Conceptual Theoretical Framework REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

15

a. Constructivism Approach as The Basis of Collaborative Learning

Method Collaborative learning is a learning method which is based on particular approach as its basis. The basis of collaborative learning method is constructivism; knowledge is constructed, and transformed by students Dooly, 2008. According to Bruning, Schraw, Norby, and Ronning 2004: Constructivism is a psychological and philosophical perspective contending that individuals form or construct much of what they learn and understand. as cited in Schunk, 2008, p. 235. It is a learning theory which states that a person constructs most of his knowledge by himself. Constructivism states that knowledge is constructed by people based on their interactions with environment or situation. Therefore, human becomes an active learner who constructs their knowledge through the interaction between situation, social context, and their own being. Collaborative learning is supported by Vygotsky’s theory of Zone of Proximal Development ZPD. It is a socio-cultural theory that has become the cornerstone of constructivist movements. According to Tudge and Scrimsher 2003, Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory is a constructivist theory that emphasizes the social environment as a facilitator of development and learning as cited in Schunk, 2008, p. 242. Social environment is deeply considered in Vygotsk y’s theory; it helps learners to be critical in their learning process. Social interactions in social environment help learners to coordinate three factors interpersonal social, cultural-historical, and individual factors to build a critical learning process and achieve higher knowledge together with their partners Schunk, 2008. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 16 It can be seen obviously in students’ learning experiences in the class; students often find learning much easier by doing some group discussions together with their friends. Vygotsky 1978 called it as Zone of Proximal Development, which is defined as: The distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” p. 86 as cited in Schunk, 2008, p. 245. There are some important elements in forming collaborative learning. According to Slavin 1989, there must be group goals and individual accountability to form an effective collaborative learning as cited in Gokhale, 1995. It is the group’s task to make sure that all members get a good understanding in their learning, while each group member has to explain the learning materials to their friends as they are responsible on it. According to Webb 1985, research has consistently found that those who give and receive elaborated explanations will gain most in their learning process as cited in Gokhale, 1995.

b. The Benefits of Collaborative Learning Method

to Improve Students’ Critical Thinking Skills Collaborative learning gives lots of benefits in learning process. There have been lots of researches on collaborative learning. The important benefit from collaborative learning is that it helps students to improve their critical thinking skills. Meyers 1986 states: Students will develop good critical thinking skills only by being challenged to practice critical and analytical thinking in the context of all the different subjects they study p.5. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 17 The opportunity to practice critical and analytical thinking, which is stated by Meyers, is available in collaborative learning. Dooly 2008 states that students are encouraged to think critically by engaging in discussions and taking responsibility for their learning, which could possibly occur in collaborative learning. Meyers 1986 also states that to promote critical thinking in the classroom, students have to create their own mental structures for critical thinking; this is closely related to constructivist theory and Vygotsky’s ZPD which support collaborative learning. Divergent perspectives and free discussions are also important elements to encourage students to think critically in the classroom Slavin, 2012, and those elements are supported in collaborative learning. Collaborative learning involves learners’ engagement in collaborative learning process together with other learners, and the engagement involves lots of idea and perspectives among them. Each learner has different cognitive level and background knowledge, and it opens possibilities for them to learn beyond their own limitation. We can see it from Vygotsky’s theory of Zone of Proximal Development, which explains that learners can achieve higher intellectual level and enhance their critical thinking skills by doing collaborative learning rather than individual learning Gokhale, 1995.

c. Techniques in Collaborative Learning Method to Improve Students’

