDIX D
139
Poorly-Structured Problem
You work for an organisation that is facing a major restructuring and in line
with this move, the management decides on implementing new programmes geared
towards increasing the quality of its products. However, many of its employees
especially those from the Production Department are unhappy with this move
because they think that they are already good and are producing products which are
of high quality. They do not see the need for any new programmes and they
certainly believe that the management must have some other reasons such as earning
more profit through the implementation of these quality programmes. This has
affected their work performance resulting in the organisation receiving numerous
complaints on the quality of their products. One particular complainant is the
organisation’s major international buyer who has claimed that their last consignment
of goods was of inferior quality. They have threatened to terminate all their orders if
the quality of the products continues to be not up to expectations.
APPENDIX E
140
Checklist of Observation
Name of Respondent Observed:__________________________
Section A (General improvements observed)
1. Language(s) used when communicating with his/her group members.
2. Effectiveness:
(a) Is the respondent able to use the language effectively in helping his/her
group members understand him/her?
(b) Does the respondent at any occasion face any difficulties in using the
language effectively?
Section B (Significant improvements observed)
Language used orally (e.g. grammar, expressions, vocabulary)
APPENDIX F
141
Scaffolds 1
Defining the Problem
(a) What is meant by the Problem?
(b) What do you know about the Problem presented?
(c) What do you not know?
(d) What to look up for?
(e) What do you need to know?
(f) Do you have any idea about these terms?
Summarise the Problem
(a) Can you paraphrase the problem statement?
(b) Describe in your own words what is required of you?
(c) Describe how you would approach this Problem?
Analyse the Problem
(a) What is the Problem asking for?
(b) Do you have enough information?
(c) What is your next step?
(d) Have you considered all possibilities?
(e) What are your objectives? What do you hope to achieve?
Source: Adapted from Fogarty, R. (1997). Problem-based learning and other
curriculum models for the multiple intelligences classroom. Illinois: Arlington
Heights.
APPENDIX G
142
Problem Log 1
1. What is our Problem?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
2. List some questions we need to answer in order to better understand the
Problem (for example: question, action, resources).
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
APPENDIX H
143
3. Gather the facts about the Problem.
What we know What we need to know What we need to do
144
4. Summarise the Problem.
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
5. In order to solve this Problem, what are the skills or attitudes we need?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
6. Suggest some possible ways to solve the Problem.
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Source: Adapted from Fogarty, R. (1997). Problem-based learning and other
curriculum models for the multiple intelligences classroom. Illinois: Arlington
Heights.
145
Self-Evaluation Form 1
Name of Respondent :___________________________________
Dear Respondent, based on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree),
please rate yourself as objectively as possible by circling the appropriate number.
1. I have been responsible in completing the tasks assigned to me.
Strongly Disagree Does not agree Agree Strongly
disagree nor disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
2. I have the knowledge to accomplish my tasks successfully.
Strongly Disagree Does not agree Agree Strongly
disagree nor disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
3. I communicate my ideas to my group members successfully.
Strongly Disagree Does not agree Agree Strongly
disagree nor disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
4. I participate actively in the group discussions.
Strongly Disagree Does not agree Agree Strongly
disagree nor disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
APPENDIX I
146
5. I am able to provide constructive criticisms.
Strongly Disagree Does not agree Agree Strongly
disagree nor disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
6. I am an asset to my group.
Strongly Disagree Does not agree Agree Strongly
disagree nor disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
7. My opinions are well received by the other group members.
Strongly Disagree Does not agree Agree Strongly
disagree nor disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
147
Group Evaluation 1
Name of Respondent :___________________________________
1. How did you and your group members approach the work involved in this
project?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
2. Do you think you and your group members did equal amount of work? Please
elaborate.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
3. What did you gain from working in a group?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
4. What were the disadvantages of working in a group?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
5. If you had to grade your effort in this project, what would it be? Explain.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX J
148
6. If you had to grade your group members’ effort in this project, what would it be?
Explain.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
7. If given a choice, would you want to work with the same group members again?
Explain.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Source: Adapted from Levine, A. (2001). Maricopa centre for learning and
instruction. http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/pbl/ubuytutor/pbl_eval.html. Online
20 June 2006.
149
Scaffolds 2
Searching for Information
(a) What have we understood?
