metode deduktif dan induktif dalam pengajaran ... - Pasca Unhas

METODE DEDUKTIF DAN INDUKTIF DALAM PENGAJARAN KONSTRUKSI BAHASA INGGRIS PASIF DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE METHODS IN TEACHING PASSIVE ENGLISH CONSTRUCTION (A Study at STKIP YPUP Makassar)

Risma Asriany A. G, Burhanuddin Arafah, Abd. Hakim Yassi Fakultas Ilmu Budaya, Universitas Hasanuddin Makassar,

Alamat Korespondensi: Risma Asriany A. G Jl. Sunu Kompleks Unhas Baraya Blok AX.10 Telp.: +62411432820; HP: +6285656686001 E-mail: [email protected]

1

Abstrak Diketahui bahwa tiap-tiap mahasiswa memiliki kemampuan yang berbeda-beda, ada beberapa mahasiswa yang baik dalam bahasa Inggris dan ada pula beberapa dari mereka yang kurang. Penelitian ini bertujuan mengidentifikasi bagaimana metode deduktif dan induktif berpengaruh dalam hal peningkatan kemampuan berbahasa Inggris mahasiswa semester enam STKIP YPUP, Sulawesi Selatan. Metode yang digunakan pada penelitian ini adalah metode campuran dimana menggabungkan teknik pengumpulan data secara qualitative dan quantitative pada satu studi/penelitian. Data diperoleh melalui angket, observasi dan wawancara. Selain itu juga diperoleh dari hasil nilai pre test dan post test mahasiswa. Angket tersebut dibagikan kepada 40 mahasiswa dari kelas kontrol dan 40 mahasiswa dari kelas eksperimental. Data dari angket lalu dianalisis dan diinterpretasi melalui program SPSS 18.0. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa semua mahasiswa yang diajarkan dengan menggunakan metode deduktif memiliki performa yang baik dan membuat mereka termotivasi dalam pengerjaan soal. Hal ini berbeda dengan mahasiswa yang diajarkan menggunakan metode induktif. Perbandingan ini bisa terlihat dari nilai akademik mahasiswa setelah kedua metode ini diaplikasikan. Dibuktikan bahwa berdasarkan teori statistik, jika nilai t-count > t-tabel maka Ho di tolak. Dalam hal ini, nilai t-tabel = 2.021 < t-count -25.759, maka H1 berterima yang berarti bahwa terdapat perbedaan yang signifikan antara nilai sebelum dan sesudah menggunakan metode deduktif. Kesimpulannya bahwa metode deduktif ini lebih efektif bagi mahasiswa STKIP YPUP untuk meningkatkan pengetahuan tentang tata bahasa khususnya konstruksi bahasa inggris pasif.

Kata kunci: Metode deduktif, metode induktif, metode campuran

Abstract Having known that the students came from different ability, some of the students are good in English and some of them are lack of English. This research aimed to identify how deductive and inductive methods have in relation to achieve English proficiency of the sixth semester students of STKIP YPUP, South Sulawesi. The mix method was used by the researcher in this study. The data was obtained through questionnaires, observation and interview. In the other hand, the data was obtained through learners’ score from pre test and post test of previous study. The questionnaire was administered to 40 students from control class and experimental classs. The data from questionnaire were analyzed and interpreted by means of SPSS 18.0. The result shows that the students who were treated to deductive method performed better and has a possitive effect on the improvement of student’s proficiency in learning English. This is different with the students who were treated to inductive method. The comparison can be seen from the achievement result after both methods were applied. It is proved that based on the statistic theory, if t-count > t-table then Ho is rejected. In this case, the t-table = 2.021 < t-count -25.759, so H1 is accepted which means there is significant difference on grammar improvement between the test scores before and after using deductive method. The conclusion is that the students of STKIP YPUP who learnt grammar through the deductive method is more effective to improve their knowledge on English grammar especially English Passive Construction. Keywords: Deductive method, inductive method, mix method.

