Date post: | 30-Dec-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | nguyenhuong |
View: | 284 times |
Download: | 2 times |
1
COMMON GRAMMATICAL ERRORS MADE BY BEGINNER
LEVEL STUDENTS (A STUDY OF LANGUAGE INTERFERENCE)
Maisarah
Unipdu – Jombang
ABSTRACT
First language has a significant effect on the second language acquisition.
Indonesian ESL learners, particularly those of beginner learners, often refer to Bahasa
Indonesian (L1) when they produce English sentences or utterance. This kind of
phenomenon in the study of second language acquisition is called the interference of
first language into second language (negative interlingual transfer).
The result of the study showed that the errors occurred are preposition errors,
article errors, verb errors, noun errors, conjunction errors, adjective errors, word order
errors, and time expression errors.
Markedness, besides the fact that they were intermediate-level students, was the
most obvious factor that contributes to the errors. This means when a certain grammar
rule in L2 (English) is more complex, the students were inclined to make errors. Some
different structures between English and Bahasa Indonesia might contribute to errors as
well. When the respondents faced certain English grammar which was different from
that of Bahasa Indonesia, they tended to use their knowledge of L1 to construct the
sentences. As a result, their sentence production sometimes fell into errors.
Keywords: L1 interference, markedness, First-year students
Background
First language has a significant
effect on the second language acquisition.
In Indonesia, English language learners
often use Indonesian language (L1) when
they speak or write in English. Therefore,
it is not strange to hear or read words like
"different with", "thank you before", "she
already go there." or "I go to Surabaya
yesterday."
This kind of phenomenon in the
study of second language acquisition is
called the interference of first language
into second language (negative
interlingual transfer). Such interference
often leads to errors (Krashen, Stephen,
1988). In some studies, the errors in the
second language are as a result of the
reference to the sentence structure (word
order) of the first language and the word
by word translation from the first
language into the second language. Some
of the errors that often happen due to the
influence of the first language
(Indonesian) into the second language
(English) are the elimination of the plural
markers (e.g., two man), the disagreement
between the subject and the verb (e.g., He
go to my house last night), and the
removal of the article "the" (e.g., Earth is
the third planet).
2
Thus it is important to do a
research on the interference of L1 into
L2. Gass & Selinker (1992: 7) states that
the language interference is one of the
essential studies in the second language
acquisition process. Therefore, English
teachers are expected to make use of the
results of this study to identify the
common grammatical errors made by the
beginner learners in constructing English
sentences due to the L1 interference. In
turn, they can formulate the appropriate
therapy for overcoming the errors.
This study will describe the
interference of Indonesian language (L1)
into the English language acquisition (L2)
commonly made by the first-year students
of The English Department – Unipdu
Jombang. More specifically, this study
will describe the influence of Indonesian
grammar (L1) into English language
acquisition (L2) that causes errors and the
language-based factors that influence the
occurrence of interference.
Interlingual Transfer (Interference)
Transfer is a general term
describing the transfer of performance or
previous knowledge to the next learning.
Positive transfer occurs when the
previous knowledge supports learning
activities – that is when the previous
items are properly applied on the next
learning. Negative transfer, on the other
hand, occurs when the previous
performance disrupt the future learning
performance. The latter is called
interference, in which the materials
previously learned interfere with the next
learning materials – previous items are
transferred or attributed incorrectly to the
items to be studied.
Interlingual transfer (Inter-
language transfer), a term first used by an
American linguist, Larry Selinker, is the
intermediate grammar, or a linguistic
system created by L2 learners.
Interlanguage forms can be viewed as
learner‟s hypotheses about the L2 and are
believed to be systematic and rule-
governed (Park & Riley, 2000; Hatch,
1983). Learners‟ L1, or the first language,
may influence the formation of
interlanguage (Larsen-Freeman, Diane &
Michael H. Long, 1991).
Interlingual transfer (Brown,
2000: 94) is a major source of errors for
all L2 learners. The first stage of learning
a second language is prone to the
occurrence of interlingual transfer from
the native language, or interference. In
these early stages, before the L2 system
becomes familiar, the L1 language is the
only previous linguistic systems that can
be relied upon by the learners. So it is not
uncommon when the learners say "sheep"
for "ship", or "book of Jack" instead of
"Jack's book." All transfers of this kind
can be attributed to the negative
interlingual transfer (interference).
Interlingual transfer is different
from intralingual transfer. Intralingual
transfer occurs when the learners started
to gain some parts of the new system of
the second language. When learners move
forward in the second language, their
previous experiences and current
milestones start to include the structures
of the target language. Negative
intralingual transfer (overgeneralization)
can be seen in expressions like, "Does he
can sing?" or "He goed yesterday."
L1, or the native language, can
lead to negative effects in the second
language acquisition. Languages with
marked universals are more difficult to
learn and often result in L1 interference
than those categorized as unmarked
universals (Park & Riley, 2000). Foreign
language learners may make errors in L2
because they "know too much" about
3
their L1 (Bley-Broman, 1989). It means
they may assume that certain rules in L1
are universally applied. Consequently, the
L2 they produce may contain errors,
which is likely due to their knowledge of
L1.
Language-based variables Affecting L1
Transfer in L2 Acquisition
Many factors interact when the
two languages come in contact. In the
process of L1 features‟ incorporation into
L2, the variables can be roughly classified
into three groups: learner-related
variables, language-based variables and
socio-linguistic variables.
In language transfer, it is
linguistic factors that are mainly
transferred. To fully understand the
nature of L1 transfer, the relationship
between the native language and the
target language should be explored.
(1) Markedness
The broad claim is that those
features that are universal or present in
most languages are unmarked, while
those that are specific to a particular or
found in only a few languages are
marked. According to Chomsky‟s
Universal Grammar, in L1 transfer, the
unmarked settings of “parameters”
(highly abstract properties of grammar
that vary in certain restricted ways from
one language to another) will be
transferred before marked settings, and
items are not easily transferred when L1
has a marked setting. Zobl (1987) claims
that transfer of prior linguistic experience
to the acquisition process is sharply
limited by the dynamics of the rule-
creation process which proceeds from
unmarked to marked properties.