Critical Thinking Skills There are many techniques from collaborative learning method in education, particularly in language learning. Three techniques from collaborative learning method were used in this research: peer involvement Gaies, 1985, peer PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 18 assessment Brown, 2004, and peer feedback Gaies, 1985. These three techniques were chosen and implemented in the lesson plan to respond the result of the preliminary study of the research further explanation on the significance of these techniques in answering the result of the preliminary study will be explained in chapter four. Below are the explanations of each technique: 1 Peer Involvement Peer involvement is a technique in collaborative language learning. According to Gaies 1985: Peer involvement is the use of learners as models, sources of information, and interactants for each other in such a way that learners assume roles and responsibilities normally taken by a formally trained teacher p.2. The classical method of teacher centred learning is oppositely applied with an active interaction between the students as peer tutors to one another. It is not the teacher who holds the main role in the class; it is the students instead. They do discussions and give feedback to one another in their learning process. Here, the teacher plays his role only as an instructor and a supervisor; he gives general instructions to the students about what they have to do and let the students engaged in their learning process by doing peer involvement, while the teacher is supervising their learning process. There are several patterns of peer involvement in language learning. They are mainly classified into two different categories: same level and cross level. The researcher used the same level pattern in the research. Same level pattern includes intra class tutoring, where learners come from the same class; they are in the same level of learning Gaies, 1985. In intra class tutoring, the activities are conducted PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 19 inside the class. There are two options available in intra class tutoring which are used in this research: 1. Pair work In pair work, students work as peer tutors in pair. It gives students opportunities to have intensive work and discussions with their pair Gaies, 1985. They also have intensive opportunity to give peer feedback with their pair, which will help them to give and receive good quality feedback on their work. 2. Small group work In small group work, students work as peer tutors in small group Gaies, 1985. The advantage of small group work is students will get more perspectives, which is not available in pair work. However, the quality of the feedback might not be as good as in pair work, since the intensiveness in small group work is lower than pair work. Peer involvement is beneficial for language learners. Since language is basically used for communication, peer involvement gives learners opportunities to practice their language skills by communicating each other in such a real situation. It also increases students’ motivation, sense of self direction, higher intelligence level, and critical thinking skills. It breaks the limitation of teacher centred learning where learners have limited opportunities to use and improve their skills, which often leads learners to frustration, spoon-feeding, and negative dependence with the teacher Gaies, 1985. Particularly in improving critical thinking skills, peer involvement gives the opportunity for the students to have PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 20 discussions and arguments with their peers. Dooly 2008 states that students are encouraged to think critically by engaging in discussions and taking responsibility for their learning, and the opportunities are available in peer involvement which involves the students in discussions in the learning process. Peer involvement also gives divergent perspectives which help the students in evaluating their arguments and building strong arguments on it. Divergent perspectives and free discussions are important elements to encourage students to think critically in the classroom Slavin, 2012, and those elements are supported in peer involvement. 2 Peer Assessment Peer assessment is a part of learner-centred and collaborative education, where the students are given the opportunity to do the language learning assessment themselves. It is derived from self assessment where students monitor their own learning process and performance as a successful learner. Brown 2004 states: Most successful learners extend the learning of process well beyond the classroom and the presence of teacher or tutor, autonomously mastering the art of self assessment. Where peers are available to render assessments, the advantage of such additional input is obvious p.270. There are two principles in peer assessment: the principle of autonomy and the principle of cooperative learning. The principle of autonomy stands on students’ abilities and autonomy as an independent learner. The abilities refer to setting one’s own learning goals, pursuing the goals without the presence of an external prod, and independently monitoring