inservice junior high school english teachers’ perception of the problem solving skill in language education course (sp210) at ctu

Luận văn tốt nghiệp Đại học với đề tài mang tên “IN-SERVICE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION OF PROBLEM SOLVING SKILL IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION COURSE SP210 AT CAN THO UNIVERS

CAN THO UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

B.A Thesis

IN-SERVICE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION

OF THE PROBLEM SOLVING SKILL

IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION COURSE

Luận văn tốt nghiệp Đại học với đề tài mang tên “IN-SERVICE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION OF PROBLEM SOLVING SKILL IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION COURSE (SP210) AT CAN THO UNIVERSITY” do sinh viên Trương Thị Minh Thư thực hiện dưới sự hướng dẫn của Thạc sĩ Lê Thị Huyền tại trường Đại học Cần Thơ.

Ý kiến của cán bộ hướng dẫn khoa học

Thạc sĩ Lê Thị Huyền

Luận văn tốt nghiệp Đại học với đề tài mang tên “IN-SERVICE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION OF PROBLEM SOLVING SKILL IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION COURSE (SP210) AT CAN THO UNIVERSITY” do sinh viên Trương Thị Minh Thư thực hiện và báo cáo

đã được Hội đồng chấm luận văn thông qua

Cán bộ phản biện thứ nhất Cán bộ phản biện thứ hai

Cần Thơ, ngày tháng năm 2012

Chủ tịch Hội đồng

Ký tên

LỜI CAM ĐOAN

Tôi xin cam đoan đề tài luận văn tốt nghiệp này là công trình nghiên cứu khoa học của bản thân tôi Các số liệu và kết quả được trình bày trong luận văn này là hoàn toàn trung thực

Tác giả luận văn

Trương Thị Minh Thư

This thesis would not have been accomplished without the help of many people.First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor -Mrs Lê Thị Huyền for her valuable instructions, comments, advice and encouragement so that I could overcome many problems to finally finish my thesis I deeply appreciate for your valuable time spent on reading and giving me your feedback on the very first drafts of the chapters Thank you so much for helping me learn how to become an independent researcher

Next, I am also grateful to Mrs Ngô Thị Trang Thảo who always cared about my process

Besides, my sincere thanks go to all the participants, junior high school teacher who attend Problem Solving Skill in Language Education course, for their great cooperation

In addition, my special thanks also fly to my dear friends for your continual encouragement and your time spent on helping me eradicate the moment of tension and stress

Last but not least, I am indebted to my family giving me unconditionallove and always raising me up when I am down

All of the mistakes left in this thesis are mine

Truong Thi Minh Thu

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS vi

LIST OF TABLES viii

LIST OF FIGURES ix

ABSTRACT x

TÓM LƯỢC xi

CHAPTER 1 1

INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Rationale 1

CHAPTER 2 4

REVIEW OF LITERATURE 4

2.1 Educational evaluation 4

2.2 Course evaluation 5

2.2.1 Types of course evaluation 5

2.2.2 Reasons for course evaluation 6

2.2.2.1 For assessing the quality and effectiveness of a training course 6

2.2.2.2 For improvement 7

2.2.3 Ways to evaluate a learning course 8

2.3 Problem Solving Skill in Language Education Course 10

2.3.1 The skills for solving problem 10

2.3.1.1 The definition of problem solving skill 10

2.3.1.2 The definition of decision making 11

2.3.2 The significance of problem solving in language education course 12

2.3.3 Course description 14

2.3.3.1 Instructional method applied in problem solving in language education course 15

2.3.3.2 Material applied in Problem Solving Skill in Language Education course 18

CHAPTER 3 20

METHOD 20

3.1 Research design 20

3.2 Description of participants and instruments 20

3.2.1 Participants 20

3.2.2 Instruments 20

3.3 Research procedures 22

CHAPTER 4 24

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 24

4.1 Result 24

4.1.1 Learners’ perception of the benefits of knowledge they have learnt (KNOWLEDGE) 25

4.1.2 Students’ perception of the effectiveness and appropriateness of the instructional method (METHOD) 29

4.1.3 Students’ perception of the appropriateness of the material (MATERIAL) 32

4.2 Discussion 33

CHAPTER 5 35

IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS, 35

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION 35

5.1 Implication 35

5.3 Conclusion 36

REFERENCES 38

APPENDIX 1 42

THE COURSE COMMENT SHEET 42

APPENDIX 2 43

APPENDIX 4 52

APPENDIX 5 54

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1 Descriptive statistics of the cumulate mean score of clusters

KNOWLEDGE, METHOD, MATERIAL………24 Table 4.2 Descriptive statistics of students’ perspective of the course……….25Table 4.3 Descriptive statistics of the cumulate mean of cluster apply, positive change, perception……… ……… 26Table 4.4 Descriptive statistics of students’ perspective of the benefits of

knowledge they have acquired in this course……….……… 26Table 4.5 Descriptive statistics of students’ perspective of the extent to which they can apply knowledge they have learnt……… 26Table 4.6 Descriptive statistics of students’ perspective of positive change due

to acquired knowledge……… 27Table 4.7 Descriptive statistics of students’ perspective on knowledge acquiredTable 4.8 Descriptive statistics of the cumulate mean of clusters……… … 28 appropriateness”, “benefits”, “instructor’s impact……… 29Table 4.9 Descriptive statistics of students’ perspective of the effectiveness and appropriateness of instructional method used in this course………29Table 4.10 Descriptive statistics of students’ perspective of the appropriateness

of the instructional method……… ………30Table 4.11 Descriptive statistics of students’ perspective of the benefits of the

instructional method……… 31Table 4.12 Descriptive statistics of students’ perspective of instructor’s

influence ……… 32Table 4.13 Descriptive statistics of the cumulative of items 14, 33 ………… 32Table 4.14 Descriptive statistics of students’ perspective of the appropriateness

of the material……… …32

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.2.3 Framework of course evaluation……… 9Figure 2.3.3.2 Framework of problem solving skill in language education course……… 19Figure 3 2.2 Framework of cluster of questionnaire……… 21