(2) Language distance and cultural
distance
Related languages often share a
great number of similarities (e.g., cognate
vocabulary or close translation
equivalents), and this can give learners an
enormous advantage. Where languages
have less common ground, more
information about language form and use
has to be acquired from scratch in L2
acquisition. Language distance clearly has
some effect on the amount of transfer.
Corder (1981a: 101) emphasizes positive
transfer if there exist similarities between
L1 and L2: “Where the mother tongue is
formally similar to the target language,
the learner will pass more rapidly along
the developmental continuum (or some
parts of it) than where it differs.”
In addition to language distance,
cultural distance can also greatly affect
ease or difficulty of learning. When
learners try to acquire another language
which shares the same or similar cultural
background, they are sure to find many
conforming elements and feel at ease;
when they experience an L2 with totally
different cultural background from their
L1‟s, they may encounter more troubles.
A Hungarian learner of Spanish will find
that, though there are virtually no
cognates, the new words in general
express familiar concepts and are often
semantically congruent with his mother
tongue roots, so a good deal of semantic
transfer is possible.
(3) L2 proficiency
Ringbom (1987) suggests that L2
proficiency is a determinant factor
affecting the extent of transfer: a learner
is more likely to transfer from a language
in which he has a higher degree of
proficiency to a language in which he has
a lower degree of proficiency.
The correlation between low L2
proficiency and transfer applies primarily
to negative transfer, whereas Odlin
4
(1989) points out that positive transfer,
such as cognate vocabulary use, occurs at
high levels of proficiency. With regard to
transfer of conceptions, it seems likely
that L1 influence will increase with L2
proficiency as learners acquire more L2
tools that can express their L1
perspective.
The relationship between L2 proficiency
and transfer is complex. Regardless of the
direction of the correlation, it is clear that
proficiency has a strong effect on the
likelihood of language transfer.
Method
This is a descriptive qualitative
research and is a case study conducted to
four students of semester 2, Unipdu –
Jombang. The data in this study are taken
from the informants‟ written tasks (the
results of the writing tasks done by the
informants). The written tasks provide the
data of the forms of the interference of
Indonesian grammar into English
sentence construction.
The informants in this study are
selected using criterion-based selection
technique, which means the informants
selected must meet the criterion of
intermediate level of writing. The
criterion of beginner level is following
Paltridge from the IELTS Test (Paltridge
1992). The characteristics of beginner
level according to Paltridge are as
follows: Limited range of ideas
expressed. Development may be
restricted and often incomplete or
unclear; Limited grasp of lexical,
grammatical, and relational patterns and
use of cohesive devices. Weakness in
punctuation and/or spelling. Texts may be
simple, showing little development.
Limited structures and vocabulary,
however they can convey basic meaning,
although with some difficulty.
Instruments
The instrument used to gather the
data of the forms of Indonesian grammar
interference into English is writing
proficiency tests which must be done both
in English and Indonesian. There are four
tasks of writing given to the informants,
namely:
1. A task to tell about an incident in the
past;
2. A task to describe an object;
3. A task to tell about daily activities;
4. A task to tell about a job/activity that
will be done in the future;
The data of the grammatical
interference forms were collected through
writing tasks given to the informants. The
informants were given four tasks of
writing; a task to tell about an incident in
the past; a task to describe an object; a
task to tell about daily activities; a task to
tell about a job/activity that will be done
in the future; and a task to construct
interrogative sentences. All tasks were
provided separately; one task for a single
class meeting. So, to complete the four
tasks, it requires four meetings. The
informants were given 60 minutes to do
each task assigned. In doing the tasks,
first the informants were asked to write in
Indonesian, and then write them in
English so that the data collected were in
two languages: Indonesian and English.
The analysis uses referential
matching method to compare the
informants‟ writing tasks. This means that
the data written in the Indonesian
language are compared with those written
in English to see whether there are
similarities of structures between the
Indonesian and English sentences or not.
After comparing, the data are then
grouped according to the forms of
interference which subsequently used as
5
the basis to infer the common errors as a
result of Indonesian grammar interference
into English.
Findings
1. Preposition-related errors
Preposition choice error: “…I was
afraid to look blood.” „differ from‟, „the
same as‟.
Unnecessary preposition: „I still
remember with my country and my
friends‟, „go to there‟ and „by on foot‟.
2. Article-related errors
Article missing: “Firstly,
motorcycle came from west very fast…”
3. Verb-related errors
Subject-verb agreement: “She
eat”.
Past verb: „So I directly decide to
help and check the old people.‟
Be verb: „I happy‟, „I sad‟.
Incorrect verb choice: „….. and
success together‟
Present participle construction (-
ing form) after a preposition: „After take a
bath‟.
English collocations: „I bath‟, „I
have bath‟.
Infinitive of purpose: „The citizen
ran outside from their house for looking
the accident‟.
Passive voices: „the old people
sideswiped by a car‟.
4 Noun-related errors
Word form: „…with my lovely‟.
Gerund usage: „Get up in the early
morning…‟.
5. Conjunction-related errors
Incorrect use of conjunctions:
“My family was very happy to met their
parents either did I.”
6. Adjective-related errors
Sometimes, the word borrowing
from English makes students confused.
There are many words in Bahasa
Indonesia that are taken from English
language such as komputer, sukses,
televisi, etc. However, after the words
become parts of Indonesian language, the
transcription and class of the words
change. For example, the Indonesian
„sukses‟ which is an adjective is derived
from the word „success‟ in English which
is a noun. Therefore when they are to use
the word „success‟ they will use
Indonesian as their reference, resulting in
incorrect class of word as in „…if I am
success ...‟. Here, the correct class of
word that should be used is the adjective
„successful‟.
7. Word order errors Head + modifier construction: „the
reason other‟.
8. Time expression errors
Incorrect form: „I am there until at
two afternoon‟. „five in thirty‟
General discussion
Native language (L1) can greatly
affect Second language (L2) acquisition,
and the most accepted term to describe
such an influence is transfer. Though it is
far from reaching a consensus about its
nature, the widely recognized opinion at
present is that transfer does occur in
language learning and may exert an
influence, positively or negatively, on the
acquisition of a second language. There is
overwhelming evidence that “language
transfer is indeed a real and central
phenomenon that must be considered in
any full account of the second language
acquisition process” (Gass & Selinker,
1992: 7).