2

INTRODUCTION It cannot be denied that English grammar can be a complicated subject especially for those people who learn English as a foreign language. In addition, there is a linguistic knowledge in English which consists of the ability to analyze and recognize the structural features and components in the language itself. Considering these facts, It can be said that it is probably impossible to communicate in a foreign language without knowing the grammatical rules/structures of the target language. But the question of whether grammar should be thought or not, still remain debating in the fields of second language acquisition and language pedagogy. Some people said that it would not be a problem as long as the meaning of our utterance is acceptable/understandable by hearer, Because grammar or structure not only focus on form itself but mostly focus on meaning also and it cannot be separated from the context as well. Krashen in Mohamed (2004) stated that grammar is acquired naturally if learners are exposed to sufficient comprehensible input, and it doesn’t need to be taught. Conversely, different researchers argued that grammar in different ways. They think that grammar should be taught. For example, Larsen-Freeman in Mohamed (2004) stated that instruction is necessary, as some grammatical forms cannot be acquired simply through exposure alone. In addition, even if grammar is acquired naturally, it does not necessarily follow that should not be thought because through instruction it will enhance the acquisition of grammar and help speed up the process. In the relation with their statements, Zhou (2008) points out that a native speaker of English without formal grammar training can speak well-formed English sentences and can make grammatical judgments about English sentences, but he or she may not be able to give a conscious explanation of why a given sentence is grammatical or ungrammatical. This could be a problem for some teachers if they cannot explain those answers. If this is happened in the class we can imagine the attitude or reaction of students against this subject if they cannot understand it yet. Thus, grammar training is needed eventhough she or he has already acquired subconscious knowledge of English grammar (Zhou, 2008). Therefore, the techniques and principles should be comprehend and applied at once by teachers through training (Larsen, 2000). Considering such conditions, there are several considerations in choosing Chomsky’s The language faculty and Chomsky’s Grammatical Competence as the

3

fundamental theory behind this research. It is said that the language faculty is a postulated mental organ which is dedicated to acquiring linguistic knowledge and is involved in various aspects of language use including the production and understanding of utterances (Chomsky in Craig,1998). Meanwhile, the Grammatical Competence according to Chomsky is the ability to use the forms of the language whether it is sounds, words and sentence structure and also the ability to recognize and produce the distinctive grammatical structures of a language and to use them effectively in communication. In relation to the statement, it can be implied that his idea about the language faculty and grammar competence are likely to lead to think to be more cognitive. Therefore, what is in our mind will be expressed through language. He believes that language is a reflection/mirror of our mind. In real world, as long as the hearer understands what we are talking about and put aside ungrammatical sounds it would not be a problem. Vice versa, In academic world especially in academic writing for a thesis, We cannot write offhand but must follow the rules scientifically. But the problem is that everyone has no same/different competence in grammar to build up well-formed sentences and make correct grammatical judgements. Consequently, this also leads some people do not like the grammar subject. In order to make grammar to be one of the “enjoyable subject” for students and release themselves to years of boredom in the mistaken belief that grammar study is a necessary evil, evaluation should be done for all aspects relate to this subject, for example: preparing the materials (tasks) or ways of teaching method in the classroom, etc. The writer thought that it is important to consider all of them because automatically it would impact on the teaching and learning process in the classroom. Dudley Evans et.all (1998) stated that the materials/ tasks should stimulate and motivate, materials/tasks need to be challenging yet achievable, encourage, fun and creativity. It means that the materials/tasks in grammar classroom should be interactive and a trigger for students to elaborate their idea or creativity. In case of teaching, since teacher will apply different methods when they teach their students, method is one of the indicator that is very important to be considered . We can say that every teacher has its own unique way to teach their students. The successful and unsuccessful in transferring the linguistic knowledge depends on the way they teach in the classroom. In selection of teaching method, a teacher needs to consider students' background knowledge (level) and learning goals because each student has different strategies to disgest the knowledge of a new language. They have different ways

4

to absorb the information and to demonstrate their knowledge. As Harris (2003) stated that a variety of teaching strategies, a knowledge of student levels and an implementation of which strategies are best for particular students can help teachers to know which teaching methods will be most effective for students. That is why students’ success in the classroom is largely based on effective teaching methods and knowledge of language itself. There are many types of teaching methods, depending on what information or skill the teacher is trying to convey. Therefore, this research tries to investigate learner’s preferences in relation to the methods given which can be either deductive or inductive and aimed to provide a learner perspective of the effectiveness of such methods. By giving a deductive method means that the lesson begins by a presentation in which the teacher introduces the concept to be taught directly. In the other hand, presenting a clear explanation and having practice the rule should be done till the rule is “internalized” (Krashen,1987). In here, the teacher gives the rule first and then data follows. While Inductive means the teacher gives the data first and rule follows. As Krashen (1987) said that the learner is given a corpus and has to discover the regularities. Meanwhile, through inductive method, the learners will apply their analogical thinking to grasp the idea/clue of the rule itself. The most important contribution is its insistence that both deductive and inductive methods are learning oriented. Teaching through deductive method is still popular to be used. Even in the university, some lecturers still use the traditional method where a grammatical rule is first presented straightly and examples applying the rule will follow. While teaching through inductive is still rarely to be used where students start with specific observations and then patterns. This research is very interesting to know how to get the learners to learn best through these methods. Another one is about the previous research findings mention that inductive method is more effective than deductive method to teach grammar because the students are more active in learning. It means that inductive method is more effective than deductive method. Al-Khaerat (2000) through his research found that Deductive and Inductive Lessons for Saudy EFL Freshmen Students has encouraged students to hypothesize, compare, construct and generate the language. In addition, Al-Khaerat also stated that an inductive method involves students more in an analytical study of the language than the deductive method does. Al-Khaerat also emphasizes that the deductive method, on the