that pursuit Brown, 2004. The principle of cooperative learning is where the students do peer-assessment 21 collaboratively with the benefits of collaborative learning. The advantages of collaborative learning are often neglected in teaching-learning process; peer assessment is one of many options of techniques and procedures in learner-centred collaborative learning which bring the advantages of collaborative learning to the learners Brown, 2004. There are five types of peer assessment: assessment of a specific performance, indirect assessment of general competence, meta-cognitive assessment for setting goals, socio-affective assessment, and student-generated test Brown, 2004. The research uses assessment of a specific performance in assessing students’ writing performance. Students assess each other on written performance by using a scoring rubric which is very suitable to use in performance assessment. Slavin 2012 states, “Performance assessments are typically scored according to rubrics that specify in advance the type of performance that is expected for each activity” p.433. Peer editing is also conducted by students in peer assessment to give feedback to their peers. Peer assessment gives students opportunity to practice critical and analytical thinking to improve their critical thinking skills. Meyers 1986 states: Students will develop good critical thinking skills only by being challenged to practice critical and analytical thinking in the context of all the different subjects they study p.5. Students can practice analytical thinking by assessing their peers, pa rticularly in analyzing their peers’ critical writing which help them to improve their critical thinking. Peer assessment also brings the advantages of collaborative 22 learning to the learners Brown, 2004, which helps them to improve their critical thinking skills. 3 Peer Feedback Peer feedback is a technique in collaborative learning method where the learners are responsible in giving feedback to each other. The feedback is given to signal the errors and provide the correct form to their peers in their learning process Gaies, 1985. Peer feedback has a practical benefit which holds a very crucial factor in students’ learning process: students’ opportunity to receive immediate feedback. Peer feedback allows students to give and receive feedback immediately at the “precious moment”, which is when the students’ motivation is high. Students can also get feedback simultaneously in the class, which is not possible to be provided by one teacher in a single time. Peer feedback also helps students to learn more by giving feedback to each other. Gaies, 1985 One option of peer feedback is student-initiated correction and editing. Student-initiated correction and editing gives students opportunity to work in pairs or small groups, exchange and compare their papers, and have discussion on their papers. Feedback is given to each other in the discussion while teacher may circulate among the students to monitor the discussion. Gaies, 1985 There are three advantages from student-initiated correction and editing. The first advantage is students are going to have profitable discussions which give them opportunity to have arguments and get critical feedback from it. The second advantage is by having arguments in the discussion students will get positive reinforcement in their understanding on the topic and their understanding on the 23 errors they have made. The third advantage is students are given opportunity to sharpen their proofreading skills in correcting their peers’ papers. Gaies, 1985 Another effective way to improve students’ critical thinking skills is by employing written assignment. Written assignment, particularly the term paper assignment, encourages critical thinking and offers potential for demonstrating critical thinking abilities by students Meyers, 1986. The writing product of the paper assignment in this research was academic writing in form of argumentative essay. Argumentative essay was chosen because it gives students opportunity to improve their critical thinking skills as a writer by building strong arguments and justifiable claim with valid, adequate and relevant evidences and justifications. It also gives students opportunity as a reader to be sceptical in a positive way by assessing other students’ arguments whether the arguments are justifiable claim with valid, adequate and relevant evidences and justifications Wallace and Wray, 2011. In this research, collaborative learning method and written assignment in form of argumentative essay were employed to improve students’ critical thinking skills in CRW II. The three techniques from collaborative learning method were implemented in the research to improve students’ critical thinking skills. The indicator was behavioural indicator in form of students’ participation, which represents three general attitudes in critical thinking by Meyers 1986: raising questions, temporary suspension of one’s judgements, and enjoyment of mysteries and complexities. These attitudes reflect a critical thinker with healthy scepticism 24 as the guidance and are represented in the intensity of the students’ participation in the discussion during the class.