6
According to Chomsky‟s
Universal Grammar, in L1 transfer, the
unmarked settings of “parameters”
(highly abstract properties of grammar
that vary in certain restricted ways from
one language to another) will be
transferred before marked settings, and
items are not easily transferred when L1
has a marked setting. In case of the errors
made by the students concerning L1
interference, most of them are due to
some systems in L2 (English) is more
marked than those in L1 (Bahasa
Indonesia).
This study provides a view and an
indication of the kinds of language
second language learners produced in
writing tasks in the classroom. It also
supplies evidence of L1 interference with
L2, its extent and effects, as shown in the
analysis of the learners' written L1 and L2
texts. It is clearly shown that the learners
used their L1 structures to help them form
their L2 texts, indicating a direct
interference of L1 on L2.
The respondents of this study have
received native language linguistic input
from their individual environments and
positive reinforcements for their correct
repetitions and imitations. Accordingly,
habits have been formed which have
influenced the L2 learning process as
these learners have started learning L2
with the habits associated with L1. These
habits interfere with those needed for L2
learning, and new habits are formed. The
errors made in L2 are thus seen as L1
habits interfering with the acquisition of
L2 habits (Beebe in Baljit Bhela 1999).
This theory also propounds the idea that
where there are similarities between L1
and L2, the learners use L2 structures
with ease; where there are differences, the
learners have difficulty as shown in the
findings above. The five learners have
constructed their own L2 interim rules
with the use of their L1 knowledge to
help them in the writing tasks, resulting in
various L2 errors. Some L2 errors
identified in the table such as overuse of
past tense forms is not included in the
discussion of the L1 - L2 interference.
This is because such errors cannot be said
as a result of L1 interference into L2 but
as intra-language transfer or
overgeneralization of L2 rules.
Dechert in Baljit Bhela (1999) has
already suggested that the further apart
L1 and L2 are structurally, the higher the
instances of errors made in L2 which bear
traces of L1 structures. Errors can be
viewed as a welcome sign in that learners
are testing their hypotheses in forming
linguistic knowledge. Identifying errors
students make does not mean to judge or
label their competence. On the contrary,
errors can help teachers find correct ways
to improve students‟ learning. Particular
errors require well-designed problem-
solving methods. This study tries to
identify errors resulting from L1 (Bahasa
Indonesia) interference into L2 (English),
such as the missing verb “be”, incorrect
preposition, word-order errors, and
subject-verb agreement errors. Such
errors must be anticipated by teachers in
teaching English to beginner level
students.
The major concern of this study
has been with the observable features of
interference of L1 on L2 and what its
effects are on the grammar of a second
language learner. As indicated in the
findings section, the learners have used
some L1 structures to produce appropriate
responses in L2, producing grammatical
errors in L2, indicating an interference of
L1 on L2. These structures are used to
make them understand and reflect the
way they arrive at a certain usage at a
specific point (Faerch & Kasper in Baljit
Bhela (1999). In using the L1 structures,
7
the learners have taken some risks that
include guessing of a more or less
informed kind. They have attempted to
use invented or borrowed grammatical
items, all more or less approximated to
the rules of L2 structure as far as their
knowledge of L2 allows.
When the learners experience
gaps in their L2 syntactical structures,
they adjust the form of their L2 written
responses by using syntactical items
which are parts of their L1. The analysis
of the learners' writing revealed the extent
to which their L2 responses are affected
by their L1. The L2 errors made are
traceable to the learners' L1 and we can
conclude that there is definite interference
of L1 on L2 as indicated in the analysis of
the eight grammatical areas discussed.
The four learners relate L2
grammar to what they already know
about language. The most prominent facts
they possess about language are those of
L1. In the process of attempting to relate
L2 to L1, they speculate about the
similarity or difference between L2 and
L1. The result is a subsumption of L2
under known categories in L1
competence and hence a translation
process has taken place. Where the
structures of L1 and L2 are similar, the
learner' lack of understanding its use in
L1 is also reflected as an error in L2 – as
reflected in the use of inappropriate
preposition.
Blum-Kulka and Levenston in
Baljit Bhela (1999) assert that all second
language learners begin by assuming that
for every word in L1 there is a single
translation equivalent in L2. The
assumption of word-for-word translation
equivalence or 'thinking in the mother
tongue (L1)' is the only way a learner can
begin to communicate in a second
language. This has been clearly indicated
in this study where the second language
learners have adopted their L1 structures
to help them in their L2 texts. These
learners will not attain mastery of the
target language as long as the process of
translation equivalence is in place. Blum-
Kulka and Levenston assert that mastery
of the second language involves the
gradual abandonment of the translation
equivalence, the internalization of the
syntactical structures in L2
independently of the L1 equivalent, and
the ability to 'think in the second
language'.
These learners have accumulated
structural entities of L2 but demonstrate
difficulty in organizing this knowledge
into appropriate, coherent structures.
There is a significant gap between the
accumulation and organization of this
knowledge. When writing in the target
language, these learners rely on their
native language structures to produce a
response, as shown in this study. As the
structures of L1 and L2 have differences,
there has been a relatively high frequency
of errors occurring in the target language,
thus indicating an interference of the
native language on the target language, as
expected.
An important outcome of this
study is the significance of the effect of
the differences between the structures of
L1 and L2 on the L2 written text. This
has implications for the teaching and
learning process. An understanding of the
L1 syntactical structure and the type of
errors made in L2, as well as the extent of
the learner‟s knowledge of L1 and L2
syntactical structures, will assist the
teaching and learning process. The
teacher will be able to predict possible
future errors in the target language and
may begin to attribute a cause to an error
with some degrees of precision. The
teacher can also build up a picture of the
8
frequency of types of errors; thus it would
be possible to find out whether, for
example, L1 interference, or teaching
techniques, or problems inherent in L2,
are the major cause of the learner‟s errors.
In this way it is possible to plan classes
giving very specific help to the learners.
Knowing that linguistic
knowledge of Bahasa Indonesia, in
certain aspects, may interfere with the
learning of English, the contrastive
analysis between Bahasa Indonesia and
English may be incorporated into English
writing instruction. To begin with,
learners‟ learning strategies in developing
their interlanguage would be constantly
questioned to see if L1 interference
occurs. For example, do they always
follow their L1 (Bahasa Indonesia)
thinking flow in the production of L2
(English)? If yes, they must be equipped
with more English patterns, phrasal verbs,
prepositional idioms or collocations,
which are more or less different from
Bahasa Indonesia word order. Modeling
after written examples of native speakers
of English is one of the ways to alter L1
interference.