This study was conducted from February to the end of April, 2012 in Can Tho University (CTU) The participants were 67 in-service junior high school english teachers In this paper, I investigate the learners’ perception of problem solving skill in language education course (SP210) This is a descriptive research,

in which the data from 66 questionnaires were treated by SPSS 16.0 It was found that the learners have positive perspective of the problem solving skill in

language education course (M = 4.15, SD= 378) with 1 = strongly disagree, 2 =

disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree Especially, as the statistics shown, most of learners strongly agree that the knowledge they have learnt in

this course benefits them (M = 4.18, SD = 39) Moreover, most of learners

found that the instructional method, utilized in the course was effective and

appropriate (M= 4.13, SD = 40) In addition, most of learners find the official

material utilized in the course appropriate with their level and the requirement of

content in the course (M = 4.14, SD = 53) From the result, the researcher

propose that the Problem Solving Skill in Language Education Course should be considered as an obligatory course in the curriculum, in stead of an optional one, and creating learner- centered environment and employing problem-based learning framework should be encouraged in (SP210) class

TÓM LƯỢC

Nghiên cứu này được thực hiện từ 10/02/2012 đến 30/4/2012 tại Trường Đại học Cần Thơ Đối tượng nghiên cứu là 67 sinh viên liên thông, hệ vừa học vừa làm, chuyên ngành sư phạn anh văn tại trường Đại học Cần Thơ Trong bài nghiên cứu này, tôi điều tra về cảm nhận của người học về khóa học tính sư phạm trong kỹ năng giải quyết vấn đề (SP210) Đây là một bài nghiên cứu mô tả, trong đó số liệu từ 67 phiếu trả lời câu hỏi được xử lý bằng phần mềm SPSS

(16.0) Kết quả cho thấy người học có cảm nhận tích cực về khóa học này (M = 4.15, SD= 378) với 1 = rất không đồng ý , 2 = không đồng ý , 3 = không xác

định, 4 = đồng ý, 5 = rất đồng ý Đặc biệt, theo như kết quả thống kê được thể hiện, thì hầu hết sinh viên rất đồng ý là kiến thức mà họ đã học được trong khóa

học này bổ ích cho họ (M = 4.18, SD = 39) Hơn thế nữa, phần lớn sinh viên

đều cho rằng phương pháp hướng dẫn được dùng trong khóa học này thi rất hiệu

quả và phù hợp (M= 4.13, SD = 40) Thêm vào đó, đa số người học cho rằng tài

liệu chính thức dùng trong khóa học này thì phù hợp với trinh độ của họ và thỏa

mãn được yêu cầu về nội dung của khóa học (M = 4.14, SD = 53) Từ kết quả

trên tác giả kiến nghị rằng môn học “Tính sư phạm trong kỹ năng giải quyết vấn đề” nên được chuyển từ môn tự chọn sang môn học bắt buộc trong chương trình đào tạo ngành sư phạm anh văn, và việc tạo ra môi trường học tập lấy người học làm trung tâm, cũng như áp dụng phương pháp học dựa trên việc giải quyết vấn

đề nên được khuyến khích thực hiện trong lớp học SP210

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, rationale (I), research aims (II), research questions (III), research significance (IV) and organization (V) of the thesis are introduced.

1.1 Rationale

This research was conducted because of two following reasons First ofall, “today's graduates lack problem-solving and decision-making skills.”(Ruggiero, 1988, as cited in Shanteau, Grier, Johnson, & Berner, 1991) In fact, not all students obtain that creative thinking skill, although problem solving skill

is a necessary skill in work and life That was why SP210 was taught at CTU Especially, to English education majors, who will be the high school form teachers, will have to solve a great deal of social and academic problems in the job, obtaining problem solving skill is more important than ever However, SP210 has only been considered as an optional subject I bear in my mind the question: ‘‘why cannot this subject be an obligatory one in the curriculum of English education majored students?” I wondered whether the learners did notlike studying this subject or this subject was not seen useful for the learners as it was With such an important issue, I could not base on my objective predictions;all I want is precise and valid response from the learners Therefore, I determined

to conduct this study to survey learners’ perception of the effectiveness of SP210 The other reason which impulses me to conduct this study is that no student has conducted a research about learners’ perception of SP210 as his or her final thesis before Therefore, I am going to be the first one Although at the end of each course, every student completes the course comment sheet, developed byQuality Assurance and Testing Center, CTU to help improve teaching and learning quality at CTU, this sheet is general and overall in which students give general comment on many issues such as: registration, program structure and content, facilities and infrastructure, teaching and learning process and teaching strategy through giving responses to 11 statements in this comment sheet, so each issue was presented through one statement, (see Appendix 1) The commentsheet of Quality Assurance and Testing Center, CTU is wide but not deep, while

“In-service junior high school English teachers’ perception of Problem Solving Skill in Language Education Course (SP210) at Can Tho University” was conducted Now the hypotheses, research objectives, research aims will be discussed in the following part.