5

other hand, is less open-ended than the inductive method and consequently, it will decrease students’ motivation in learning or might lose their interest. This is parallel to what Merla (2010) conducted her research in “The Use of Inductive Method in Teaching English Grammar: A Quasi Experimental Study which was indicated that inductive method has a positive effect on the improvement of student’s proficiency in learning English. Her research also showed that the inductive method is the effective method in teaching grammar. Vise versa, Marwaha (2009) through his research about inductive and deductive teaching methods stated that inductive method is spent lots of time due to slowness but this method is regarded most suitable to encourage students to explore new things. Meanwhile, deductive method is a process particularly suitable for a final statement, build the principle and application from language rules. According to Faizah (1997) although there are numerous studies comparing and contrasting these two method, none of these studies can consistently prove that one method is more effective than the other. This can be implied that it would be better if we combined both methods to be applied in the classroom. From the explanation above, the researcher aimed to investigate and compare whether English passive construction (passive voice) can be applied successfully by using deductive and inductive methods which have positive effects on the academic achievement of the students later, especially for students who have entered the construction stage of thesis works because it is an important grammatical structure that is used in writing, reading and also speaking skills. It is said that students who are not aware of the passive construction can actually misinterpret and misunderstand important information (Brown, 2002). INSTRUMENT AND METHOD OF RESEARCH Research Location and Design The research design used in this study is comparative research which is intended to make comparisons two or more things with a view to reveal something about one or all of the things being compared. Since the researcher intended to give treatment to the sample of this research, the researcher will compare the samples of the research into two groups namely experimental and control group. The sample of the students in experimental group received the treatment called Inductive Method while the control group will receive treatment called Deductive Method. This research is a mixed method, which combined 6

both qualitative and quantitative approaches in a single study in order to be more completely and deeply (Migiro et al.,2010). This research was conducted at the STKIP YPUP, South-Sulawesi. Population and Sample The population of this research is 160 students of sixth semester students of English Department of STKIP YPUP for academic year 2011/2012. In this case, the writer purposively took one class as the control group which consists of 40 students and one class as the experimental group which also consists of 40 students out of 160 students as samples of the study became representatives of a given population. Data Collection Three instruments used are Test (pre test and post test), Questionnaire, and Interview. In obtaining data through Test, the pre test was given to 40 students with the same test in order to get the data of prior knowledge of students before the treatment while post test was given to the samples after they have got the treatment. The questionnaire was distributed by the researcher to the students during their normal class sessions. Before conducting the interview, the subjects were briefed on the aims and procedures of the interview sessions, to ensure better and valid results, the interviewees were informed that their answers would be treated with complete confidentiality. Data Analysis The researcher was analyzed the data from both experimental group and control group by using the qualitative and quantitative methods. The quantitative data obtained from pre-test and post-test were analyzed on computer by using SPSS 18.0 (Statistical Package for Service Solution) software program. The qualitative data obtained from the questionnaire was presented in the form of frequency table and used the tabulation rate percentage technique to measure the students’ interest result, after that its result was analyzed qualitatively.

RESEARCH FINDINGS The researcher found that that grammar competence of the students improved after applying deductive method in learning grammar. The comparison can be easily seen on the table 1 and 2. The data analysis indicated that the mean score of the deductive method is much higher than that of the inductive method. It means that the students who learnt

7

grammar through the deductive method really had much more significant differences in their knowledge than did by the students who were taught through the uncommon regular lecture, in this case is inductive method. The result of hypothesis based on the statistic theory, if t-count > t-table, then Ho is rejected. In this case, the t-table = 2.021 < t-count 25.759, so H1 is accepted which means there is significant difference on grammar improvement between the test scores before and after using deductive method.