(b) How do we find relevant information?
(c) What keywords or phrases would most probably be helpful in our search for
information?
(d) How do we decide if our information is relevant and important?
Source: Adapted from Fogarty, R. (1997). Problem-based learning and other
curriculum models for the multiple intelligences classroom. Illinois: Arlington
Heights.
APPENDIX K
150
Problem Log 2
1. Rephrase the Problem.
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
2. What keywords or phrases would most probably be helpful in our search for
information?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
3. Type of information to look out for.
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
4. Record our sources of information.
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
5. How do we decide if our information is relevant and important?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Source: Adapted from Fogarty, R. (1997). Problem-based learning and other
curriculum models for the multiple intelligences classroom. Illinois: Arlington
Heights.
APPENDIX L
151
Scaffolds 3
Refining Process of Building Solutions
(a) How can we show that we have understood the Problem correctly?
(b) What are some possible and preferable solutions?
(c) Choose a solution.
(d) How do we know this is the best proposal?
(e) What are our strategies?
(f) What are the consequences?
(g) How can we make our proposal clear and easy to understand?
(h) How can we show that we have been fair in our proposal?
Source: Adapted from Fogarty, R. (1997). Problem-based learning and other
curriculum models for the multiple intelligences classroom. Illinois: Arlington
Heights.
APPENDIX M
152
Problem Log 3
1. How can we show that we have understood the Problem correctly?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
2. What are some possible and preferable solutions?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
3. Choose a solution.
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
4. How do we know this is the best proposal?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
5. What are our strategies?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
6. What are the consequences?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
APPENDIX N
153
7. How can we make our proposal clear and easy to understand?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
8. How can we show that we have been fair in our proposal?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Source: Adapted from Fogarty, R. (1997). Problem-based learning and other
curriculum models for the multiple intelligences classroom. Illinois: Arlington
Heights.
154
Scaffolds 4
Propose and Present Solutions
(a) Are there any more changes to be made? Please elaborate.
(b) Are there any follow-up activities we would like to propose?
(c) What are the key issues we have learnt?
(d) If we were to do it again, would we solve the Problem differently?
Source: Adapted from Fogarty, R. (1997). Problem-based learning and other
curriculum models for the multiple intelligences classroom. Illinois: Arlington
Heights.
APPENDIX O
155
Problem Log 4
1. Are there any more changes to be made to the proposal? Please elaborate.
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
2. Are there any follow-up activities we would like to propose?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
3. What are the key issues we have learnt?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
4. If we were to do it again, would we solve the Problem differently?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Source: Adapted from Fogarty, R. (1997). Problem-based learning and other
curriculum models for the multiple intelligences classroom. Illinois: Arlington
Heights.
APPENDIX P
156
Assessment of Oral Presentation
Assessment of Oral Presentation
Name of Respondent Assessed:__________________________
Criteria Marks
LANGUAGE (10 marks) (a) Grammar Accurate (4 marks) (b) Expression Clear (2 marks) (c) Vocabulary Appropriate (2 marks) (d) Linkers Appropriate (2 marks)
Sub-total
CONTENT (4 marks) (a) Main Ideas and Supporting Details Clear (2 marks) (b) Introduction and Conclusion Well-organised (2 marks)
Sub-total
DELIVERY (2 marks)
(a) Voice Audible (1 mark)
(b) Non-verbal Communication Appropriate (1 mark)
Sub-total
VISUALS (2 marks)
(a) Appropriate (1 mark) (b) Effective/Well-designed (1 mark)
Sub-total
Total
APPENDIX Q
157
Group Evaluation 2
Name of Respondent :___________________________________
Use the rating scale below to rate each of your group members.
