















































1 
 

JOURNAL OF ENGLISH EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY 

Vol. 01 No. 01, March 2020, pp. 1- 19 

Available online at:  

http://jeet.fkdp.or.id/index.php/jeet/issue/current 

ISSN: 2721-3811 (media online) 

 

The Effect Of Project-Based Learning On Students’ Vocabulary Achievement 

At Second Grade Of Islamic Junior High School 

Mufidah Kholis1, Imam Nur Aziz2 

Students of Institut Keislaman Abdullah Faqih Gresik1 

English Language Department, Faculty of Tarbiyah, Institut Keislaman Abdullah Faqih Gresik2 

mufidahkholis@gmail.com1,  imamnuraziz@gmail.com2  

ABSTRACT 

This article aims to find out the empirical evidence of enriching students’ vocabulary through project-based 

learning (PjBL). Project-based learning (Project Based Learning) is a learning method that uses projects as 

the core of learning. This is an innovative learning method that involves project work where students work 

independently in constructing their learning and culminating in real products. The researcher uses 

experiments and samples are students of the second grade of junior high in Sugihwaras Bojonegoro. The result 

shows that the pretest average of the experimental group is 2.100. The post-test average of the experimental 

group is 2.500. The obtained t-test is 15, 20, whereas the t-table is 2, 02 for a = 5%. The t-test score is higher 

than the t-table (15, 20> 2, 02). It means that Ha is accepted while Ho is rejected. Since the t-test score was 

higher than the t-table, that can include project-based learning were an effective model in enriching students’ 

vocabulary of English learning process at the second grade of Islamic Junior High in Sugihwaras Bojonegoro. 

Keywords: English Vocabulary, Project-Based Learning 

 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Learning vocabulary as one of the basic 

communication tools is often considered by 

language learners as the most difficult field in 

language learning (Çelik & Toptaş, 2010). 

Many researchers (Coady & Huckin, 1997; 

Derakhshan & Khatir, 2015; Feng & Webb, 

2019; Grabe & Stoller, 2018; Mokhtar, 

Rawian, Yahaya, Abdullah, & Mohamed, 

2017; Peters, Heynen, & Puimege, 2016; 

Tosun, 2015) considered a good knowledge 

of vocabulary to be crucial for 

http://jeet.fkdp.or.id/index.php/jeet/issue/current
http://u.lipi.go.id/1580741566
mailto:mufidahkholis@gmail.com
mailto:imamnuraziz@gmail.com


2 
 

communicative competence. Indeed, in order 

to understand the meaning of different kinds 

of English sentences and passages, it is 

important to have excellent and huge 

vocabulary storage (Nelson, Dole, Hosp, & 

Hosp, 2015). (Maftoon, Hamidi, & Sarem, 

2015; Tozcu & Coady, 2004) acquires 

adequate knowledge of vocabulary is one of 

the significant issues which enhance reading 

comprehension. 

Because of the efficient strategy to 

enhance students’ vocabulary competence 

can be an identification of efficient language 

learning strategies (LLSs) followed by 

training the learners how to utilize them 

effectively. When we learn a language, there 

are four skills that we need for complete 

communication (Reed, Petscher, & 

Foorman, 2016). Communicative 

competence includes linguistic competence 

which students can achieve by having the 

abilities in grammar and vocabulary (Vaca 

Torres & Rodríguez Gómez, 2017). Besides, 

that English learners must comprehend the 

vocabulary component. Further, teaching 

and learning will improve success if students' 

vocabulary supported by some factors as a 

method that is used in teaching English 

competence. In this research, the writer’s 

attention focused on vocabulary as one of the 

English language components. 

There is no doubt that vocabulary 

plays a significant role in foreign language 

learning. Adequate knowledge of words is a 

prerequisite for effective language use. 

Learners whose vocabulary is below a 

specific threshold level struggle to decode 

the essential elements of a text, which makes 

it hard for them to develop any higher-level 

understanding of the context. Vocabulary is 

an essential component of all uses language 

(Aziz & Dewi, 2019). Furthermore, (Kim, 

2016) explain that Vocabularies are 

components of language proficiency and 

provide much of the basis for how well 

learners learn a language. Without an 

extensive vocabulary strategy for acquiring 

new vocabulary, learners often achieve less 

than their potential and maybe discouraged 

from making use of language learning 

opportunities around them such listening to 

the radio, listening to the native speakers, 

using the language in different contexts, 

reading, or watching television. 