DISCUSSION This research revealed that both groups significantly increased their overall learning outcomes from the pre test to the post test, but in this case the deductive class scored significantly higher than the inductive class. It indicated also that deductive method positively affected the teaching of grammar. The students’ achievement and questionnaires toward the applied methods imply that two classes were initially at a similar proficiency level of grammar but the effects of instruction/ method given in both classes are different. The deductive class performed better than the inductive class, it is proven by the findings. This shows that there is improvement significantly from those who learned grammar through the deductive method than the students who were taught with inductive method. It might be implied here that most of students in deductive class feel that the method given was effective for them to absorp the instruction directly and triggers their motivation in getting them to engage in class activities than that of in inductive class. As what students stated in an interview session: “menurut saya ma’am,...ee...sebaiknya toh..dosen harus punya trik khusus untuk membuat kita mudah mengerti ...misalnya ..menerangkan dengan jelas dan selalu mengulang-ulang supaya kita juga bisa cepat ngerti” (MYN/I.c) “terus terang kak, susah-susah gampang...alokasi waktu juga yang diberikan kadang tidak cukup kak jika rasa ingin tahu masih berputar dikepala sedangkan waktu telah habis” (YSS/I.c) “.....sebaiknya tidak terlalu banyak membahas soal-soal dalam sekali pertemuan, cukup satu atau dua soal dulu agar kami tidak tambah bingung jawabnya” (MJP/I.c) “....kesulitannya belajar grammar karena banyak rumus yang harus kita hapal....nda ditauki kak ...tapi ini bagus mi kak karena cepatki ngerti pelajarannya....lucuki juga dosennya...hehehe...cara ngajarnya santai tapi jelas” (RS/D.c) “...kita baru mengerti kalau diberikan dulu penjelasan rumus passive nya ma’am....karena kalau langsung dikasih soal..bingungki cara jawabnya...dilupa-lupami ka banyak sekali” (OLIV/D.c).

Based on the students’ statement above and related to their overall learning outcomes obtained from the pre test to the post test, it can be implied here that the deductive method which students were given explanation by showing the rules first after that they were ready to cope with the exercises given is really preferred by the students 8

both in deductive class and in inductive class. Students admit that they can only learn grammar and make them motivate to find out the rules where the formula is given directly rather than indirectly. These implications are pictured in the interview above and in the analysis of the questionnaire in by saying that 100% or 40 of students admit that they are motivate in learning grammar when they are simply told a rule deductively. These facts will determine how significant their motivation to their language learning achievement. Likewise Hidi in Larsons (2008) shared the idea that the absence of academic motivation and lack of interest is also likely to be reflected in students’ neglect of their studies. It means that once students are interested in a particular subject, it will arise or trigger their motivation to learn it and will eventually be affect to their achievement. Conversely, if student does not have the interest to learn the subject, this student will not be motivated and lack the spirit to follow the lesson. Lifrieri in In Al-Tamimi et.al (2009), pointed out that “when asked about the factors which influence individual levels of success in any activity such as language learning, most people would certainly mention motivation among them”. This is in line with Gardner (2004) posited that students with higher levels of motivation will do better than students with lower levels. He further adds that “if one is motivated, he/he has reasons or motives for engaging in the relevant activities, expends effort, persists in the activities, attends to the tasks, shows desire to achieve the goal, enjoys the activities, etc. Based on the researcher’s observation both in the deductive class and inductive class, the researcher observe that the traditional method (deductive method) was still expected for the students in two treatment classes, eventhough in inductive class. It is proven by the mayority of students’ response gained from the questionnaire, the interview and the achievement test. It is assumed that the mayority of students are tend to be “spoonfeeding students” and tend to be a passive learner. Since English is taught as a foreign language, the cultural factors also contribute to bring the effect here when we were accustomed receive explicit instruction. The result, in this respect, supports the studies that have been researched previously by Erlam (2003) which showed that many learners actually prefer the deductive method as they want that the rules are explained to them and this is more effective for them. This might have something to do with the grammar teaching tradition that has mostly concentrated on explicit rule presentation and the learners have just got used to it.

9

Finally, by viewing the findings above, we cannot claim simply that the deductive method is better than the inductive method to be applied. Basically all methods are good, the one that make it not good is lies on some factors behind them such as the role of the teacher in the classroom.(Richard, 2001). It is more important for teachers to know what the most appropriate approach to teaching the language in that particular environment is and what activities are suitable for a given group of learners. Another factors are the level of the students as the subject of learning, the material or probably the condition of the class at that time. In addition, learning style of students also gave contribution to the lack of achievement (Mujtahid, 2011). Since every individual has different learning style to accept, to absorb or to understand, solving problem and practicing knowledge that he/ she got in different way. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION It is concluded that the traditional method that is deductive method was still more effective on L2 grammar learning than an inductive method. They also have strong interest in learning grammar when they are simply told a rule deductively. These facts will determine how significant their motivation to their language learning achievement. In this case, the researcher would like to suggest to English teachers of STKIP YPUP to select effective methods and techniques which encourage students to use grammatical rules effectively eventhough the traditional method is still effective to be applied in STKIP YPUP, but the teachers are expected to use mixed-method also to combine different method and technique as per students’ needs and condition. One thing that must be understood is that students have different way in absorbing and learning information and implement it. Knowing the students style and ability will help teachers to plan correct learning strategy, methods or learning material. The teacher also should remember that they perform many different functions. The roles of teacher here are as the motivator and facilitator to drag students develop awareness of learning goals.