Besides, in behavioristic view,
more drills on the difference between L1
and L2 may serve as stimuli to produce
correct responses in the future. Therefore,
the use of pre-writing activities such as
subject-verb agreement practice,
subordinate clause drill, preposition drill,
and collocation drill are important to
enhance students‟ awareness of
differences between Bahasa Indonesia
and English.
From the cognitive view, the
transfer in language learning can be
regarded as a process in which students
use their mastered L1 knowledge to make
hypothesis about language rules. The
mistakes emerging from the hypothesis
and the correction of them can be seen as
evidence of learning process. Learners
make constant testing about hypothesis
and then amend, complement and perfect
those rules. So, in some sense, the process
of analyzing and correcting the emerged
mistakes can be taken as a strategy
learners use to construct an interlanguage.
This case study then paves the
way for future research in other areas of
second language teaching and learning.
Last but not least, this study contributes
significantly to the base of knowledge in
the second language learning and
teaching literature on the effects of
interference of L1 on L2.
CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis above, it
can be concluded that the interference of
L1 grammar (Bahasa Indonesia) into the
L2 (English) grammar acquisition do
occur in the production of written tasks
made by the respondents. The errors at
least can be categorized into eight kinds
of errors: Preposition-related errors (e.g.,
“…I was afraid to look blood.”), article-
related errors (e.g., “Firstly, motorcycle
came from west very fast…”), verb-
related errors (e.g., „The victim seriously
injured.‟), noun-related errors (e.g., „Get
up in the early morning…‟), conjunction-
related errors (e.g., “My family was very
happy to met their parents either did I.”),
adjective-related errors (e.g., „…if I am
success ...‟), word order errors (e.g., „the
reason other‟), and time expression errors
(e.g., „I am there until at two afternoon‟).
Markedness, besides the fact that
they are beginner level students, is the
most apparent factor that contributes to
the errors. According to Chomsky‟s
Universal Grammar, in L1 transfer, the
unmarked settings of “parameters”
9
(highly abstract properties of grammar
that vary in certain restricted ways from
one language to another) will be
transferred before marked settings, and
items are not easily transferred when L1
has a marked setting. This means when a
certain grammar rule in L2 (English) is
more complex, the students tend to make
errors as in case of prepositions and verb
tenses.
Some different structure between
English and Bahasa Indonesia may
contribute to errors. When the students
face certain English grammar which is
different from that of Bahasa Indonesia,
they tend to use their knowledge of L1 to
construct the sentences. As a result, their
sentence production sometimes falls into
error. In using the L1 structures, the
learners have taken some risks that
include guessing of a more or less
informed kind. They have attempted to
use invented or borrowed grammatical
items, all more or less approximated to
the rules of L2 structure as far as their
knowledge of L2 allows.
To overcome the errors as a result
from L1 interference the contrastive
analysis between Bahasa Indonesia and
English may be incorporated into English
writing instruction. Learners‟ learning
strategies in developing their
interlanguage would be constantly
questioned to see if L1 interference
occurs. For example, do they always
follow their L1 (Bahasa Indonesia)
thinking flow in the production of L2
(English)? If yes, they must be equipped
with more English patterns, phrasal verbs,
prepositional idioms or collocations,
which are more or less different from
Bahasa Indonesia word order. Modeling
after written examples of native speakers
of English is one of the ways to alter L1
interference.
REFERENCES
Baljit Bhela. Native language interference
in learning a second language:
Exploratory case studies of native
language interference with target
language usage, International
Education Journal Vol 1, No 1, 1999
Beardsmore, H.B. 1982, Bilingualism:
Basic Principles, Tieto, Avon.
Beebe, L.M. (ed.) 1988, Issues in Second
Language Acquisition: Multiple
Perspectives, Newbury, London.
Bley-Broman, Robert. 1989 “What is the
logical problem of foreign language
learning?” Gass, Susan M., Jacquelyn
Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic
perspective on second language
acquisition (pp. 41-52). New York:
Cambridge University Press
Blum-Kulka, S. & Levenston, E.A. 1983,
„Universals of lexical simplification‟
in Strategies in Interlanguage
Communication, eds. C. Faerch and
G. Kasper, Longman, London.
Brown, H. Douglas. Principle of
Language Learning and Teaching.
San Fransisco State University. 2000
Chunliang Zhang 2006. On Variables
Affecting L1 Transfer in L2
Acquisition. Sino-US English
Teaching, ISSN1539-8072,USA
Corder, S.P. 1981a. Error Analysis and
Interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Dechert, H.W. 1983, „How a story is done
in a second language‟ in Strategies in
Interlanguage Communication, eds.
C. Faerch and G. Kasper, Longman,
London.
Dechert, H.W. 1983, „How a story is done
in a second language‟ in Strategies in
Interlanguage Communication, eds.
C. Faerch and G. Kasper, Longman,
London.
10
Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of the Second
Language Acquisition. Oxford:
Oxford University.
Ellis, R. 1997, Second Language
Acquisition, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Ellis, R. 1997, Second Language
Acquisition, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. 1983, „Plans and
strategies in foreign language
communication‟, in Strategies in
Interlanguage Communication, ed. C.
Faerch and G. Kasper, Longman,
London.
Guiora, A. 1980, Acton, W., Erard, R. &
Strickland, F.. The Effects of
Benzodiazepine (Valium) on
Permeability of Language Ego
Boundaries. Language Learning.
Hatch, Evelyn Marcussen. 1983. “Syntax
and language acquisition.”
Psycholinguistics: A second language
perspective (pp. 89-108).
Massachusetts: Newbury House.
Krashen Stephen D. 1988. ”The role of
first language in second language
acquisition.” Second language
acquistion and second language
learning (pp.64-69). Englewood Cliff:
Prentice Hall.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane and Long,
Michael H. 1991. “Interlanguage
studies: substantive findings.” An
introduction to second language
Acquisition research (pp.81-113).
New York: Longman.
Larson-Freeman, D. & Long, M.H. 1991,
An Introduction to Second Language
Acquisition Research, Longman, New
York.
Odlin T. 1989. Language Transfer,
Cross-linguistic Influence in
Language Learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Paltridge, B. 1992. EAP Placement
Testing: An Integrated Approach.
ESP Journal 11 (3) 243-268.
Parker, Frank, Kathryn Riley. 2000.
“Chapter 9: Second-Language
Acquisition.” Linguistics for non-
linguists: A primer with exercises
(pp.209-230). MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Schachter, J. 1992. A New Account of
Language Transfer. In S. Gass and L.
Selinker (eds.).
Seligar, H. 1988, „Psycholinguistic
Issues in Second Language
Acquisition‟ in Issues in Second
Language Acquisition: Multiple
Perspectives, ed. L.M. Beebe,
Newbury, London.
Seligar, H. 1988, „Psycholinguistic Issues
in Second Language Acquisition‟ in
Issues in Second Language
Acquisition: Multiple Perspectives,
ed. L.M. Beebe, Newbury, London.
Selinker, L. 1971, „The psychologically
relevant data of second language
learning‟ in The Psychology of Second
Language Learning, ed. P. Pimsleur
and T.
Selinker, L. 1984. The Current State of
Interlanguage Studies: An Attempted
Critical Summary. In Davies et al.
(eds.).
11
THE EFFECT OF ROLE PLAYING TECHNIQUE APPLIED
ON STUDENTS` SPEAKING COMPETENCE
Kartika Marta Budi1
STIE Perbanas Surabaya
Abstract
This study aims to see the effect of the role playing technique application in on
students` speaking competence, that covers (1) How is the effect of Role Playing
teaching technique applied to the students` speaking competence on experimental class;
and (2) How is the effect of conventional teaching applied to students` speaking
competence on control class. The subjects are the students of Junior High 2 level book
program in YPIA English Course, Jalan Sumatera Branch, Surabaya. The data of this
study were the students` scores, and from the tests` scores it can be seen that there is a
positive significant difference in the experimental group. The t-test shows that there is
an improvement on the students` speaking competence achievement. In conclusion, the
role playing application effects on the significant difference on the students speaking
competence achievement.
Keywords: Role Playing, Speaking Competence
A. INTRODUCTION
Speaking is the process of
building and sharing meaning through the
use of verbal and non-verbal symbols, in
a variety of contexts (Chaney, 1998: 13).
Many language learners regard speaking
ability as the measure of knowing a
language. They regard speaking as the
most important skill they can acquire, and
they assess their progress in terms of their
accomplishments in spoken
communication. That is why speaking is a
very crucial part in language learning and
teaching.
Today's world requires that the
goal of teaching speaking should improve
students' communicative skills, because,
only in that way, students can express
themselves and learn how to follow the
social and cultural rules appropriate in
each communicative circumstance. This
is supported by the book that is used in
this subject of the study. According to the
book publisher, Longman, the dialogue is
used as the book gives the students a
communicative material that represents
the daily life that could be applied by the
students. Take Off truly communicative
approach- with concrete grammar
support-teaches student to use language
correctly and fluently in real situations.
And the family center of the action gives
students a real insight to the American
life, people and culture.
(www.pearson.ch/LanguageTeaching/Lon
gman/1449). As mentioned in one the
kind of role playing, that simulation is a
teaching method that used in a learning
process by behavior with the aim that
student could understand deeper about
12
how he feels and doing something or a
method where students play the other
person`s role in himself as replication
(Thoifuri, 2008). That is why the
observation is conducted. As mentioned
by Soetopo (1994) in Jurnal Ilmu
Pendidikan by Abdul Hadis, that
simulation is a teaching method that
emphasizes in learning by doing.
Teaching speaking is to teach ESL
learners to organize their thoughts in a
meaningful and logical sequence
(http://iteslj.org/Articles/Kayi-Teaching
Speaking.html). Therefore, if a teacher
wants to see an effective learning for
students, they need to consider various
strategies, methods, or innovative
teaching techniques. As stated in Oxford
(1990: 1), learning strategies are very
important because they are tools for
active and self-directed involvement
which is essential for developing
communication competence appropriate
language learning strategies result in
improved proficiency and greater self-
confidence. Role Playing is one of
teaching method which is very valuable
for second language teaching. It
encourages thinking and creativity, lets
students develop and practice new
language and behavioral skills in a
relatively nonthreatening setting, and
create the motivation and involvement
necessary for learning to occur
(http://iteslj.org/). This pedagogical
activity can be classified in integrated
skills in English language learning
because when the students learning
English using role playing, they do the
productive and receptive skill on the same
time.
The focus of this study generally
is to see how is the effect of the Role
Playing teaching technique applied to the
students` speaking competence. The
specific are: (1) How is the effect of Role
Playing teaching technique applied to the
students` speaking competence on
experimental class in Junior High 2 Level
at YPIA English Course Jalan Sumatera
Branch, Surabaya? (2) How is the effect
of conventional teaching applied to
students` speaking competence on control
class in Junior High 2 Level at YPIA
English Course Jalan Sumatera Branch,
Surabaya?
After conducting this study, the
teacher could handle the teaching process
better by applying role playing technique
on students` speaking skill. It is expected
the applied technique could make the
classroom interaction and material
delivery easier. Besides that, this study`s
result is expected will give a contribution
for the teachers in the speaking skill by
applying role playing technique at YPIA
English Course Surabaya.
It is expected that the outcomes of the
study are able to develop teaching activity
to the students of English Courses. The
English learning will be more fun by
using role playing technique in speaking
skill.
B. REVIEW OF RELATED
LITERATURE
There are several previous studies
about role playing. In teaching English,
the studies are about role playing in
teaching speaking. The first is by Meike
E. Siwu in her thesis entitled ”Improving
Speaking Skill of the Second Grade
Student of SLTP Negeri 5 Tahuna by
Using Role-Playing.” She says that the
implementation of the Role Playing
technique had improved the students`
speaking skill. It was revealed through the
students` in increased of fluency, self-
confidence, active involvement, and
ability in applying the learned material in
their written and spoken dialogue during
the instructional process as well as
13
informal situation whenever the
opportunity arises.