1.2 Statement of the objectives, research questions and hypotheses

1.2.1 Research objectives

This study aims to

 measure the extent of the learners’ perception of the effectiveness of knowledge they have acquired

 measure the extent of the learners’ perception of the effectiveness as well

as appropriateness of the instructional method utilized in this course

 measure the extent of the learners’ perception of the appropriateness of material utilized in this course

1.2.2 Research questions

Those following questions guided my research

 To what extent do the learners rate the benefits of knowledge they have acquired?

 To what extent do the learners rate the effectiveness as well as appropriateness of the instructional method utilized in this course?

 To what extent do the learners rate the appropriateness of the material utilized in this course?

3 Most students find the material used in this course appropriate with their level and the objectives of the course.

1.3 Organization of the thesis

The thesis is organized into five following chapters:

Chapter 1 is the introduction The rationale, the statements of research objectives, research questions and hypotheses, organization of the thesis are introduced in the first chapter

Chapter 2 is the review of literature This chapter is mainly concerned withtheories and principles of course evaluation and problem solving skill course.Chapter 3 is about research method Research design, participants, research instruments and research procedure will be described in the chapter

Chapter 4 is about research findings and discussion Basing on the analysis of the collected data, I will report the research findings; interpret the data to find out the answers for the previous research questions

Chapter 5 is about implications, limitations, recommendations and conclusion In this chapter, I will summarize what is addressed in the study Next, the implication of the results regarding the writer’s original hypothesis as well as limitation will be discussed Finally, directions for further research will be suggested

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In this chapter, I will review literature relating to course evaluation and Problem Solving Skill in Language Education Course The first concern will be theories about course evaluation including types of course evaluation, reasons for evaluating a course and criteria for course evaluation Another major concern is about the definition, the importance of problem solving skill Finally, the description of Problem Solving Skill in Language Education course will be mentioned in this chapter.

on Educational evaluation in Youth Work, by Klooseterman et al (2007):

“Educational evaluation is the systematic investigation, o b s e r v a t i o n and interpretation of information, Tenbrink, T & Cooper, J M (2003) Educational evaluation is a method (procedure) and to prove if the expectations and aims of an educational process reflect reality (results of the process), Nydia Elola, Lilia V Toranzos (2000)”.

According to Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), (1998), evaluating consists of two aspects: course evaluation and trainee evaluation or self evaluation While Klooseterman et al (2007) said that “Education evaluation is a wide topic with a lot of implications” As far as I am concerned,educational evaluation is to conduct an evaluation on fields relating to education such as: evaluation on the effectiveness of teaching or learning method, on a learning course etc However, this paper stays focus on course evaluation only, and what course evaluation is, why and how to evaluate a course will be clarified

in the next part

2.2 Course evaluation

2.2.1 Types of course evaluation

Stakes (1967) articulates that evaluating a learning course or an educational program is evaluating what was taught and what was learned He also indicated that evaluating material should be included in course evaluation According to Stake (1967), Lockee, Moore and Burton (2002), Klooseterman et al (2007),evaluation consists of two types: formative evaluation and summative evaluation

In fact, in 1967, in his study, Stake assumed that “If material is not yet ready for distribution to classroom teachers, then its evaluation is formative; otherwise it is summative” Until 2002, Lockee et al argued that the aim of formativeevaluation was to improve products, programs, and learning activities by providing information during learning and during planning and development H e a l s o s t a t e d t h a t data collected during the whole process provided the developers or designers information about what worked and what did not work so that the system could be improved as early as possible, while summative evaluation met to determine whether the products, programs, and learning activities, usually in the aggregate, worked in terms of addressing the need or obtaining the original goals Likewise, Klooseterman et al (2007)concluded:

“One of the things that make non-formal education different from formal education is that in non-formal education assessment of participants does not take place In non-formal education we do not organize exams and we do not give marks or grades We evaluate the program, the process, the outcomes, but

we do not assess the individual level of participants We rather ask participants what they think they have learned”

Although many researchers had classified evaluation into many categories,this paper was conducted as a non-formal and formative evaluation

As far as I have known, evaluating a learning course means assessing on the effectiveness of that course Course evaluation has many different categories,

it seems to be not an easy task to implement, but why do we have to conduct an evaluation of a learning course, the next part will answer this question

2.2.2 Reasons for course evaluation

The significance of course evaluation is interpreted in many ways, but the common reasons have been known as for assessing quality and for improvement

2.2.2.1 For assessing the quality and effectiveness of a training course

In Evaluating Training Program published in 1998, Kirlpatrick, D L and

Kirlpatrick, J D confirmed that the most common reason for evaluating was to determine the effectiveness of the training program Furthermore, Nesbitt (2004) asserts that through assessment, the value of a training course is identified Sharing the same ideas, International Quality & Productivity Centre (IQPC)(2006) also proposed some reasons making an evaluation implemented First of all, the findings evaluations will reflect the quality of training course and theeffects it has created on the learners Moreover, IQPC (2006) added that evaluations help us figure out the weaknesses of the training course in order thatthose weaknesses will be taken care of next time Besides, evaluation result can identify the extent to which learners have learnt and the extent to which learners have transferred what they have learned to their daily job (IQPC, 2006) On the supportive viewpoint, Papua New Guinea Employment Oriented Skill Project (PNG EOSDP) (2006), Allison and Metz (2007) have maintained that a course

or program evaluation should be conducted since evaluation can revealed the effectiveness of a program or a course to community and funders who raised fund for the program Basing on the findings of evaluation process, community and funders know whether the program or the course is worthwhile or not In a common sense of those above studies, Klooseterman

et al (2007) proved that through evaluation, participants involved knew how to understand, to give an assessment and to draw conclusion on their own learning experience Interestingly, Klooseterman et al (2007) also substantiates that when

a course training evaluation is conducted successfully, it allows the instructors to assess their own performance, although it is an internal or external evaluation, evaluators can build an organization’s capacity to measure instructors’ performance, and assess whether program objectives or course objectives have been met As mentioned above assessing the quality and the effectiveness of a course is one of the goals of course evaluation, so is that assessment helpful to

the improvement of the course? It has been proved to be positive in the following findings.

2.2.2.2 For improvement

Nesbitt (2004) and PNG EOSDP (2006) acknowledge that evaluating can help improve the training course Likewise, Kloosterman et al (2007) corroborates that thanks to evaluation findings, what they are succeeding as well

as what they need to improve are found out, and instructors are able to identify challenges that they have to encounter in the future as well as to think aboutpotential solutions Sharing the same idea, Allison and Metz (2007) indicatesthat course evaluation should be conducted as it can help figure out “what works” and “what does not work” Identifying “what works” helps instructors concentrate resources on the necessary components of the program that benefit participants; identifying “what does not work” allows instructors to improve and strengthen their methods and models On the same perspective, Kloosterman et al (2007) stated that evaluating a course leads to change and progression which motivate the participants; and it is “an opportunity both to promote the values of participation and to practice it” In common with Kloosterman et al (2007), PNG EOSDP (2006) assumed that evaluation can help promote the training course because evaluators can ask the trainees or learners about further training need Furthermore, according to Kloosterman et al (2007), change and improvement are inherent parts of evaluation The change takes place in “operation” way such as: change of tools, formats, methods, places, targets; it happens in personal way as well such as: change of attitudes, of values, of ways of understanding They also proposed that evaluation could help to plan things better, to recognize, “to name and give value

to the achievements of the educational process so that they do not get lost or not sufficiently used” Moreover, evaluation can help to draw improvement steps in the future and to decide whether the training course will be carried out or not (Kirlpatrick, D L & Kirlpatrick, J D, 1998 and Indira, 2008)

In a common sense of all above mentioned perspectives, many reasons for the significance of course evaluation have been given In the next part, I am

going to review several perspectives concerning the way to evaluate a learning course

2.2.3 Ways to evaluate a learning course

Nelson and Dailey (1999), IQPC (2006), Klooseterman et al (2007) and Indira (2008) have mentioned to Donald Kirkpatrick’s model for evaluating atraining program in their research They indicate that in Donald Kirkpatrick’s model, Kirkpatrick proposed four-step process in which evaluators assess on four levels consisting of: reaction, learning, behavior and results According to those research above, reaction level means the personal reflection of learners, the learners check to which extent they satisfied with the training program To make an evaluation at level one: reaction, a questionnaire that aims to identify learners’ reaction is required in order to answer the most important question

“Did the learners like the training course?”

“Participants' reactions can help you determine the effectiveness of a program and how it can be improved Kirkpatrick believes you can't bypass the first level because, as he puts it, "If [participants] do not react favorably, they will not be motivated to learn." If participants aren't enjoying the program, you'll have an increasingly difficult time keeping them engaged in the activity”

(as cited in Nelson and Dailey, 1999)The next level is “learning” in which the growth of knowledge, the learning achievements was examined (Klooseterman et al., 2007) The aim of learning level is to answer the question “what did the learners learn?” (IQPC, 2006) Nelson and Dailey (1999) reported that Kirkpatrick considered learning

as the "extent to which participants change attitudes, improve knowledge and/or increase skill as a result of attending the program." This question is also the target question that evaluators are required to answer in level-two analysis The third level in Kirkpatrick’s process is to evaluate on behavior to check whether “changes in behavior transfer of competencies into concrete

action” (as cited in Why Training Evaluation) and check whether learners’

behavior changed after taking the training course (IQPC, 2006) and to answer the question: “Did the participants apply what they learned in the training back

on the job?” (Nelson & Dailey, 1999) The final level in this process seeks to value on the result and this level is considered as “bottom line measurement of training that is often used to justify training at high management levels” (as cited

in IQPC, 2006) This level aims to measure the impact of training program on learners’ job behavior and answer the question: “Did the participants'application on the job impact the organization?” (Nelson & Dailey, 1999) IQPC (2006) concluded that in the four steps process, those levels have a close relationship, each level has a subsequent impact on the next one The level of challenges of each level increases respectively, so does the amount of time needed The more difficult a level is, the more valuable information it provides

In their research in 2006, IQPC declared that the fourth level evaluation could benefit the organization a lot because it measured the organization’s results, not the individuals’; however, it was very difficult and time consuming to analyze the level four: measuring result Moreover, IQPC (2006) asserted that level-three evaluation needed a period time of three months to measure learners’ behavior changes; and two questionnaires were obligatory: initial questionnaire before the training course, final questionnaire at the end of the course Because of those reasons and the limitation of time, this paper will not conduct the third and fourth level evaluation, but stay focus on the two first levels: valuing on reaction and learning The following chart illustrates the above theories