B. Theoretical Framework

There were two research questions to be answered through this research. The two research questions were answered by implementing the theories which have been described in theoretical description. The first research question was about the implementation of collaborative learning t o improve students’ critical thinking skills in CRW II. The theories which were implemented to answer this research question were theories on critical thinking and collaborative learning. Bloom revised taxonomy was used in composing the lesson plan. Critical thinking as an educational goal was used to set critical thinking skills as a goal in teaching-learning activities in the classroom. According to Bloom revised taxonomy by Anderson et al. 2001, critical thinking skills refer to the last three levels of the cognitive process dimension: analyzing, evaluating, and creating claims and arguments. The learning objectives for the students were on these three cognitive process dimensions. Collaborative learning was used to structure the students learning activities in the classroom. As stated before, collaborative learning gives certain benefits for students to improve their critical thinking skills. Meyers 1986 states: Students will develop good critical thinking skills only by being challenged to practice critical and analytical thinking in the context of all the different subjects they study” p.5 25 The opportunity to practice critical and analytical thinking was available in collaborative learning which allows students to get involved actively through discussions. Three techniques from collaborative learning method were implemented in structuring students’ learning activities in the classroom: peer involvement, peer assessment, and peer feedback. In the implementation of peer involvement, two different types of peer involvement were used in the cycles of the action research. Intra-class tutoring in small group work was used in the cycle 1. In small group work, students work as peer tutors in small group Gaies, 1985. The advantage of small group work is students will get more perspectives, which is not available in pair work. However, the quality of the feedback might not be as good as in pair work, since the intensiveness in small group work is lower than pair work. Intra- class tutoring in pair work was used in cycle 2. In pair work, students work as peer tutors in pair. It gives students opportunities to have intensive work and discussions with their pair Gaies, 1985. They also have intensive opportunity to give peer feedback with their pair, which will help them to give and receive good quality feedback on their work. Peer assessment was implemented during the classroom. The students do peer- assessment by assessing each other’s critical writing in form of argumentative essay. The type of peer assessment used was assessment of a specific performance to assess students’ writing performance Brown, 2004. Students assess each other on written performance by using a scoring rubric which is very suitable to use in performance assessment Slavin, 2012. In cycle 1, 26 students were given opportunities to do peer assessment in small group. In cycle 2, students were given opportunities to do peer assessment in pair. The scoring rubric was made based on the criteria of critical writing summarized from the book Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing: A Brief Guide to Argument by Barnet and Bedau 2011 and the book Critical Reading and Writing for Postgraduates by Wallace and Wray 2011. Cycle 1 used small group schematic scoring rubric, while cycle 2 used pair work schematic scoring rubric. Peer feedback was implemented during the process of peer assessment. The feedback is given to signal the errors and provide the correct form to their peers in their learning process Gaies, 1985. The type of peer feedback was student- initiated correction and editing which gives students opportunity to work in pairs or small groups, exchange and compare their papers, and have discussion on their papers. Feedback is given to each other in the discussion while teacher may circulate among the students to monitor the discussion Gaies, 1985. In cycle 1, students were giving peer feedback to each other in small groups. In cycle 2, students were giving peer feedback to each other in pairs. There were two main indicators to measure the improvement of the students’ critical thinking skills: behavioural indicators and product indicators of critical thinking. The behavioural indicators of critical thinking were used to identify the improvement of the students’ critical thinking skills during the learning process. The behavioural indicators were determined in students’ participation during the discussion. The intensity of the students’ participation represents three general attitudes in critical thinking Meyers, 1986: raising PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 27 questions, tempo rary suspension of one’s judgements, and enjoyment of mysteries and complexities. The product indicators of critical thinking were used to measure the improvement of the students’ critical thinking skills in their critical writing in form of argumentative essay as the product of their learning process. The product indicators were determined in the criteria of critical writing summarized from the book Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing: A Brief Guide to Argument by Barnet and Bedau 2011 and the book Critical Reading and Writing for Postgraduates by Wallace and Wray 2011: arguable arguments, relevant evidences, particular target audience, effective logical organization, and reliable sources. The second research question was about students’ difficulties in improving critical thinking skills in CRW II. The theories which were implemented to answer the second research question were theories on critical thinking, particularly on critical reading and writing. The criteria of critical writing Barnet and Bedau, 2011; Wallace and Wray, 2011 were used to reflect students’ difficulties in improving critical thinking skills in CRW II, particularly the difficulties in reaching the five criteria in writing the argumentative essay: building arguable arguments, using relevant evidences, aiming particular target audience, structuring effective logical organization, and choosing reliable sources. 28

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter explains the research methodology. The research method, the setting, the participants, the instruments, the data gathering technique, the data analysis technique, and the procedure of the research are deliberated in details in this chapter.