In 1998, Tompkins conducted a
study. She investigated the using of role
playing technique for teaching
conversation. According to Tompkins,
role playing in conversation is “an
extremely valuable method for L2
learning”. Due to its benefits, the benefits
of the role playing technique noted by
Tompkins are i.e. it encourages to think
and to generate creativity, and helps
students develop and practice the new
language in a relatively non threatening
setting.
The next is Nizar (2007) et al in his
report classroom action research, entitled
“Increasing of the Eleventh Year
Students of SMA Negeri 1 Tumpang
Malang by Using Role Playing”. Role
Playing was considered as an appropriate
model to increase the of the eleventh
year students of SMA Negeri 1 Tumpang,
Malang. Likewise, he adds that the most
important thing is that Role-Playing can
provide the students with the good impact
to improve their confidence in conversing
in English, without feeling ashamed,
afraid or inferior.
The correlation from all the above
studies with this study is the using of
Role Playing technique in teaching
English. From the explanation above, it
could be seen that role playing technique
is a familiar teaching technique for
speaking or conversation.
Here, teaching speaking is to teach
ESL learners to make the English speech
sounds and sound patterns, use word and
sentence stress, intonation patterns and
the rhythm of the second language,
correct words and sentences according to
the certain social setting, listeners,
situation and material, arrange their
thoughts in a meaningful and logical
order, use language as a tool of
expressing values and judgments and use
the language quickly and less anxious
with few unnatural pauses, which is
called as fluency. (Nunan in http://iteslj.org/Articles/Kayi-Teaching
Speaking.html)
Wolfson (in Richards,1983 :61)
states that communicative competence is
the ability not only to apply the
grammatical rules of a language in order
to form grammatically correct sentences
but also to know when and where to use
these sentences and to whom. He also
stated that communicative competence
includes four competence, those are (a)
knowledge of grammar and vocabulary of
the language, (b) knowledge of rules of
speaking, for example knowing how to
begin and end the conversation, (c)
knowing how to use and respond to
different types of communicative action,
such as greeting, request, apology, thanks
and invitation, and (d) knowing how to
use language roughly.
In order to understand the current
paradigm shift in language teaching, we
have to understand some common terms
such as methods, approach, technique,
and procedure. Anthony (in Brown, 2000:
169) has his concept of method that was
the second of three hierarchical elements,
namely approach, method and technique.
An approach, according to Anthony, is a
set of assumptions dealing with the nature
of language, learning and teaching.
Method is an overall plan for systematic
presentation of language based upon a
selected approach. Techniques are the
specific activities manifested in the
classroom, which are consistent with a
method and therefore in harmony with an
approach as well.
There are several opinions stated that
approach, method and technique is related
one another. Yet, the writer chooses
Brown`s opinion, because his opinion has
14
the most complete theory. Brown has
methodology, approach, method,
curriculum/syllabus, and technique in his
theory. He could differentiate between
methodology and method well. So the
reader of this theory could understand its
function in teaching activity. Also, he
could make the right classification which
one is the biggest umbrella and the small
part or hierarchy in it. The biggest
umbrella is methodology and the smallest
part there is technique. Where
methodology is the study of pedagogical
practices in general (including theoretical
underpinnings and related research) and
technique is any of a wide variety of
exercises, activities, or devices used in
the language classroom for realizing
lesson objectives. And method is between
them, the second hierarchy after
methodology is method.
Role play itself is a planned
pedagogy activity that is design to
accomplish the specific education
objective (Zaini, Munthe and Aryani,
2008 : 98). Role play is an activity, so
that based on Brown`s hierarchy it can be
said that role play itself is a teaching
technique. Role playing is one of teaching
learning activity that is classified in
simulation method. Role
playing/simulation is an extremely
valuable method for L2 learning. It
encourages thinking and creativity, lets
students develop and practice new
language and behavioral skills in a
relatively nonthreatening setting, and can
create the motivation and involvement
necessary for learning to occur.
(http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Tompkins-
RolePlaying.html).
Moedjiono and Dimyati (1991:
81) also divide simulation teaching
method into three categories, as follow:
a. Simulation Game. It is the same
where the person who act the role as
the decision maker place, act as if
they really involved in the real
situation and / or compete to achieve
such goal as with their role that has
been chosen.
b. Role Playing is playing any roles
which is definitely based on the past
events, creating events possibilities in
the future, creating sophisticated that
could be enriched or imagine a certain
place and situation.
c. Sociodrama is a solving problem
group made that is centered to a
certain problem that relates to
humanity. Sociodrama gives chance
to the students to decide solving
problem alternative that occurs and
become group concern.
As mentioned Oemar Hamalik
(1990: 246), there are three Role
Playing organization pattern. Those
are: single, multiple and repetition, as
follow:
a. Single Role Play
Single Role Play asks the students to
act as observer to the role play
performance.
b. Multiple Role Play
Multiple Role Play where the students
are classified into groups with the
same member in each group. And it
depends on the roles that are needed.
c. Role Play Repetition
The main role or the role play could
be done by every student in turn.
There are several assumptions in role
playing teaching model to develop social
values and behavior, that equivalent with
another teaching model. Mulyasa states
that there are four assumptions that
basically the role playing learning. Those
are:
15
a. Role Playing supports a learning
situation based on experience by
emphasizes the main lesson on
situation “here on this time”
b. Role playing enable the students to
express their feeling that can not be
recognize without reflect to the other
person with the aim to reduce
emotional problem.
c. Role Playing assumes that emotion
and ideas could take to the conscious
level that increased by group process.
Solving problem does not always
come from a certain person, but it
could be occur from observer reaction
to the problem or topic that played.
Thus, the students could learn from
other`s experience about problem
solving way that could be used to
develop themselves optimally, and
d. Role Playing model, assumes that
hidden psychology process as
behavior, values, feeling, and sureness
system could be take to the conscious
level by role combination
spontaneously. Thus, the student
could test their behavior and values
that match with other people, whether
their values and behavior should be
changed or kept (Mulyasa in
http://nazwadzulfa.wordpress.com/20
09/11/21/role-playing-bahasa-inggris-
landasan-teori/)
Moreover Bailey (2005: 137) states
that Role Playing and simulation are
extremely important for several reasons.
First, students can tell the topic before
they perform their speech. Second, role
playing can give students a good chance
to try out their English speaking skill in a
safe environment. Third, in role playing
or simulation, students have opportunity
to try again and they redo the interaction
with improvements.
In Bruce and Weil (1984:10), role
playing is designed by Fannie and George
Shaftel to help the students to study their
social values and reflect them. Role
playing help students gather and arrange
about social issues, develop empathy with
others, and an effort to improve their
social skills. The model asks students to
„act out‟ conflicts, to learn to take the
roles of others, and to observe social
behavior. And with appropriate
adaptation, role playing can be used with
students of all ages.
While according to Ladouse (1997:6)
there are some advantages of using role
play, those are a) through role-play we
can train our students in speaking skills in
any situation b) role-play is a very useful
dress rehearsal for real lives. It enables
them not just to acquire set phrases, but
also to learn how interaction night take
place in a variety situation c) role play
helps many shy students by providing
them with a mask d) role play is fun. The
students can enjoy their imagination trip
e)role play gives the students a chance to
explore and play with the possibilities
offered the new language and provide
situations where this new language can be
related to the students` own experience.
Haycraft (1978: 89) acting in
language learning is valuable because
actors when speaking another language, it
accustoms students to perform in front of
others, it helps them to overcome the
nervousness which this entails, it gets
them speaking expressively in a situation
and thus make them aware of stress and
intonation in speech. It also involves
everyone, as those in the `audience` want
to see how their fellow students will
perform, conscious that thy too will soon
be on `stage` themselves.
While role playing also has its own
procedure, as follow,
16
a) Role Playing Preparation:
(1) The teacher gives a topic or
problem and objective that would
be achieved by the simulation
(2) The teacher gives the general
problem in the situation that will
be simulated
(3) The teacher chooses the ones who
will perform and will be involved
in the role simulation that will be
played by the ones who played and
the available time
(4) The teacher gives the students
opportunity to ask question,
especially to the students that
joined the simulation.
b) According to M.Basyirudin U.,(2002)
the steps that should be done in the
simulation method are:
(1) The teacher prepares the situation
to play the drama
(2) The teacher explains to the
students, what is expected from
dramatized action result
(3) The teacher orders to take the
certain role to the students
(4) The teacher and the students make
a consultation and coordination to
the doer
(5) The drama is performed
(6) The teacher and the students
evaluate the drama
together.(http://nazwadzulfa.wordp
ress.com/2009/11/21/role-playing-
bahasa-inggris-landasan-teori/)
From the theory above, the hypothesis in
this study is:
H1: Role Playing Teaching Technique
effect will improve significantly on
students speaking competence.
C. RESEARCH METHOD
Based on the research questions
and the objectives of the research, this
research is categorized as an experimental
research. Experimental research allows
the researcher to carry out the task by
performing an experiment, a carefully
regulated procedure in which one or more
of the factors believed to influence the
behavior being studied is manipulated and
all other factors are held constant.
Experiment research is the only truly
reliable method of establishing cause and
effect. Cause is the event that is being
manipulated and. Effect is the behavior
that changes because of the manipulated
(Mitchel & Joley, 2007:19).
This research was designed to find
out the result of a role playing technique
in speaking skill in the two classes that
were available. The two classes were
called experimental and control classes in
this research.
The writer will use experimental
method, in Pretest – Posttest Control
Group Design (Tuckman,1978: 130). The
design illustrated as follow:
Table 3.1 Research Design
Experiment Group T1 X T2
Control Group T1 Y T2
X = Treatment that uses Role Playing
Technique
Y = Conventional Teaching
T1 = Test that is held before the treatment
(Pretest) on Experiment and Control
Group
T2 = Test that is held after the treatment
(Posttest) on Experiment and Control
Group
T1 = T2
The population of this research is
Junior High 2 level of YPIA English
Course Jalan Sumatra Branch. In total
there are nine classes of Junior High
Program level with ninety students. This
population is taken because the score here
17
tend to be low. The sampling technique
applied is simple random sampling. The
sample for the experimental group that
uses role playing technique consists of
thirty students (Group A,
Monday/Thursday 15.30 – 17.00). Group
A is chosen to be the experimental classes
because from the two available classes,
this group is more appropriate seen from
the students` age and grade that already in
Junior High School. The sample of
control group consists of twenty five
students (Group B, Tuesday/Friday 15.30
– 17.00). This group is taken as the
control one because even though they are
in a Junior High Level book, but most of
them are from elementary school`s
students that have been studied there
several years. The teacher of the two
classes is the same person. Then the result
will be compared.
The research instruments are (1)
Oral Test. There are two kinds of tests
used, pre test and post-test. The Pre-Test
consists of a dialogue. The questions will
cover characters and plot in the dialogue.
It is given before the role play conducted.
Post Test has the same difficulty level as
pre test. (2) Instrument on the students`
response. Instrument on the students`
response is a questionnaire. It is given to
know the responses of the students to the
role playing technique. The result of
questionnaire is used on the discussion
part. The questionnaire here as the
strengthen evidence or the additional
information to the first data about the
students` score. The questionnaire
contains ten questions with the answer in
form of check and cross. (3) The
Students` Study result. The students`
study result that is the students`
achievement on the speaking skill sis
taken from the oral test that is conducted.
The oral test that conducted before the
role playing given is called pre-test.
While oral test given after the role
playing is the post test. The oral test
contains of a dialogue that has the same
difficulty level.
In accordance with the research design
of this study, the process of data
collection generally done in this study are
categorized into four steps or phases,
validation of the test, pre-testing,
treatment process and post-testing.
Though, before the students are given the
test, the test itself should be checked its
validation and the level of difficulty.
D. DISCUSSION
1. The Effect Of Role Playing
Teaching Technique Applied To
The Students` Speaking
Competence On Experimental
Class
It can be said that in the
experimental class there are only 1
student has score between 50-55, 5
students have score 55-60, 1 student has
score 60 – 65, 1 student has score 65 – 70
and 10 students have score between 70-
75. While the rest, there are 6 students
have score 75- 80, 5 students have score
80-85, and 1 student has score 85-90.