Figure 2.2.3 Framework of course evaluation

Course evaluation

Reason for evaluating

To assess the quality To improve

As far as I am concerned, to conduct an evaluation on a learning course, three following tasks need to be carried out The first task is to make an evaluation at the beginning of the course, then make an evaluation during the course, finally, make an evaluation at the end of the course In comparison with Kirkpatrick’s model, the last task corresponds with two first levels in Kirkpatrick’s model (reaction and learning) Therefore, this research just concentrates on conducting an evaluation at the end of the course After identifying criteria for course evaluation, it is time to choose a specific course to assess, and the answer is “problem solving in language education course”, but why is this course chosen, not anything else? Besides those criteria, are there any other criteria? The answers will be found in the next part.

2.3 Problem Solving Skill in Language Education Course

Although the evaluated course named Problem Solving Skill in Language Education (SP210), in fact, in this course, students have learnt not only the skill

of solving problem but also the skill of making decision Adair (2010) confirmed that decision making and solving problem are two forms of applied thinking and they can be distinguished Since the book “Decision making and problem solving strategies” by Adair was used as the main material in this course, these two skillswere considered as main focus of the course

2.3.1 The skills for solving problem

2.3.1.1 The definition of problem solving skill

Many definitions of problem solving skill were offered:

Gagne (1985), Garofalo and Lester (1985) refers that problem solving is one of the kinds of higher order thinking skills such as "visualization, association, abstraction, comprehension, manipulation, reasoning, analysis, synthesis, generalization each needing to be 'managed' and 'coordinated” Besides, problem solving is “the synthesis of other rules and concepts into higher order rules which can be applied to a constrained situation (Gagne, 1985)

According to Huitt (1992), “Problem solving is a process in which we perceive and resolve a gap between a present situation and a desired goal, with

the path to the goal blocked by known or unknown obstacles” Kirkley (2003) proposed that in the early 1900s, problem solving was considered as “a mechanical, systematic, and often abstract (decontextualized) set of skills, such

as those used to solve riddles or mathematical equations These problems often have correct answers that are based on logical solutions with a single correct answer (convergent reasoning)” Kirkley (2003) also presumed that because of being influenced by cognitive learning theories, problem solving represented a complex mental activity consisting of a variety of cognitive skills and actions He also articulates that nowadays, problem solving is known as “complex set of cognitive, behavioral, and attitudinal components” Moreover, in his study in

2003, Kirkley stated:

“In 1983, Mayer defined problem solving as a multiple step process where the problem solver must find relationships between past experiences (schema) and the problem at hand and then act upon a solution.”

(as cited in Kirkley, 2003)

Until 2010, The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)defined problem solving skill as “a set of activities designed to analyze a situation systematically and find, implement and evaluate solution” Many definitions of problem solving skill have just been mentioned, next definition of decision making will be clarified

2.3.1.2 The definition of decision making

According to Huitt (1992) “decision making is a selection process where one

of two or more possible solutions is chosen to reach a desired goal” In 1998, Harris defines decision making in different ways: “Decision making is the study

of identifying and choosing alternatives based on the values and preferences of the decision maker.” He also mentions that although many alternative choices are considered, making decision does not only mean that identifying as many of these alternatives as possible, but choosing the alternative that “has the highest probability of success or effectiveness and best fits with our goals, desires, lifestyle, value and so on.” Moreover, Harris (1998) maintained that “Decision making is the process of sufficiently reducing uncertainty and doubt about

alternatives to allow a reasonable choice to be made from among them” Similarly, Adair (2010) commented: “decision making is deciding what action to take, and it usually involved choices between options”.

Huitt (1992) highlighted that sometimes the terms of problem solving and decision making were interchangeably used since the steps in both process are quite similar Adair (2010) argued that those skills overlapped considerably Until 2010, FEMA specified that decision making was a part of problem solving,

it could be found in every step of the problem solving process Therefore, in this course, the skill of decision making and problem solving are considered as two processes overlapping and combining together to achieve the common goal: to solve problems From now, SP210 implies both decision making skill and problem solving skills

2.3.2 The significance of problem solving in language education course

Kirkley (2003) stated that nowadays, problem solving skill is said to be a basic and integral skill that needs to be learnt

“Guided by recent research in problem solving, changing professional standards, new workplace demands, and recent changes in learning theory, educators and trainers are revising curricula to include integrated learning environments which encourage learners to use higher order thinking skills, and in particular, problem solving skills.”

(as cited in Kirley, 2003)

As far as the importance of problem solving skills are seen, today, the incorporation of problem solving skills is taken as a key component of the curriculum

skill of solving problem and making decision was very necessary because those skills could help avert tragedy and help people recover from tragedy quickly and they were considered as your important assets when you become professional emergency managers.

Many researchers above proved that problem solving course was helpful and necessary in many fields, and the next part will explain for those judgments

Benefits of taking problem solving course

According to FEMA (2010), taking problem solving course, learners can benefit in many ways First of all, learners will know how to identify a problem;this step is extremely important, because “failure to identify the problem properly

is one of the main reasons for poor decision making” Moreover, the learners willknow how to make decision in an emergency The second benefit of taking SP210 is that learners will acquire models for problem solving and lean how to apply the models as a way of improving their decision making skill Moreover, FEMA (2010) asserted that taking the course of problem solving skill in language education could help learners be aware of their own personal attributes

as a decision maker and they could use that awareness as a starting point for improving their decision making ability

Stice (2007) confirmed that a successful problem solver should employ some

or all of the following elements:

- “An awareness that a problem exists.