This study aims to share versatile 

teaching methods suitable for teaching 

English (project-based, problem-based 

learning, and “just-in-time” teaching) are 

taught in the teaching process. In problem-

based learning, students are confronted with 

an open-ended, real-world problem and 

work in teams to identify learning needs and 



3 
 

develop a viable solution, with instructors 

acting as facilitators rather than primary 

sources of information. Problem-based 

learning is not a secure teaching method to 

implement. It requires considerable subject 

expertise and flexibility on the part of 

instructors, who may be forced out of their 

areas of expertise (Fasihuddin & Skinner, 

2015). Project-based learning begins with an 

assignment to carry out one or more tasks 

that lead to the production of the final 

product design, a model, a device or a 

computer simulation and is very suitable for 

engineering education. The culmination of 

the project is usually a written report 

summarizing the procedure used to produce 

the product and presenting the outcome. 

Project-based Learning is one of the 

methods recommended to be used. Project-

Based learning refers to a method allowing 

students to design, plan, and carry out an 

extended project that produces a publicly 

exhibited output such as a product, 

publication, or presentation (Hugerat, 2016). 

Through PBL, the learners are engaged in 

purposeful communication to complete 

authentic activities (project-work), so that 

they have the opportunity to use the 

language in a relatively natural context. 

Project-Based Learning focuses on 

students’ vocabulary while constructing 

personally meaningful artifacts (Vaca Torres 

& Rodríguez Gómez, 2017), the tone of a 

classroom may change. It is uncomfortable 

for the students and the teacher. Different 

students will be researching different topics, 

so the role of the teacher, as well as the role 

of the student, may change. It's important to 

begin slowly. One experienced teacher with 

twenty-five years under her belt suggests her 

comfort zone would include two projects 

rather than a continuous series of project-

based science units (Prince & Felder, 2006). 

The class time it is necessitated by project-

based learning forces the discussion. 

Overall, the research on Project Based 

Learning reports positive outcomes related 

to student learning in the areas of content 

knowledge, collaborative skills, engagement 

and motivation, and critical thinking and 

problem-solving skills. There are five criteria 

to define project-based learning; Projects are 

central, not peripheral to the curriculum,  

projects are focused on questions or 

problems that ‘drive’ students to encounter 

and struggle with the central concepts and 

principals of the discipline, projects involve 

students in a constructive investigation, 

projects are student-driven to some 



4 
 

significant degree, and projects are realistic, 

not school-like (Prince & Felder, 2006). 

Project-based learning has several 

positive effects on student content 

knowledge. Compared to traditional classes, 

students in project-based learning classes 

performed better on assessments of content 

knowledge also reported that had a positive 

effect on specific groups of students. For 

example, students with average to low verbal 

ability and students with little previous 

content knowledge learned more in Project 

classes than in traditional classes. For 

instance, students working on a geometry 

project linked to architecture and design 

utilized measurement skills. Project-based 

Learning is one of the methods recommended 

to be used.  

II. LITERATURE REVIEW 

A. Understanding of Language 
Vocabulary 

Generally, vocabulary can be defined as 

a list of words with their meanings, 

especially at the back of a book used for 

teaching a foreign language. Vocabulary is an 

essential component of all uses language 

(Lin, Liu, Sun, Wong, & Yeung, 2017). In 

other words, vocabulary is always related to 

the words and dictionary. There are some 

definitions of vocabulary by some experts. As 

taken from Wikipedia, vocabulary refers to 

all the words known and used by a particular 

person. It usually grows and evolves with 

age, and serves as a useful and fundamental 

tool for communication and acquiring 

knowledge.  

A similar statement the term of 

vocabulary refers to a list or set of words for 

a particular language or a list or set of words 

that individual speakers of language might 

use (Treiman, Decker, & Kessler, 2019; 

Wang, Teng, & Chen, 2015). It means that 

there are more than one words used by the 

speaker of a specific language. Vocabulary 

also refers to a group of words used by a 

person as a means of communication (Wang 

et al., 2015). Furthermore, Vocabulary is the 

total number of words that have been 

mastered by students to produce a language 

in communication. 

Vocabulary cannot be separated from 

the language; it is an essential part of the 

language because it is a component of 

language that maintains all of the 

information about the meaning and using a 

word in the language (Marx et al., 2015). It 

means that vocabulary is a vital part of the 

language, without vocabulary the language 

cannot be used to maintain all information in 

language. Vocabulary can be defined as 

sound that expresses a meaning and forms an 



5 
 

independent unit in a language. It can be said 

that vocabulary is the smallest unit of speech 

that processes individuals meaning to speak 

and can be used to interact with one another 

and vocabulary can be said as a group of 

words on specific languages as a part of 

teaching-learning in a foreign language.  

B. Project-Based Learning 

Project-based learning has a long 

history. As far back as the early 1900s, John 

Dewey supported "learning by doing" 

(Ulrich, 2016). Students learn best by doing, 

not by having information "poured" into their 

heads. They would demonstrate their 

knowledge through creativity and 

collaboration. Students should be provided 

with opportunities to think from themselves 

and articulate their thoughts.  

This sentiment is also reflected in 

constructivism and constructionism. 

