“THE USE OF PROJECT-BASED LEARNING APPROACH

IN TEACHING WRITING IMPERATIVE SENTENCE

AT SMPK BPK PENABUR CIMAHI”

Dian Priyantini Marpaung1, Dedeh Eha Zulaeha 2

1
IKIP SILIWANGI, Cimahi, Indonesia
2
IKIP SILIWANGI, Cimahi, Indonesia
1 2
dian.priyantini@gmail.com dedeheha84@gmail.com

Received: XXXXX X, XXXX; Accepted: XXXXX X, XXXX

Abstract

This research was carried out during the internship at SMPK BPK PENABUR Cimahi by taking
the material taught in English lesson for 8th grade at first semester. The objectives of this research
is to know the effectiveness of the Project-Based Learning approach in teaching writing
imperative sentence. The use of Project Based Learning suits the curriculum 2013 which has been
used by this school in order to make a good learning atmosphere and give motivation to the
students. Students were made into groups to analyze, learn and write the imperative sentence. At
the end of the class they were able to make their own conclusions about the material they have
learnt. This research emphasis on classroom action research which was conducted on the purpose
of solving the problem which happened during classroom activity and to improve the process in
teaching English. The data of this research were collected through the achievement test, planning,
taking action, observing and reflecting. The use of Project Based Learning can be seen in every
cycles that was observed by the researcher and the collaborator. By doing a classroom action
research, teacher reflects the activity in the classroom, how effective the action that were taken to
achieve the target.
Key Words: Imperative Sentence, Project-Based Learning Approach, Writing Skill

INTRODUCTION

Indonesia has experienced a fairly interesting educational developments and started from
the beginning of independence until now. The changes were made from time to time with
its foundation on UUD 1945 verse 31 that said every citizen has a right to education. It
also emphasized with SISDIKNAS point c that said “national education systems must be
able to guarantee equitable opportunity, improved quality of education, as well as the
relevance and efficiency of education management for facing the challenges in

1
accordance with the demands of the changing life of the local, national, and global
education renewal, so that needs to be done programmatically, directional, and
sustainability1. Based on that, Indonesian government through Education Ministry have
developed the curriculum from time to time until now with Kurikulum 2013 that is
obligate for all schools in Indonesia. It changes from the teacher centered education to
student centered education that produce the education system that make students more
active to explore the material by themselves. This is also confirm with the fact that we
live in an era of technology that demands the mastering of technology itself, thinking
skills such as creative thinking, critical thiking, ability to solve problems, the ability to
make decisions, the ability to communicate well and the ability to collaborate. These skills
are technical, but it is very important because they are controlled by tools in improving
performance and productivity.

The concept of the Kurikulum 2013 oblige the institution to implement several
approaches such as Scientific, Problem-Based Learning, Project-Based Learning and
Discovery Learning approach. Those approaches have many ways to be execute in some
methods. There are several methods that can be used in the classroom to make students
experience a new ways of learning.

English as a subject in Indonesian education is also exposed to that changes. English must
be taught in a new diferent concept, so the students can master English with all its four
major skill, speaking, reading, listening and writing. The problem which often occurred
in the classroom is the different level of skill of the students. The students came from
varied elementary school with different standard in English study with varied skills in
English. Some are good enough, mostly for students who was from BPK PENABUR’s
foundation, but some of them are not good enough, even poor. Most of public school in
Indonesia does not have English subject in their curriculum. So, obviously this situation
is hard for teacher to deliver the subject because some of them will get bored or some of
them would not understand at all.

1
(https://kelembagaan.ristekdikti.go.id/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/UU no_20 th 2003.pdf)

2
Understand the situation in the classroom with various background and skills of the
students, the teacher must have strategies to overcome this situation to make all the
students get the lesson well. Considering the use of Kurikulum 2013 that is used by SMPK
BPK PENABUR Cimahi, the researcher took one of the approaches which is Project-
Based Learning to overcome the difficulties. Markham (2003:4) argues that project based
learning is a systematic teaching method that engages students in learning knowledge and
skills through an extended inquiry process structured around complex, authentic
questions and carefully designed products and tasks. Students work in a real situation and
they produce a product in real life. In project based learning approach, students work
collaboratively among them and they reflect on what they have been learned. By that way,
students become active in learning their English.

One of a simple sentence that has to be taught for 8th grade students is writing imperative
sentence. Imperative sentence which also known as directive sentence is a kind of
sentence that is used to advice or give instruction to whoever the text is being addressed.
The imperative sentence can be formed as a request sentence, an invitation, a command
and an instruction. This research is focusing on imperative sentence as a command. One
thing that the students must remember that in imperative sentence does not have an
identifiable subject written out. The subject is implied or elliptical which means the writer
assume that he will have attention to whoever read the sentence. Though usually it only
consist of one sentence, the issue of making imperative sentence is how to make adequate
sentence which can be understood by whoever reads the sentence.