- Prerequisite skills

 Basic knowledge pertaining to the problem area

 The learning skills necessary to obtain other information required for the solution

 Motivation to want to solve the problem

 Memorized experience factors that provide “feelings” about what assumptions might be made and how reasonable an answer is

 Ability to communicate the result

 Group skills, if a team approach is used

- An overall, organized strategy

- Alternatives for specific steps in the strategy (contradiction, reasoning by analogy, working backwards, solving a simpler problem first, etc.)

- Knowledge of heuristics or “rules of thumb” that offer suggestions about what to

do next.

- Ability to create, to generalize and to simplify”

(Woods et al, 1975, as cited in Stice, 2007)

In addition, Shanteau et al (1991) noted that in SP210 “an effort was made to give students positive experiences and to increase their self-confidence

in decision making and problem solving”

The benefits of SP210 have been mentioned, and a brief description about the course will be given next

2.3.3 Course description

At Can Tho University, over the last few years, problem solving skill course was a special course for students majoring in English Study only It has just been added into the curriculum of English Education major as an optional course since 2010 with the name “Problem Solving Skill in Language Education SP210 (SP210)” In this semester, SP210 was taught to one group of students which included 70 junior high school English teachers who are the first year students of in-service training program at CTU SP210 class took place every Saturday morning in C1 building, at room 303 in which chairs, tables, lights, fans, blackboard and projector was equipped The course was designed in two credits (30 periods); students met with their instructor once a week Each class meeting lasted 250 minutes (five periods), so this course was only six weeks

long The main textbook was Decision Making and Problem Solving Strategies,

(Adair, 2010 U.K: The Kogan Page) In common with FEMA (2010), the explicit aim of this course is to provide the learners with foundation of knowledge about problems solving that will enable the learners to apply models for problem solving and decision making to emergency management scenarios Specifically,

this course aims to help the learners apply models and strategies they have learnt

in functioning the role of form teachers at high schools The implicit aim was to promote autonomous learners who can freely apply their knowledge and skills outside the immediate context learning (Little, 1991) Little (1991) also concluded that learner autonomy was one of functions of education because “the effectiveness of autonomous learners means that the knowledge and skills acquired in the classroom can be applied to situations that arise outside the classroom” However, to obtain both two aims, suitable instructional methods were required In this course, the instructor employed problem – based learning approach as the instructional method that will be clarified in the next part

2.3.3.1 Instructional method applied in problem solving in language education course.

“Problem - based learning is the learning that results from the process of working toward the understanding or resolution of a problem” (as cited in Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980) They also articulated that the problem came first in the learning process while in traditional approach, problem was usually given to the learners after facts and principles have been taught either as an example or an exercise so that learners can apply this knowledge Problem-based learningapproach helps students actively involved and motivated (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980) On the same philosophy, Pawson et al (2006) substantiated that problem-solving based approach is an active learning approach that helps get students involved and enhance understanding

Moreover, Huiit (1992) added that when individuals were active and participated in a group-based, problem-solving process, it could lead to the development of the skills required to make better independent decisions In addition, the strengths and weaknesses of the individual can be identified and used or compensated for when making a decision (Huitt, 1992) Similarly, Adair (2010) advised that one should know his interest, aptitudes and temperament so that he could identify the field that is suitable for him

Because of those reasons, the instructor employed problem-based learning approach in her class In fact, the course instructor did not give lecture to

students; she did not provide them with any facts, theories and principles relating

to the subject, except for group task Little (1991) suggested that to promote autonomous learners, “teacher should get learners involved in a non-stop quest for good learning activities, which are shared, discussed, analyzed and evaluated with the whole class” Sharing the same idea, Savery and Duffy (2001) suggested that in problem- based learning; teacher should anchor all learning activities to a larger task or problem To achieve the explicit aim of providing students with the background knowledge of solving problem, the instructor of this course employed those principles In fact, the course instructor gathered all learning activities into group assignment, a large and unique task in which all ten members in each group were responsible for presenting a chapter in the main book The instructor had all seven groups of students solve real problems in which they have to read the main book, search for more relevant information from other sources, analyze, synthesize the information they have read

Savery and Duffy (2001) claimed that in some problem based learning frame works, the problem was presented along with the learning objectives and the assigned readings related to the problem In fact, to make a great presentation about chapters in John Adair’s book, learners were required to invest much time

on group working and self studying and reading This requirement was quite reasonable and possible because students at Can Tho University have been studying in credit-based system since 2007 That means every period for attending class needs two periods for self studying at home or some where outside class, CTU Board of Directors, (2011) After that, they were required to present the chapters in front of class The instructor required the learners to work

in group during the course because Little (1991) asserted that the development of autonomy in learning was governed by the principle of learner involvement which helped “engage learners to share responsibility for the learning process.Furthermore, Huitt (1992) added that the discussion in group could make the problem less complicated and better results were more likely to be achieved andthe development of each individual’s decision making power could be enhanced Use of problem-solving process in group increases the development of unity within the group (Huitt 1992), which is extremely important as a team