Constructivism is a learning theory of how 

student constructs knowledge from 

experience, which is unique to each 

individual (Anthony, 1996; Duffy & 

Jonassen, 2013; Perkins, 1991). Through 

interacting with their environment, 

conducting investigations, conversations or 

activities, an individual constructs new 

knowledge on his/ her prior knowledge, and 

thus each individual's knowledge 

construction is different. 

Project-Based Learning is a student-

driven, teacher-facilitated approach to 

learning (Thomas, 2000). Learners pursue 

knowledge by asking questions that have 

piqued their natural curiosity. The genesis of 

project is an inquiry. Students develop a 

question and are guided through research 

under the teacher’s supervision. Discoveries 

are illustrated by creating a project to share 

with a select audience. Organizers support 

systematization of the processes that will be 

implemented throughout the research and 

project phases of Project-Based Learning. 

Student choice is a key element of this 

approach. Teachers oversee each step of the 

process and approve each choice before the 

student embarks in a direction. Children 

with similar inquiries may elect to work 

cooperatively, thereby nurturing twenty-

first-century collaboration and 

communication skills and honoring 

students’ learning styles or preferences.  

Project-based learning is not a 

supplementary activity to support learning. 

It is the basis of the curriculum. Most 

projects include reading, writing, and 

mathematics by nature. Many inquiries are 

science-based or originate from current 



6 
 

social problems. The outcome of Project 

Based Learning is greater understanding of a 

topic, deeper learning, higher-level reading, 

and increased motivation to learn. Project is 

a key strategy for creating independent 

thinkers and learners. Children solve real-

world problems by designing their inquiries, 

planning their learning, organizing their 

research, and implementing a multitude of 

learning strategies. Students flourish under 

this child-driven, motivating approach to 

learning and gain valuable skills that will 

build a strong foundation for their future in 

our global economy (Bell, 2010; Erdogan & 

Bozeman, 2015). 

Project-based learning is a student-

centered in which students learn about 

subject materials through the experience of 

problem-solving by using specific terms. 

Problem-based learning is quickly 

complicated by the use of specific terms that 

have a variety of definitions and 

understandings in broader literature (Savery, 

2015). Project-Based Learning is not a new 

instructional approach, but it now has new 

respectability and an ever-growing number 

of proponents. Overall, the research on 

Project-based learning reports positive 

outcomes related to student learning in the 

areas of content knowledge, collaborative 

skills, engagement and motivation, and 

critical thinking and problem-solving skills. 

This summary utilizes learning there are five 

criteria to define project-based learning in 

are central, not peripheral to the 

curriculum”;(b) “projects are project-based: 

(a) “Projects questions or problems that 

‘drive-students to encounter (and struggle 

with) the central concepts and principals of 

the discipline”;(c) “projects involve students 

in a constructive investigation”;(d) “projects 

are student-driven to some significant 

degree”; and (e) “projects are realistic, not 

school-like (Savery, 2015)”. 

III. METHOD 

The researcher used Pre-experimental, 

which is conducted without a controlling 

group. The one-group pretest and posttest 

design usually involves three steps: 

administering a pretest measuring the 

dependent variable, applying the 

experimental treatment X to the subjects, 

and administering a post-test, again 

measuring the dependent variable 

A. Participants 

Students who carry out this activity 

are second-grade students as many as 36 

students which consists of male and female 

students. 



7 
 

B. Instrument 

The researcher needs to make a plan in 

preparation or instrument commonly. 

Grating instrument preparation showed a 

link between the variables studied with data 

sources from which the data be retrieved, the 

method used and the instruments are 

arranged. Test item consists of two forms, 

namely questions about the pre-test and 

post-test. At the pre-test, the question does 

not require a grating instrument, while for 

the matter post-test grating instrument is 

needed. 

Based on the instrument are made, 

researchers can measure that project-based 

learning can enrich students' vocabulary in 

the English learning process. Students 

should be able to understand and answer a 

question from text. If connecting with the 

collecting data, the researcher uses: 

1. The instrument of a test is T-test as 

follow pre-test and post-test 

2. The instrument of the questionnaire 

method is questionnaire Scale Likert  

3. The instrument of documentation 

method is a book documentation 

IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION 

The first item validity analysis is to 

know the index validity of the test. Try out 

tests were conducted for VIII K of MTs 

Mambaus Sholihin. Class VIII K consisted of 

36 respondents. They were given a try out 

using the instrument that will be used in the 

experiment class. The following is the 

interpretation of the tryout test to find out 

the validity and reliability of the instrument. 

a. Validity is obtained that from 25 test items; 

20 test items are valid and 5 test items, 

which are invalid because the computation 

result of their rxy value is lower than their r 

table value. 

The following is the example of item validity 

computation for item number 5 and for the 

other items would use the same formula. 