A. Research Method

This research was a Classroom Action Research. According to Burns 1999, Classroom Action Research is a research which commonly uses qualitative research as its method to answer concrete and practical issues of immediate concern by observing and recording events and behaviour in the classroom. It is neither categorized in qualitative research nor quantitative research. Although its status as a research methodology is often seen as fragile because of the strong claims on it as a process to enhance reflective practice and professional development, Classroom Action Research is still considered as a research methodology by lots of teaching and learning practitioners because it requires systematic data collection and analysis Burns, 1999. According to Kemmis and McTaggart 1988, Classroom Action Research is a dynamic and reflective cycle which consists of four essential processes: planning, action, observation, and reflection. Those processes are spiralling in a PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 29 cycle which involves Classroom Action Research practitioners and the participants to: develop a plan of critically informed action to improve what is already happening, act to implement the plan, observe the effects of the critically informed action in the context in which it occurs, and reflect on these effects as the basis for further planning, subsequent critically informed action and so on, through a succession of stages Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988, p.10, as cited in Burns, 1999. Figure 1 : Kemmis’ model of the action research According to Burns 1999, there are four characteristics of Classroom Action Research p.30: 1. Action research is contextual, small-scale and localised – it identifies and investigates problems within a specific situation 2. It is evaluative and reflective as it aims to bring about change and improvement in practice PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI 30 3. It is participatory as it provides for collaborative investigation by teams of colleagues, practitioners, and researchers 4. Changes in practice are based on the collection of information or data which provides the impetus of change Classroom Action Research was chosen as the research design in order to answer students’ difficulties in improving critical thinking skills which becomes an immediate concern in Critical Reading and Writing II class. Collaborative Learning method was applied by the lecturer in order to find an appropriate and effective way for the students to improve their critical thinking skills in Critical Reading and Writing II. During the research, the researcher played the role as a collaborator to the lecturer. Based on the agreement with the lecturer of CRW II which was made before conducting the research, the researcher became an observer instead of teaching in the classroom since the responsibility of students’ academic study in the university belongs to the lecturer, and the researcher was not supposed to take the responsibility. The researcher collaborated with the lecturer during the research in the cycles and each step of the Classroom Action Research: planning, action, observation, and reflection. Therefore, the Classroom Action Research was specifically categorized as Collaborative Action Research. The Collaborative Action Research also gave certain benefits to the research, as Burns 1999 states: Collaborative action research processes strengthen the opportunities for the results of research on practice to be fed back into educational systems in a more substantial and critical way p.13. 31

B. Research Setting

The research was conducted in two cycles. The first cycle consisted of two meetings and the second cycle consisted of one meeting. This research was held in English Language Education Study Program Sanata Dharma University. The class was Critical Reading and Writing II. The researcher became an observer in the class without doing any intervention in order to get an authentic and natural data to be analyzed. Discussion on the lesson plan by the researcher and the lecturer was done a week before the cycles were started. The research was conducted in March and April 2016. The first cycle was conducted on March 23 rd 2016 and March 30 th 2016. The researcher tried to analyze students’ progress and difficulties in improving their critical thinking skills by doing observation on students’ activities in the classroom and analyzing students’ score based on their peer assessment. Having observ ed students’ activities, analyzed and compared students’ score from the first meeting and the second meeting in the first cycle, the researcher found the students’ progress and difficulties in improving their critical thinking skills. Based on the data, the researcher made the second cycle and discussed the lesson plan with the lecturer. The second cycle was conducted on April 1 st 2016. Below is the detail of the research schedule: 32 Table 2: Research Schedule Cycle Meeting DayDate Time Materials Activities 1 1 Wednesday March 23 rd 07.00 – 09.00 a.m. Argumentative essay Group discussion, peer assessment and peer feedback on students’ essay in small groups 2 Wednesday March 30 th 07.00 – 09.00 a.m. Argumentative essay 2 3 Friday April 1 st 11.00 a.m. – 01.00 p.m. Argumentative essay Discussion, peer assessment and peer feedback on students’ essay in pairs

C. Research Participants Subjects

The participants were twenty seven 27 PBI students class B batch 2014 in Critical Reading and Writing II class, the lecturer, and three observers including the researcher as an observer. The qualifications of the observers were: 1 semester 8 students of English Language Education Study Program Sanata Dharma University and 2 those who had taken Micro Teaching and Research Methodology. The qualifications were determined by the researcher based on the capability on conducting classroom observation, and semester 8 students have been taught the theories on conducting classroom observation in Research Methodology and have practiced the theories in Micro Teaching. Nineteen 19 students participated in the research consistently by submitting the result of their peer assessment in each meeting from cycle one up to cycle two. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI