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

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
(SP210) AT CTU

Supervisor: M.A. Lê Thị Huyền

Researcher: Trương Thị Minh Thư
Student’s code: 7086650
Class: NN0852A2
Course: 34

Can Tho, April 2012

i


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

ii


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.

Ủy viên thư ký

Ủy viên

(Ký tên)

(Ký tên)

Cán bộ phản biện thứ nhất

Cán bộ phản biện thứ hai

Cần Thơ, ngày

tháng

Chủ tịch Hội đồng
Ký tên

iii

năm 2012


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

iv


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

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 unconditional
love and always raising me up when I am down.
All of the mistakes left in this thesis are mine.

Truong Thi Minh Thu

v


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
5.2. Limitation and recommendation for further study ...................................... 36
vi


5.3. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 36
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 38
APPENDIX 1 ............................................................................................................ 42
THE COURSE COMMENT SHEET ...................................................................... 42
APPENDIX 2 ............................................................................................................ 43
APPENDIX 4 ............................................................................................................ 52
APPENDIX 5 ............................................................................................................ 54

vii


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……….25
Table 4.3. Descriptive statistics of the cumulate mean of cluster apply, positive
change, perception………...………………………………………..26
Table 4.4. Descriptive statistics of students’ perspective of the benefits of
knowledge they have acquired in this course……….……………..26
Table 4.5. Descriptive statistics of students’ perspective of the extent to which
they can apply knowledge they have learnt………………………..26
Table 4.6. Descriptive statistics of students’ perspective of positive change due
to acquired knowledge……………………………………………..27

Table 4.7. Descriptive statistics of students’ perspective on knowledge acquired
Table 4.8. Descriptive statistics of the cumulate mean of clusters………..…..28
appropriateness”, “benefits”, “instructor’s impact………………...29
Table 4.9. Descriptive statistics of students’ perspective of the effectiveness and
appropriateness of instructional method used in this course………29
Table 4.10. Descriptive statistics of students’ perspective of the appropriateness
of the instructional method……………...…………………………30
Table 4.11. Descriptive statistics of students’ perspective of the benefits of the
instructional method………………………………………………..31
Table 4.12. Descriptive statistics of students’ perspective of instructor’s
influence …………………………………………………………..32
Table 4.13. Descriptive statistics of the cumulative of items 14, 33 …………...32
Table 4.14. Descriptive statistics of students’ perspective of the appropriateness
of the material…………………………………………………...…32

viii


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.2.3.

Framework of course evaluation……………………………..9

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

ix

ABSTRACT
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.

x


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.

xi


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 of
all, “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 not
like 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 by
Quality 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 comment
sheet of Quality Assurance and Testing Center, CTU is wide but not deep, while
this thesis just focuses on depth, not width. Because of those reasons, my thesis
1


“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?
1.2.3 Hypotheses
Basing on the relevant literature review and the research questions, I
hypothesize that
1. All students agree that knowledge they have acquired during the course of
problem solving skill in language education is beneficial and useful.
2. Most students realize that the instructional method applied in this course is
suitable for them and can benefit them.
2


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 with
theories 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.

3


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.

2.1 Educational evaluation
Educational evaluation has been defined in many different ways; however,
just some of definition will be mentioned to here.

Klooseterman, Giebel and Senyuva (2007) considered evaluation as “an
inherent part of educational process”. They also defined that “Educational
evaluation is the process of obtaining information and using it to come to some
conclusion which will be used to take decision”. To clarify the definition of
educational evaluation, I would like to cite some possible definitions from T-Kit
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.

4


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 formative
evaluation 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.

5


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 the

effects it has created on the learners. Moreover, IQPC (2006) added that
evaluations help us figure out the weaknesses of the training course in order that
those 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
6


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 about
potential solutions. Sharing the same idea, Allison and Metz (2007) indicates
that 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
7

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 a
training 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
8


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

Types of evaluation

Reason for evaluating

To assess
the quality

To improve

9

Ways to evaluate


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 skills
were 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
10


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
11


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
in education (Kirley, 2003).
“The need for learners to become successful problem solvers has become a dominant
theme in many national standards (AAAS, 1993; NCSS, 1997; NCTE, 1996; NCTM,
1989, 1991)”
( as cited in Kirley, 2003)

Huitt (1992) conveyed that improving individuals' and groups' abilities to
solve problems and make decisions was a significant issue in education, industry,
and government. Furthermore, FEMA (2010) supported that obtaining the good
12


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 will
know 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

13




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 s o lv i n g ”
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,
14