Formula: 

N  = 22 

∑Y = 389 

∑XY  = 353 ∑X2 = 19 

∑X = 19 ∑Y2 = 7363 

rxy    
N∑XY−(∑X)(∑Y)

√{N∑X
2

−(∑X2)}{N∑Y2−(∑Y
2

)}

 

criteria: the item is valid if rxy > rtable 



8 
 

rxy    

(22 x 353)−(19)(389)

√{(22 x 19)−(192)}{(22 x 7363)−(389
2

)}

 

= 0, 481 

Because of rxy > rtable , so item number 5 is 

valid. 

 

b. Reliability of the TryOut Test 

It is to find out whether a test has a 

higher critical score and give the 

stability or consistency of the test scores 

or not. From the computation of 

reliability of the try out instruments, it 

was obtained 0.783, for α 5 % with N = 22 

It was obtained 0.423.thus, the value 

resulted from computation is higher 

than its critical value. It could be 

concluded that the instruments that 

were used in this research were reliable. 

The complete analysis and the 

computation as follow: Before 

computing the reliability, the writer had 

to compute Varian (S2) with the formula 

below: 

N = 22  ∑ y = 389 

∑ y2 = 7363 ∑ pq = 5,492 

S2 =  
∑ y

2− 
(∑ y )

N
 
2

N
 

S2 =  
 7363

− 
(389 )

22
 
2

22
 

S2 =  
7363−6878

22
 

S2 =  
485

22
 

S2 = 22, 05 

The computation of the Varian (S2) is 20, 

72. After finding the Varian (S2) the writer 

computed the reliability of the test as 

follows: 𝑟11 =  (
𝑛

𝑛−1
) (

𝑆−∑𝑝𝑞

𝑆2
) 

            𝑟11 =  (
25

22 − 1
) (

22,05 − 5,492

22,05
) 

r11 = 1,04 (
16,56

22,05
) 

= 0,782 

The result shows that 0,782 is more than 

0,423, it’s meant that the items of instrument 

were valid. 

a. Discriminating Power of Try Out Test 

The discrimination power of an item 

indicated the extent to which the item 



9 
 

discriminated between the tests, separating 

the more able tests from the less able. To do 

this analysis, the number of try-out subjects 

was divided into two groups, upper and 

lower groups 

D = 
BA

J
A

−
BB

J
B

=PA − PB  

0, 00 < DP ≤ 0, 20: Less 

0, 20 < DP ≤ 0, 40: Enough 

0, 41 < DP ≤ 0, 70: Good 

0, 71 < DP ≤ 1, 00: Excellent. 

Below is the example of the 

computation discriminating power on 

item number 5. 

BA = 11 

BB = 8 

JA = 11 

JB = 11 

D = 
11

11
−

11

8
=0, 27 

The result obtained D = 0, 27 

Because of the result is between 0,21-

0,40. So the item number 15 is enough. 

b. Difficulty Level of Try Out Test 

The following is the computation of the 

level difficulty for item number 5 and for the 

other items would use the same formula. 

Criteria: 

0.00 ≤ P< 0.30 is difficult 

0.30 ≤ P< 0.70 is sufficient 

0.70 ≤ P< 1.00 is easy 

Calculation 

B = 11 = 8 = 19 

JS = 22 

P = 
B

JS
 

P = 
19

22
 

P = 0, 86 

Because of the result is between 0, 70 – 

1,00, so the item number is easy. 

The second analysis represents the 

result of the pre-test and post-test that was 

done both in the experimental and control 

group. This analysis will answer the research 

question “Does Project-Based Learning 

model enrich students’ vocabulary in second 

grade of junior high school of Darul Huda 

Sugihwaras Bojonegoro” We can conclude 



10 
 

project Based Learning is sufficient when the 

result of posttest of the experimental class 

has significant differences or the assumption 

that class is equal is not fulfilled. 

Based on the result of VIII students in 

the experimental group, before they were 

taught students vocabulary through Project-

Based Learning, it found that the maximum 

score was 80 and the minimal score is 35. 

1) The Data of Value Pre-Test And Post-

Test Student In Students Vocabulary. 

This data procurable from result Pre and 

Posttest value vocabulary through Project-

Based learning in the English learning 

process of typescript last. 