RESEARCH METHOD

This research is using classroom action research where teacher acts as the researcher with
the aim of making a better teaching learning process and more effective. Classroom action
research defined as one of the problem-solving strategies that utilize concrete actions and
capacity building processes in detecting and resolving problems (Narmaditya, Winarning,

3
and Wulandari: 2017 Classroom action research defined as one of the problem-solving
strategies that utilize concrete actions and capacity building processes in detecting and
resolving problems (Narmaditya, Winarning, and Wulandari: 2017). There are four stages
in this research, namely; planning, implementing, observing, and reflecting. This action
research planned in two cycles.

This research was held at a private school in Cimahi, SMPK BPK PENABUR Cimahi.
The research was conducted in the first semester in the 8th grade in 2018/2019 academic
year which consisted in 30 students. The researcher choosed this class because the ability
of the students was varied in this class.

There were seven meetings to do this research in two cycles. Three meeting were for the
test and the rest were for doing the treatments. The forces used in this research is
observation and the test. The observation did when the researcher doing the treatments.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Result
The result was carried on the first semester of junior high school for seven meetings. The
meeting were created in two cycles. Every cycle had the same process which it was the
steps of the CAR. There were planning, acting, observing and reflecting.

Cylce 1: In Planning, the reseracher designed the lesson plan and the media for teaching
and learning process. In implementing, the project based learning applied in learning
process. The first step in project was the essential questions about the project. The teacher
give some questions to the students about the material. Then designed about the project.
Students and teacher designed the project together. After that made the schedule about
the project. The teacher monitored the improved students project. And the last was the
teacher assesed the students project and finally students and teacher evaluated the project.

4
 Table 1 Meeting in cycle 1
Meeting Topic Activity
1 Pre test The researcher gave the students test in
10 item
2 Treatment 1 The teacher give the example about the
Imperative Sentence topic
3 Post test The teacher give the post test

In the second cycles, the activities was same with the first cycles, but there were some
emphasis based on the revised plan.

Table 2. Meeting in cycle 2

Meeting Topic
4 Treatment 2
5 Treatment 3
6 Treatment 4
7 Post test
Activity
The teacher devided the students into
small group in two or three person
The students and teacher design the
project to make imperative sentence in
the right ways.
The students and teacher make the
schedule to create the project.
The teacher monitored the students
activities in making the project.
The students communicated the project
in front of the class
The teacher assess and evaluate the
students project.
The teacher make the reflection to
make the better way in the next project
The teacher the the post test and the
questions is same with the post test

Discussion

From the table above we can see that in the Treatment 1, first meeting after pre-test, the
teacher taught the students using project based learning approach, which students and
teacher discussed about the project they will make. In this cycle, teacher gave more
instruction and students followed it by their own interpretation.

5
In the second cycle, students were more active because the students were more aware of
the material they were learning. The formation of students into groups were also increase
the motivation and student’s activity. The groups were made with varied skills, so the
students helped each other in order to make their project had a good score.

The atmosphere of the class also became better while they presented their projects in front
of the class. They were filled with enthusiastic with strong feeling to complete their
project and became the best one.

Table 3. Improvement on Student’s Score of The Tests

Pre-test 1 Post-test 1 Post-test2

Minimum score 45 60 65
Maximal score 82 85 92
Mean score 67,433 74,067 78,53
Variables Entered/Removedb

Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method

1 posttesta . Enter

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: pretest

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

pretest 30 45 82 67.43 8.724

6
 Variables Entered/Removedb

Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method

1 posttesta . Enter

posttest 30 60 85 74.07 6.943

Valid N (listwise) 30

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

Unstandardized
Residual

N 30

Normal Parametersa Mean .0000000

Std. Deviation 5.10048951

Most Extreme Differences Absolute .147

Positive .143

Negative -.147

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z .807

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .532

a. Test distribution is Normal.

Post-Test2

7
 Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Pretest 30 45 82 67.43 8.724

Posttest 30 65 92 78.53 6.882

Valid N (listwise) 30

8
 Descriptivesa,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z

Zscore(pretest) Statistic Std. Error

posttest -0.852011324597313 Mean 74.00 2.098

95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 68.18

Mean
Upper Bound 79.82

5% Trimmed Mean 73.78

Median 72.00

Variance 22.000

Std. Deviation 4.690

Minimum 70

Maximum 82

Range 12

Interquartile Range 7

Skewness 1.744 .913

Kurtosis 3.322 2.000

-0.278909536751588 Mean 76.67 2.404

95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 66.32

Mean
Upper Bound 87.01

5% Trimmed Mean .

Median 78.00

9
 Variance 17.333

Std. Deviation 4.163

Minimum 72

Maximum 80

Range 8

Interquartile Range .

Skewness -1.293 1.225

Kurtosis . .

0.0649515359558467 Mean 76.67 2.906

95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 64.16

Mean
Upper Bound 89.17

5% Trimmed Mean .

Median 76.00

Variance 25.333

Std. Deviation 5.033

Minimum 72

Maximum 82

Range 10

Interquartile Range .

Skewness .586 1.225

10
 Kurtosis . .

0.294192251094137 Mean 82.00 1.155

95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 77.03

Mean
Upper Bound 86.97

5% Trimmed Mean .

Median 82.00

Variance 4.000

Std. Deviation 2.000

Minimum 80

Maximum 84

Range 4

Interquartile Range .

Skewness .000 1.225

Kurtosis . .

0.752673681370716 Mean 85.00 1.000

95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 72.29

Mean
Upper Bound 97.71

5% Trimmed Mean .

Median 85.00

Variance 2.000

11
 Std. Deviation 1.414

Minimum 84

Maximum 86

Range 2

Interquartile Range .

Skewness . .

Kurtosis . .

0.867294038939861 Mean 84.00 2.000

95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 58.59

Mean
Upper Bound 109.41

5% Trimmed Mean .

Median 84.00

Variance 8.000

Std. Deviation 2.828

Minimum 82

Maximum 86

Range 4

Interquartile Range .

Skewness . .

Kurtosis . .

12
a. pretest is constant when Zscore(pretest) = -2,57132. It has been omitted.

b. pretest is constant when Zscore(pretest) = -1,99821. It has been omitted.

c. pretest is constant when Zscore(pretest) = -1,19587. It has been omitted.

d. pretest is constant when Zscore(pretest) = -,85201. It has been omitted.

e. pretest is constant when Zscore(pretest) = -,50815. It has been omitted.

f. pretest is constant when Zscore(pretest) = -,27891. It has been omitted.

g. pretest is constant when Zscore(pretest) = -,04967. It has been omitted.

h. pretest is constant when Zscore(pretest) = ,06495. It has been omitted.

i. pretest is constant when Zscore(pretest) = ,29419. It has been omitted.

j. pretest is constant when Zscore(pretest) = ,40881. It has been omitted.

k. pretest is constant when Zscore(pretest) = ,63805. It has been omitted.

l. pretest is constant when Zscore(pretest) = ,75267. It has been omitted.

m. pretest is constant when Zscore(pretest) = ,86729. It has been omitted.

n. pretest is constant when Zscore(pretest) = 1,44040. It has been omitted.

o. pretest is constant when Zscore(pretest) = 1,55502. It has been omitted.

p. pretest is constant when Zscore(pretest) = 1,66964. It has been omitted.

q. posttest is constant when Zscore(pretest) = -2,57132. It has been omitted.

r. posttest is constant when Zscore(pretest) = -1,99821. It has been omitted.

s. posttest is constant when Zscore(pretest) = -1,19587. It has been omitted.

t. posttest is constant when Zscore(pretest) = -,50815. It has been omitted.

u. posttest is constant when Zscore(pretest) = -,04967. It has been omitted.

v. posttest is constant when Zscore(pretest) = ,40881. It has been omitted.

13
w. posttest is constant when Zscore(pretest) = ,63805. It has been omitted.

x. posttest is constant when Zscore(pretest) = 1,44040. It has been omitted.

y. posttest is constant when Zscore(pretest) = 1,55502. It has been omitted.

z. posttest is constant when Zscore(pretest) = 1,66964. It has been omitted.

NPar Tests

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

pretest posttest

N 30 30

Normal Parametersa Mean 67.43 78.53

Std. Deviation 8.724 6.882

Most Extreme Differences Absolute .097 .151

Positive .070 .129

Negative -.097 -.151

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z .532 .827

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .940 .500

a. Test distribution is Normal.

14
Conclusion
Through all analysis and observation during the activity in the classroom, teaching
writing imperative text with project-based approach at SMPK BPK PENABUR Cimahi
had done well. The students which came from different elementary school have various
skill in English. Some of them are good enough but the other vary from average to poor.
This condition effects to the strategy teacher must use to deliver the material in the
classroom.

The use of Kurikulum 2013 that pushed teacher to make changes in the method of
teaching. Teacher is no longer the one who must explain about the lesson in front of the
classroom, but student must explore by them self. With the project-based approach, it
increases the motivation to learn English, the writing skill and the tense of activity of each
student in the classroom. The gap of skill among students in the classroom can be dealt
with a correct approach. It also proves that Kurikulum 2013 is fit to be applied in the
classroom for any lesson. The problem is only how the teacher prepares the material and
deliver the lesson on front of the classroom.

Referensi
Markham, T., Larmer, J., & Ravitz, J. (2003). Project-Based Learning Handbook: A
Guide to Standards Focused Project-Based Learning for Middle and High School
Teachers. Novato, CA: Buck Institute for Education.

Narmaditya, Winarning & Wulandari. (2017). Impact of Problem-Based Learning on

Student Achievement in Economics Course. Malang: Universitas Negeri Malang.

15