maintenance activity in leadership On the same perspective, Adair (2010) corroborates that lacking of cohesiveness in the team circle leads to impaired task performance and reduction of individual’s satisfaction Interestingly, in this course, the instructor employed a principle of problem-based learning framework She gave groups the ownership of solving their assignments so that the learners were free to create new things, but their creativeness must serve for conveying the information of the chapters (Little, 1991) She also gave groups the ownership of applying the planning continuum in which the authority level of the learners is maximized (Adair, 2010) Also in this sense, Barrows andTamblyn (1980) maintained that thanks to giving the ownership of assignment to students, they could be treated as adults responsible for their own learning Besides, Little (1991) recommended that the teacher should engage learners in regular evaluation of their progress as individual learners and as a whole class That was why after each presentation, group were required to value their own work, and the audience were also required to comment on presenting group and grade their performance Finally, the instructor gave feedback to presenting group; of course, she had to make sure that all information presented was correct and precise Especially, to reduce the risk of the phenomenon in which the learners produced main ideas as parrots did The instructor had students read material in English, but report in Vietnamese Thanks to that way, she could confirm that the learners didn’t speak out what they did not really understand.Besides suitable instructional method, the important role of instructor is a necessary factor in process of achieving two main objectives Savery and Duffy (2001) proved that in problem based learning framework, “the teacher’s role should be to challenge the learner's thinking not to dictate or attempt to proceduralize that thinking It is essential that the teacher values as well as challenges the learner's thinking The teacher must assume the roles of consultant and coach” Actually, in this course, the instructor always challenged the learner’s thinking She did not teach the students any theories about the subject, but the students were taught how to learn themselves as well as were coached to

be their own teachers Coaching role of instructor played an important role in promoting learner autonomy Sharing the same point of view, Adair (2010) holds

that “When you learn, you are being taught by yourself” It is commonly believed that in problem – based learning approach, the crucial role of instructor is to lift her students up to higher level of autonomy, to make them feel that they could be their own teachers During the course, many efforts were made to create learner-centered environment by the instructor.

The instructional method applied in this course has been mentioned, in the next part, the main material will be described

2.3.3.2 Material applied in Problem Solving Skill in Language Education course

“Decision making and problem solving strategies” by Adair (2010) was

taken as the main material in this course, basing on criteria for course book mentioned in Graves (2000) and Tomlinson (2003) First of all, the content of the main book used for teaching must be at the right level (Graves, 2000) It means that the book needs to be suitable for the learners, not too difficult and not too easy Moreover, the book needs to interesting and motivating enough to the learners (Graves, 2000 and Tomlinson, 2003) Besides, Cunningsworth (1995),Savery and Duffy (2001) mentioned that in problem based learning process, the course book or instructional materials were used as source of information for presentation Adair’s book was chosen on the basic of providing the learnersnecessary information about the subject with seven chapters presented logically.Chapter 1: Your mind at work

Chapter 2: The art of effective decision making

Chapter 3: Sharing decision with others

Chapter 4: Key problem solving strategies

Chapter 5: How to generate ideas

Chapter 6: Thinking outside the box

Chapter 7: Developing your thinking skill

Literature relating to SP210 course has been reviewed in this chapter.Now, I would like to close chapter 2 with figure 2.3.3.2 which I built up on my way of reviewing literature relating to problem solving course.

Figure 2.3.3.2 Framework of problem solving skill in language education course

Problem solving skill in language

Course description

Decision making skill

Benefits

of the

Material

CHAPTER 3 METHOD

Chapter two has presented literature review concerning educational evaluation, course evaluation and SP210 In chapter 3, the methodology of the research including research design, participants, research instruments and research procedure will be described.

3.1 Research design

This research follows a descriptive approach to survey students’ perception of SP210 Especially, descriptive approach can help survey the extent

to which the learner acquired and applied the knowledge they have learnt as well

as to find out the impact of instructional method employed in this course

3.2 Description of participants and instruments

3.2.1 Participants

67 in-service junior high school teachers who major in English of education at CTU were invited to participate in my study They were asked to fill out the five-scale questionnaire of 35 items Participants include 54 females and

13 males, age from 28 to 49 All participants have experience in teaching English(from 5 years to 27 years) Seventy six percent of participant has not taken any life skill course before

3.2.2 Instruments

a The questionnaire

To survey the learners’ perception of SP210, a five-scale questionnaire was prepared Learners’ perception of the course was measured by the 35-item questionnaire The questionnaire was partly adapted from FEMA (2010), Nelson and Dailey (1999), Savery and Duffy (2001), Shanteau et al (1991), Adair (2007), Huitt (1992), Little (1991), Graves (2000), Tomlinson (2003) and Cunningsworth (1995) The questionnaire was also partly designed basing on Quy định về công tác học vụ (regulation about educational affair) applied in 2010-2011, developed by CTU Board of Directors in 2010 and an informal interview to the instructor of the course The questionnaire consisted of thirty five statements about problem solving skill course with nine small clusters (see

Appendix 3) and five – point Likert scale (1-strongly disagree “rất không đồng ý”, 2-disagree “không đồng ý”, 3-neutral “không xác định”, 4-agree “đồng ý”, 5-strongly agree “rất đồng ý”).