Table 1 
Tabulating the result of pre-test and post-

test 
No Name pretest postest 
1 AQ 45 60 
2 AR 50 60 
3 AF 55 70 
4 BY 50 65 
5 C 50 60 
6 DF 45 60 
7 DR 45 60 
8 FO 35 55 
9 FA 45 60 
10 FK 55 65 
11 GM 50 60 
12 HYK 70 70 
13 HI 60 85 

14 IMS 55 65 
15 I 60 75 
16 INR 65 80 
17 JAS 60 80 
18 MAQ 70 75 
19 MBM 75 90 
20 MB 50 65 
21 MRA 55 60 
22 MSA 70 70 
23 MMBP 55 65 
34 MS 50 70 
25 NFS 75 80 
26 PL 55 65 
27 PBP 60 85 
28 RIS 40 55 
29 RA 60 70 
30 SSFA 40 65 
31 VSK 60 70 
32 VS 80 95 
33 ZA 60 75 
34 LF 50 60 
35 AFA 60 80 
36 AK 70 75 

 

Table (4.1) shows that there is a 

significant effect size of each item and the 

total degree of test, which means the project-

based strategy had a large effect and 

improved the English of the experimental 

group. Consequently, it can be assured that 

the project-based strategy had a significant 

effect on learning English among second 

grade of junior high school. Consequently, 

the null hypothesis was rejected. 

The data analysis form contents from 

research, with the data analysis that be 

intended to born or “t” test propriety on 



11 
 

hypotheses have forward is for try propriety 

about does Project-Based Learning model 

enrich students vocabulary typescript in 

English learning process at second-grade 

students of MTs Darul Huda Sugihwaras 

Bojonegoro. 

a. The data lacked 

b. The result of value pre-test and post-test 

c. Alternative Hypotheses (Ha) that try 

building on research problems that explain as 

the following: does the Project-Based 

Learning model enrich students’ vocabulary 

in the English learning process. 

d. Null Hypotheses (Ho), not the Project-Based 

Learning model, enrich students’ vocabulary 

in the English learning process. 

e. For the forward  “t” test hypotheses as already 

forward, so the writer uses analysis statistics 

“t” test with table extrapolation the 

following: 

Table 2 
Tabulating the result of the data 

experimental class 

No 
Pre-
Test 

Post-
Test 

Gain (d) 
posttest 
and pre-

test D2 

1 45 60 +15 225 

2 50 60 +10 100 

3 55 70 +15 225 

4 50 65 +15 225 

5 50 60 +10 100 

6 45 60 +15 225 

7 45 60 +15 225 

8 35 55 +20 400 

9 45 60 +15 225 

10 55 65 +10 100 

11 50 60 +10 100 

12 70 70 -  
13 60 85 +25 625 

14 55 65 +10 100 

15 60 75 +15 225 

16 65 80 +15  
17 60 80 +20 400 

18 70 75 +5 25 

19 75 90 +15 225 

20 50 65 +15 225 

21 55 60 +5 25 

22 70 70 -  
23 55 65 +10 100 

24 50 70 +20 400 

25 75 80 +5 25 

26 55 65 +10 100 

27 60 85 +25 625 

28 40 55 +15 225 

29 60 70 +10 100 

30 40 65 +15 225 

31 60 70 +10 100 

32 80 95 +15 225 

33 60 75 +15 225 

34 50 60 +10 100 

35 60 80 +20 400 

36 70 75 +5 25 
N = 
36 

X1 = 
2100 

X2 = 
2500 

Md = ∑d 
= 460 

D2 = 
6775 

 



12 
 

The table shows the result pre-test and 

post-test and finding the gain in the 

experimental class — the total of students in 

second grade in MTs. Darul Huda is 36. The 

total of prê-test in the experimental class is 

2100 and the total score of the post-test is 

2500. The finding between pre-test and post-

test (Md) is 460, and the next total (D2) is 

6775. From the explanation above, it can be 

concluded that the total of pre-test and post-

test scores were improving. 

So, Data analysis of pre-test and post-

test experimental class. In this research, the 

researcher analysis the data based on the 

result of the test.  

Md = ∑d  = 
460

36
 = 12, 77 

∑X2d  = ∑d2 ─ 
(∑𝑑)2

𝑁
 

= 6775 ─  
(460)2

36
 

= 6775 ─  
211600

36
 = 6775 

─ 5877, 77 

= 897, 23 

t = 
12,77

√
897,23

1260

 

= 
12,77

√0,71
 

= 
12,77

0,84
 

= 15, 20 

The result of the research shows that the 

experimental class has a mean value of 2.100 

in the pre-test. Meanwhile, the post-test (the 

students who are taught using project-based 

learning) has a mean value of 2.500. It can be 

said that the student's vocabulary of the 

post-test is higher than the pre-test. Based on 

the t-test analysis that was done, it was 

found that the t-score (15,20) was higher 

than t-table by using 5% alpha of significance 

(2,02) and t-table by using 1% alpha of 

significance (2,71). 

 Since score t > table t , it proved that there 

was a significant difference between the 

improvement of students vocabulary that 

was given a new treatment (using project-

based learning) and the improvement of 



13 
 

students vocabulary that was given a usual 

treatment. 

Since the obtained t-score was higher 

than the critical score on the table, the 

difference was statistical significance. 

Therefore, based on the computation there 

was a significant difference in the vocabulary 

of students achievement scores between 

students were taught using project-based 

learning model and those were taught 

without using project-based learning for the 

second-grade students of MTs Darul Huda 

Sugihwaras Bojonegoro. So it can be said that 

using project-based learning is effective to 

improve students’ vocabulary, and so the 

action hypothesis is accepted. 

Analysis Questionnaire 

 In this analysis, the researcher gives a 

questionnaire about students’ vocabulary. 

The researcher takes all of the respondents 

from the second grade of junior high school 

Darul Huda and the total all of this is 36 

students as criteria 30 questionnaire with 

the follows 15 for variable X and 15 to variable 

Y. 

The questionnaire has three alternative 

answers. 

1. a with score 3 

2. b with score 2 

3. c with score 1 to know clearly about the 

result of analysis questionnaire the 

researcher gives the data as follows: 

Table 4. 3 
The Score of Students Values of Variable X 

    

Total 
Score 

X 

No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  

1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 39 

2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 33 

3 3 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 34 

4 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 27 

5 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 36 

6 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 3 35 

7 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 30 

8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 34 

9 3 3 1 1 3 3 2 3 3 3 31 

10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 30 

11 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 37 

12 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 35 

13 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 1 35 

14 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 39 

15 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 37 

16 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 41 

17 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 42 

18 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 42 

19 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 42 

20 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 37 

21 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 40 

22 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 39 

23 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 41 



14 
 

24 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 40 

25 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 45 

26 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 41 

27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 40 

28 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 45 

29 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 40 

30 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 40 

31 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 38 

32 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 39 

33 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 45 

34 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 39 

35 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 45 

36 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 33 

 
               1366 

  

Based on the resulting questionnaire of 

students vocabulary that students 

vocabulary of student second grade of MTs. 

Darul Huda is good enough. 

Table 4 
The score of students values of variable Y 

   

Total 
Score 

Y 

No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  
1 2 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 3 3 33 

2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 45 

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 45 

4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 43 

5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 44 

6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 45 

7 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 43 

8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 45 

9 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 45 

10 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 42 

11 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 42 

12 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 42 

13 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 43 

14 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 44 

15 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 45 

16 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 41 

17 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 42 

18 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 42 

19 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 45 

20 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 45 

21 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 44 

22 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 43 

23 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 43 

24 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 43 

25 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 45 

26 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 42 

27 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 45 

28 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 35 

29 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 45 

30 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 45 

31 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 45 

32 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 45 

33 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 45 

34 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 45 

35 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 45 

36 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 45 

 1560 
 

Based on the result of the questionnaire 

the researcher got the result of the 

effectiveness of Project-Based Learning in the 

English learning process. Further, the result 

of the questionnaire is good enough. 

The table shows the result variable X 

and variable Y and in the experimental class. 

The total of students in second grade in MTs. 



15 
 

Darul Huda is 36. The total of the 

questionnaire in the experimental class is 30 

and the total score of variable X is1366 and 

variable Y is 1560. The finding between 

variable X and variable Y is 460, and the next 

steps is finds X2 and Y2  

Table 5 
Result of variable X and Y 

No. 
Studen

t Variable X Variable Y 

1 39 33 

2 33 45 

3 34 45 

4 27 45 

5 36 44 

6 35 45 

7 30 43 

8 34 45 

9 31 43 

10 30 42 

11 37 42 

12 35 42 

13 35 43 

14 39 44 

15 37 45 

16 41 41 

17 42 42 

18 42 42 

19 42 45 

20 37 45 

21 40 44 

22 39 43 

23 41 45 

24 40 42 

25 45 45 

26 41 35 

27 40 45 

28 45 45 

29 40 45 

30 40 45 

31 38 45 

32 39 45 

33 45 45 

34 39 45 

35 45 45 

36 33 45 

 1366 1560 
 

Table 6 
Result Product Moment 

No X Y X2 Y2 XY 

1 39 33 1521 1089 1287 

2 33 45 1089 2025 1485 

3 34 45 1156 2025 1530 

4 27 45 729 1849 1161 

5 36 44 1296 1936 1584 

6 35 45 1225 2025 1575 

7 30 43 900 1849 1290 

8 34 45 1156 2025 2530 

9 31 43 9651 1849 1333 

10 30 42 900 1764 1260 

11 37 42 1369 1764 1554 

12 35 42 1225 1764 1470 

13 35 43 1225 1849 1505 

14 39 44 1521 1936 1716 

15 37 45 1369 2025 1665 

16 41 41 1681 1681 1681 

17 42 42 1764 1764 1764 

18 42 42 1764 1764 1764 

19 42 45 1764 2025 1890 

20 37 45 1369 2025 1665 

21 40 44 1600 1936 1760 

22 39 43 1521 1849 1677 



16 
 

23 41 45 1681 1936 1804 

24 40 42 1600 1849 1720 

25 45 45 2025 2025 2025 

26 41 35 1681 1764 1722 

27 40 45 1600 2025 1800 

28 45 45 2025 1225 1575 

29 40 45 1600 2025 1800 

30 40 45 1600 2025 1800 

31 38 45 1444 2025 1710 

32 39 45 1521 2025 1755 

33 45 45 2025 2025 2025 

34 39 45 1521 2025 1755 

35 45 45 2025 2025 2025 

36 33 45 1089 2025 1485 

 1366 1560 60247 53542 67842 
 

N  = 36 

∑X  = 1560 

∑Y  = 1366 

∑X2  = 53542 

∑Y2  = 67842 

∑XY  = 60247 

To know the effectiveness of project 

based learning in students vocabulary, so the 

researcher conducts with the rxy product 

moment as follows: 

rxy 
r (∑X)─(∑ x)(∑ y)

√{N(∑X)
2
─(∑X

2
)}{(N(∑Y

2
) − (∑Y

2
)}

 

rxy 
38(60247)─(1366)(1560)

√(36(53542─(1366
2
)}{(36(67842)─(1560

2
)}

 

rxy = 
2168892─2130960

 

rxy = 
37932

73230858
 

rxy = 0,5179 

After to know the total rxy is 0, 5179 

further, the last steps are testing rxy that the 

questionnaire is significant or not significant 

as formula 5% and 1%.  

Based on the score rxy the researcher 

conduct 36 students of the second grade of 

MTs Darul Huda. A number of n is 36 

respondents by table rxy product moment is 

0,5179. Score r-table is 0,304 for 5%, and the 

value of r above is 0,5179 from the result of 

the questionnaire the researcher include that 

questionnaire with 1% is 0, 424. A further 

result of calculating the table r more 

significant than the result of the product-

moment. 

Overal thus, the hypothesis in students' 

vocabulary is invalid and the result of the 

hypothesis of project-based learning is valid. 

The collection of values r is 0,579 located 



17 
 

between 0, 40 – 0,599. So the researcher 

includes that method analysis can use with 

enough interpretation. 

The rxy result (0,5179) shows that there 

was a significant effect size for 5% and 1% in 

students' vocabulary. This means that the 

performance of the students improved 

significantly as they mastered the 

vocabulary. This means that students gained 

suitable abilities to start and finish the 

vocabularies as they developed their interest 

and motivation to share in the presentation 

of the project. Moreover, they evaluated each 

other's projects through vocabulary. 

Consequently, the null hypothesis was 

rejected. 

V. CONCLUSION 

Based on the finding and discussion in 

the previous chapter, it could be concluded 

that the use of project-based learning to 

enrich students’ vocabulary in the English 

learning process is very effective. The results 

of the data analysis are: 

1. The average score of experimental (the 

students who were taught by project-

based learning) was 2.100 for the pretest 

and 2.500 for the post-test. Moreover, 

the average score of questionnaires ( 

between variable x and Y) was 1.366 for 

the variable X and 1.560 for the variable 

Y. The researcher includes that Project 

Based Learning is enriched students' 

vocabulary in students a second grade of 

junior high school MTs. Darul Huda 

Sugihwaras Bojonegoro. 

2. Project-based learning is useful in 

enriching students’ vocabulary at second 

grade of MTs. Darul Huda Sugihwaras 

Bojonegoro. The obtained score of the t-

test proved it. The t-test showed that t-

score 1.520 was higher than t-table 2,02 

for significance 5%. It meant that Ha 

was accepted and Ho was rejected. Since 

the t-score was higher than the t-table, 

and the questionnaire score is there was 

a sign. 



18 
 

VI. REFERENCES 

Anthony, G. (1996). Active learning in a 
constructivist framework. Educational 
Studies in Mathematics, 31(4), 349–369. 

Aziz, I. N., & Dewi, Y. A. S. (2019). The 
Concept of Language Environment: A 
Descriptive Study at Madrasah Aliah 
Keagamaan Gresik. EDUKASI: Jurnal 
Pendidikan Islam, 7(2), 1–23. 

Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 
21st century: Skills for the future. The 
Clearing House, 83(2), 39–43. 

Çelik, S., & Toptaş, V. (2010). Vocabulary 
learning strategy use of Turkish EFL 
learners. Procedia-Social and Behavioral 
Sciences, 3, 62–71. 

Coady, J., & Huckin, T. (1997). Second 
language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale 
for pedagogy. Cambridge University 
Press. 

Derakhshan, A., & Khatir, E. D. (2015). The 
effects of using games on English 
vocabulary learning. Journal of Applied 
Linguistics and Language Research, 2(3), 
39–47. 

Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (2013). 
Constructivism and the technology of 
instruction: A conversation. Routledge. 

Erdogan, N., & Bozeman, T. D. (2015). 
Models of Project-Based Learning for 
the 21 st Century. In A Practice-based 
Model of STEM Teaching (pp. 31–42). 
Springer. 

Fasihuddin, H., & Skinner, G. (2015). 
Towards adaptive open learning 
environments : Evaluating the precision 
of identifying learning styles by 
tracking learners ’ behaviours. Educ Inf 
Tecchnol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-
015-9458-5 

Feng, Y., & Webb, S. (2019). LEARNING 
VOCABULARY THROUGH 
READING, LISTENING, AND 
VIEWING: WHICH MODE OF 
INPUT IS MOST EFFECTIVE? Studies 
in Second Language Acquisition, 1–25. 

Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2018). Teaching 
Vocabulary for Reading Success. The 
TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language 
Teaching, 1–7. 

Hugerat, M. (2016). How teaching science 
using project-based learning strategies 
affects the classroom learning 
environment. Learning Environments 
Research, 19(3), 383–395. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-016-
9212-y 

Kim, Y. S. G. (2016). Direct and mediated 
effects of language and cognitive skills 
on comprehension of oral narrative 
texts (listening comprehension) for 
children. Journal of Experimental Child 
Psychology, 141, 101–120. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.08.00
3 

Lin, D., Liu, Y., Sun, H., Wong, R. K. S., & 
Yeung, S. S. sze. (2017). The pathway to 
English word reading in Chinese ESL 
children: the role of spelling. Reading and 
Writing, 30(1), 87–103. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-
9664-6 

Maftoon, P., Hamidi, H., & Sarem, S. N. 
(2015). The effects of CALL on 
vocabulary learning: A case of Iranian 
intermediate EFL learners. BRAIN. 

Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and 
Neuroscience, 3(4), 19–30. 

Marx, A., Stanat, P., Roick, T., Segerer, R., 
Marx, P., & Schneider, W. (2015). 
Components of reading comprehension 
in adolescent first-language and 



19 
 

second-language students from low-
track schools. Reading and Writing, 28(6), 
891–914. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-
015-9554-3 

Mokhtar, A. A., Rawian, R. M., Yahaya, M. 
F., Abdullah, A., & Mohamed, A. R. 
(2017). Vocabulary learning strategies 
of adult ESL learners. The English Teacher, 
12. 

Nelson, K. L., Dole, J. A., Hosp, J. L., & Hosp, 
M. K. (2015). Vocabulary instruction in 
K-3 low-income classrooms during a 
reading reform project. Reading 
Psychology, 36(2), 145–172. 

Perkins, D. N. (1991). What constructivism 
demands of the learner. Educational 
Technology, 31(9), 19–21. 

Peters, E., Heynen, E., & Puimege, E. (2016). 
Learning vocabulary through 
audiovisual input: The differential 
effect of L1 subtitles and captions. 
System, 63, 134–148. 

Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). 
Inductive teaching and learning 
methods: Definitions, comparisons, and 
research bases. Journal of Engineering 
Education, 95(2), 123–138. 

Reed, D. K., Petscher, Y., & Foorman, B. R. 
(2016). The contribution of vocabulary 
knowledge and spelling to the reading 
comprehension of adolescents who are 
and are not English language learners. 
Reading and Writing, 29(4), 633–657. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9619-
3 

Savery, J. R. (2015). Overview of problem-
based learning: Definitions and 
distinctions. Essential Readings in 

Problem-Based Learning: Exploring and 
Extending the Legacy of Howard S. Barrows, 
9, 5–15. 

Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research 
on project-based learning. 

Tosun, S. (2015). The effects of blended 
learning on EFL students’ vocabulary 
enhancement. Procedia-Social and 
Behavioral Sciences, 199, 641–647. 

Tozcu, A., & Coady, J. (2004). Successful 
learning of frequent vocabulary 
through CALL also benefits reading 
comprehension and speed. Computer 
Assisted Language Learning, 17(5), 473–
495. 

Treiman, R., Decker, K., & Kessler, B. 
(2019). Adults’ sensitivity to 
graphotactic differences within the 
English vocabulary. Applied 
Psycholinguistics, 40(1), 167–182. 

Ulrich, C. (2016). John Dewey and the 
project-based learning: landmarks for 
nowadays Romanian education. Journal 
of Educational Sciences and Psychology, 54–
60. 

Vaca Torres, A. M., & Rodríguez Gómez, L. 
F. (2017). Increasing EFL Learners’ Oral 
Production at a Public School Through 
Project-Based Learning. PROFILE Issues 
in Teachers’ Professional Development, 19(2), 
57–71. 
https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v19n2.5
9889 

Wang, B. T., Teng, C. W., & Chen, H. T. 
(2015). Using iPad to facilitate English 
vocabulary learning. International Journal 
of Information and Education Technology, 

5(2), 100–104.

 

 