Very Poor Poor Average Good Excellent
1 2 3 4 5
1. Name of group member: __________________ Rating: ________
Comments:
2. Name of group member: __________________ Rating: ________
Comments:
3. Name of group member: __________________ Rating: ________
Comments:
4. Name of group member: __________________ Rating: ________
Comments:
Source: Adapted from Ahlfeldt, S. L. (2004). Problem-based learning in the public
speaking classroom. North Dakota State University: Ph.D. Dissertation. ProQuest
Educational Journals.
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=765271701&sid=1&Fmt=2&clientld=28403
&RQT=309&VName=PQD. Online 9 May 2006.
APPENDIX R
158
Poorly-Structured Problem Evaluation Form
Name of Respondent :___________________________________
Dear Respondent, based on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree),
please rate the Problem as objectively as possible by circling the appropriate number.
1. The task is difficult.
Strongly Disagree Does not agree Agree Strongly
disagree nor disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
2. The Problem has many solutions.
Strongly Disagree Does not agree Agree Strongly
disagree nor disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
3. It is important to be interested in the Problem in order to produce the best
solutions.
Strongly Disagree Does not agree Agree Strongly
disagree nor disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
4. It is important to cooperation with each other in order to solve the Problem.
Strongly Disagree Does not agree Agree Strongly
disagree nor disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
APPENDIX S
159
5. It is important to have prior knowledge in order to determine the success of
the project.
Strongly Disagree Does not agree Agree Strongly
disagree nor disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
6. There is freedom for us to make our own decisions.
Strongly Disagree Does not agree Agree Strongly
disagree nor disagree agree
1 2 3 4 5
Source: Adapted from Ahlfeldt, S. L. (2004). Problem-based learning in the public
speaking classroom. North Dakota State University: Ph.D. Dissertation. ProQuest
Educational Journals.
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=765271701&sid=1&Fmt=2&clientld=28403
&RQT=309&VName=PQD. Online 9 May 2006.
160
Self-Evaluation Form 2
Name of Respondent :___________________________________
1. What have I learnt as a result of my participation in this problem-solving project?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
2. What skills and attitudes did I bring to the investigation of this Problem?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
3. What skills have I learnt or improved upon?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
4. What aspects of this project do I think are important to keep?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
5. How would I improve this project?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
APPENDIX T
161
6. What have I learnt about working with others to solve Problems?
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
7. How is the world different now that I have worked together with others?
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
8. Would I recommend this method of learning to my friends?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
9. Some comments I would like to add.
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Source: Adapted from Levine, A. (2001). Maricopa centre for learning and
instruction. http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/pbl/ubuytutor/pbl_eval.html. Online
20 June 2006.
162
Posttest
You have received the following letter of complaint from your client. Write a
suitable reply to the letter in not more than 250 words.
Kent College
3 Jalan Tuaran
89207 TUARAN
Sabah
Your ref: KEC/9/J/06
Our ref: MSFD/52/7/06
27 July 2006
M.S. Furnishing & Design
657 2nd
Floor
Karamunsing Complex
88800 KOTA KINABALU
Sabah
Dear Sirs
Supply of Curtains
We are writing in connection with our latest purchase of curtains for our lobby
received at our college on 10 July 2006.
We regret to inform you that we have not received any action on your part when we
informed you that the curtains delivered to our office were not according to our
specifications. The colour should be green and not pale blue, and besides, they were
too short. Upon further inspection, we also discovered that the quality differed from
the sample you showed us at your showroom. We will be having our Open Day next
week and we hope you will attend to the matter immediately.
We appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
Yours faithfully
Margaret Chow
Secretary
APPENDIX U
163
Poorly-Structured Problem Reply Letter
APPENDIX V