The questionnaire was written in both English and Vietnamese to make sure that the participants understand all items of the questionnaire correctly (see appendix 2) The questionnaire has 35 items categorized into three main clusters: (1) benefits of knowledge they have acquired (KNOWLEDGE), (2) instructional method (METHOD) and (3) appropriateness of material (MATERIAL) (see Table 3.2.2.a)

Figure 3 2.2 Framework of clusters in the questionnaire

Piloting the questionnaire

“A pilot study will crucial qualify the quality of the data obtained” (Seliger & Shohamy, 1995, as cited in Trinh, 2011) That was why 45 items in the pilot questionnaire were printed The questionnaire was piloted to 40 English

COURSE

application (1, 3, 19, 5, 22, 26, 30, 34)

positive change

6, 9, 10, 13, 21, 25, 27, 28

perception 11

14, 33

KNOWLEDGE (17 items)

METHOD (16 items)

MATERIAL (2 items)

study majors (course 34 and 35) who took similar course “Problem solving skill (XH480)” After 30 minutes, 40 questionnaires were handed back However, only 35 valid questionnaires were used for collecting data Five respondents did not complete all items in the questionnaire The pilot questionnaire’s internal consistency was α= 80.

b Classroom observation

Four classroom observations were made to know what happened in this course and deliver the questionnaire to the learners

c Informal interview

In order to answer the question that I bear in my mind during the process

of observing class meetings “Why were the learners required to read material in English but present in Vietnamese I have interviewed the course instructor, her response was taken note and employed to compose a statement in the questionnaire (item 16)

3.3 Research procedures

In this study, I conducted three research activities: (1) observing the class meeting, (2) administering the questionnaire and (3) treating the data collected.Firstly, in order to achieve general information about the course such as: the way the teacher instructs her students, the way students learn, the material etc, I observed SP210 class meetings Four observations were made on every Saturday morning, from period 1 to period 5, room 303-C1 building Next, the questionnaire, which was designed basing on relevant literature, was piloted onparticipants in “Problem Solving Skill XH480” class, but on that day, ten out of

50 students were absent for their field trip The official questionnaire was administered on SP210 class later after being deleted 10 items which were unclear and invalid Before the participants filled in the questionnaire, I hadgiven them clear and careful instruction to ensure that the participants did not misunderstand any of items in the questionnaire and the rating scale The students had 30 minutes to fill out the questionnaire with honesty Finally, 67 questionnaires were fully collected However, only 66 valid questionnaires were

used for statistical analysis because one questionnaire was not responded completely One respondent left 14 sentences without making any responses Data from the questionnaire was analyzed by the Statistic Package of Social Science (16.0) to provide the reliability from the alpha value and descriptive statistic.

In this chapter, details of how the study was conducted have been described The next chapter will be about the result of the study

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The methodology used in this study has been described in chapter three Chapter four will be about the findings This chapter consists of two main parts The first part is about the result of the study Discussion of three previous research questions is presented in the second part.

4.1 Result

The data gained from the questionnaires were treated by Statistics Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16.0 As in chapter three, when I described the research method, the internal consistency of pilot questionnaire was (α= 80) To make the questionnaire more reliable, I deleted 10 items and restructured the items and used the new edited questionnaire for data collection The result of the scale test shows that the internal consistency of the questionnaire is relatively high (α= 92) (see the Appendix 4) Thirty-five items

in the questionnaire were clustered into three sections These sections are: 1) Knowledge, 2) Instructional method, 3) Material In the following section, I will present a) the overall mean score of learners’ perception of problem solving course, b) the mean score of each cluster, and detailed mean score of items in every cluster

The overall mean score of learners’ perception of problem solving course

In this part, I will present the result of learners’ perspective of (1) benefit

of knowledge they have acquired, (2) instructional method and (3) appropriateness of material

To check the learners’ perspective of the course I ran the Descriptive Statistics test for three clusters: (1) knowledge, (2) method and (3) material (See the chart 3.2.2 or appendix 3) The result is showed as in table 4.1

Table 4.1 Descriptive statistics of the cumulate mean score of clusters KNOWLEDGE, METHOD, MATERIAL

Now let’s look at the rating scale expanding from 1-indicating “strongly disagree” to 5- indicating “strongly agree” In between, I had scales 2, 3 and 4 which corresponded to the increasing value of agreement of the items to the correspondents, 2 indicates “ disagree”, 3 indicates “neutral”, 4 indicates “agree”.From table 4.1, it can be concluded that the learners have positive perspective ofthe SP210 because the cumulate mean score of cluster KNOWLEDGE,

METHOD, MATERIAL was M = 4.15 (SD=.37) which almost reaches the

highest scale 5 (strongly agree) The statistical result implies that most of thelearners have highly positive perception of the course

In fact, table 4.2 showed that most of learners strongly agree that the

knowledge they have learnt in this course benefits them (indicated by M = 4.18,

SD = 39), they also strongly agree that the instructional method used in this course is effective and appropriate to them (indicated by M = 4.13, SD = 40) In addition, the mean score of cluster MATERIAL M = 4.14 (SD = 53) implies that

most of learners find that the material is appropriate

Table 4.2 Descriptive statistics of students’ perspective of the course

that most of learners have positive perception of the SP210 (M = 4.15, SD = 37)

For more information about three main elements in the course, more Descriptive Statistics Tests were run, of which the result are presented in the following part

4.1.1 Learners’ perception of the benefits of knowledge they have learnt (KNOWLEDGE)

As mentioned above and table 4.3, most of learners strongly agree that the

knowledge they have learnt in this course benefits them (M = 4.18, SD = 39).