10

BIBLIOGRAPHY Al-Khaerat, Mohammed Y. (2000). Deductive and Inductive Lessons for Saudy /.EFL Freshmen Students. The Internet TESL Journal Vol. VI. No.10. Retrieved from ttp://iteslj.org/Tecjniques /AlKharrat-Deductive. Access date : July 31, 2012. Al-Tamimi,Atef and Munir Shuib. (2009). Motivation and Attitude Towards Learning English: A Study of Petroleum Engineering Undergraduates At Hadhramout University of Sciences and Technology. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, Vol. 9(2) 2009. Brown, Tina. (2002). Active Voice Vs. Passive Voice. Retrieved August 10, 2012 from http://essayisay.homestead.com/passive.html. Craig, Edward. (I998). Routledge Encyclopediaof Philosophy : Noam Chomsky and Norbert Honstein. London. Dudley-Evans and Maggie Jo St. John. (1998). Developments in English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Erlam, R. (2003). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of direct object pronouns in French as a second language. Modern Language Journal, 87, 242-260. Gardner, R. C. (2004). Attitude/Motivation Test Battery: International AMTB Research Project. The University of Western Ontario, Canada. Harris, Brown. (2003). What are some Different Teaching Methods. Retrieved August 10, 2012, from http://www.wisegeek.com/teachmenth.htm. Ke, Zhou. (2008). An Inductive Approach to English Grammar Teaching. HKBU Papers in Applied Language Studies Vol.12. Krashen, S. (1987). Applications of psycholinguistic research to the classroom. Uppsala: Uppsala University. Larsen-Freeman, Diane. (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford University Press. Larson, J.E. (2008). In Cognition and Learning, Individual Differences and Motivation. Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Marwaha, Prabat. (2009). Inductive and Deductive Methods of Teaching. Mohamad, Faizah. (1997). An Inductive Approcah Vs A Deductive Approach in Teaching Grammar. University of Stirling Centre For English Language Teaching Mohamed, N. (2004). ELT Journal: Teaching Grammar through Consciousness Raising Task. Volume 58/1: January 2004. Oxford. Mujtahid. (2011). Gaya Belajar Siswa. http://www.uin-malang.ac.id.index.php Retrieved October 20, 2012. Richard, Jack C. (2001). Communicative Language Teaching Today. Cambridge University Press: USA S.O,Migiro and Magangi B.A. (2010). Mixed methods: A review of literature and the future of the new research paradigm. African Journal of Business ManagementVo.5 (10). http://www.academicjournals.org/ajbm/pdf/pdf2011.Retrieved November 4, 2012.

11

Table 1. Paired samples statistics Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 Pre test deductive

51.725

40

6.913

1.093

Post test deductive

75.850

40

6.249

.98810

Pair 2 Pre test inductive

48.300

40

5.765

.91161

Post test inductive

70.100

40

7.784

1.230

Table 2. Paired Samples Test Paired Samples Test Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval of the Std. Error Mean Pair 1

Std. Deviation

Pre-Test Deductive -

-

Post-Test Deductive

2.41250E

Mean

Difference Lower

Upper

t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

5.92339

.93657

-26.01939

-22.23061

-25.759

39

.000

6.71470

1.06169

-23.94746

-19.65254

-20.533

39

.000

1 Pair 2

Pre-Test Inductive - PostTest Inductive

2.18000E 1

12

Figure 3. Analysis of the questionnaire between Deductive and Inductive Methods 100% 90% 80% Percentage4

70%

No response in inductive method Percentage.,

60%

Yes response in inductive method 50%

Number of students2 Percentage.

40%

No response in deductive method Percentage

30%

Yes response in deductive method Number of students

20% 10% 0% 1

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

2

3

4

5

6

The importance of grammar in studying English Ded-Ind. method can improve students' knowledge in grammar Deductive-Inductive method can motivate students in learning grammar Deductive-Inductive method is the effective method in teaching grammar Deductive -Inductive method can make students active in learning-teaching process Maximize teacher time and minimize students talking time

13