Score of the each class is counted
as the statistical data or the sample with a
certain formula. It counts the score with
the students` amount in the class or the
total sample in the class, the total of the
score too, to get the mean of the data and
the standard deviation. The result is
shown in the table below:
18
Table 4.1 Pre- Test Result Experimental
Class
score(x) freq (f) Fx
55 1 55
65 1 65
60 5 300
68 1 68
70 10 700
75 2 150
78 4 312
80 5 400
85 1 85
2135
M=∑x/N 71,16667
S²=∑d²/N-
1
60,14368
60,14368
S=√∑d²/N-
1 7,75523
The post test is counted with the
same formula as the pre test. That step is
taken to get the mean and its standard
deviation. To get the mean the total score
of the each class is divided with the total
sample. Then to get the standard
deviation there is a formula deal with the
total score and the gained and the total
sample. The result is shown is the table
below:
Table 4.2 Post Test Result on
Experimental Class
Score(x) Frequency Fx
78 1 78
80 3 240
85 3 255
90 9 810
95 7 665
Score (x) Frequency fx
96 1 96
98 6 588
2732
M=∑x/N 91,06667
S²= 3,14023
S = 6,10219
From the Table 4.2 above, it is
stated that the mean score of the post test
of the experimental group with the thirty
samples is 91.0667 with the standard
deviation 6.10219. While the mean of
post test control group with twenty
samples is 74.12 with the standard
deviation 11.84. It can be seen that there
is a gained 16.9467 between the mean of
post test experimental group, 91.0667,
and the mean of the post test is 74.12.
With that result, it is assumed that the
experimental class`s students could
answer 91% correct and the control
class`s student could answer 74,12%
correct. With this assumption, it can be
said that the students of the experimental
class who have undergone the role
playing practice as the treatment show a
very good achievement than before, in
their speaking competence.
From the score result of the
experimental student , it can be seen that
there are positive significant gained score
that gotten by the students between
before and after the role play. The gained
are from 7 up to 26 points in the post test
score. It means that the role play given
improves the student speaking skill
achievement. It shows that role playing
applied as the treatment give a good
effect in speaking skill.
Then, the mean and the standard
deviation from the score above are used
to do the t-test. The t test is to test the
hypothesis in this study. The calculated t-
test value and its detail is shown in the
formula below:
19
t =
= 4.866
The formula above is testing t-test
value between the post test in the
experimental and the control group. The
statistical calculation and analysis, the t-
test value is 4.866 with the sig .000
which is smaller than 0.05 means that
there is a significant difference. Then the
(df) or the degree of freedom is 29 where
its t-table is 2.04. It shows that 4.866 >
2.04. So that, it can be said that the t-test
> t-table. So that, due to the result of the
t-test is higher than the level of
significance, the hypothesis is accepted.
2. The effect of conventional teaching
applied to students` speaking
competence on control class
The pre test is conducted in both of the
classes, control and experimental classes.
Here is the result of the students`
speaking competence or achievement
before conventional teaching applied on
control class as drawn in table below:
Figure 4.3 The Students` Pre-test Score
on Control Class
It can be seen from the Figure 4.3
above, that there are 2 students have score
50-55, 1 student has score 55-60, 4
students have score 60-65, and 2 students
have score 65-70. While the rest there are
3 students have score 70-75, 5 students
have score 75-80, 5 students have score
80-85 and 5 students have score 85-90.
Before conventional teaching is
applied, the pre-test is given to the control
class, the result is as seen below:
Table 4.4 Pretest score on Control Class
Score Frequency Fx
50 2 100
55 1 55
60 4 240
65 2 130
70 3 210
75 3 225
80 5 400
85 5 425
1785
M=∑fx/N 71,4
S²= ∑d²/N-1 130,25
S= 11,4127
From the Table 4.4 above, it can
be seen that from the score of the pre –
test in the experimental group the mean
or the average from the total score that
divided by the total sample are 71.16667
and 71.4. Whereas the total sample of the
experimental class and control class are
thirty and twenty five. The standard
deviations for the pre-test score in the
experimental group are 7.75523 and
11.4127. It can be assumed that the
experimental class`s students are done
71.1667% correct answer and the control
class`s students are done 71.4% correct
answer.
The post test is conducted after the
treatment. The post test itself has the
same level of difficulty as the pre – test.
The post test is administered in the both
of the class, experimental and control
20
class. While the post test score on the
control class is seen below:
Figure 4.4: Students Post-Test Score on
Control Class
From the Figure 4.4 above, it can
be seen that there are many students still
have a low score between 50 up to 65. In
the control class the post test score is 3
students with score 70-75, 3 students have
score 75-80, 4 students have score 80-85,
1 student has score 85-90, 4 students have
score 90-95 and 1 student only has score
95-100.
The students` speaking competence
after the conventional teaching applied
on control class is gotten from the post
test score, as seen below:
Table 4.5 Post Test Result on Control
class
Score Frequency Fx
50 1 50
60 3 180
65 5 325
70 3 210
75 2 150
78 1 78
80 4 320
85 1 85
90 4 360
95 1 95
1853
M=∑fx/N 74,12
S² 140,1933
S 11,84
From the Table 4.6 above, it is
stated that the mean score of post test in
control group with twenty samples is
74.12 with the standard deviation 11.84.
Whereas the mean score of the pre test in
control class is 71.4. The gained of the
post and pretest mean score in control
class is only 2.72. There is no significant
difference here. In control class, without
role playing practice they did not have
the maximum achievement in the
speaking competence. The control group
did not use the role-playing technique or
use the conventional teaching technique
in doing the teaching learning process.
As seen in the table above that
in the control class, almost there are no
positive significant gained score is
gotten. The gained score here starts
from 5 to 15. Some of the students have
no gained score and other students have
a lower score in the pre test. It means
that in the control class which does not
use role playing technique, there is no
significant improvement on their
speaking skill achievement.
After checking the normality and
the homogeneity of the data, the mean
and its standard deviation are counted.
The data above is to use the t-test for
testing the hypothesis. The result of the
test is used to see the difference of the
speaking improvement between the
experimental class and the control class.
The experimental class uses the role
playing teaching technique and the
control class uses the conventional
teaching technique. The table of the t-test
of the control group counted is seen
below:
21
t
= = - 0,3262
The formula above shows that the
value of t-count is -0.3262 with the sig.
(2-tailed) 0.089 whereas it is bigger than
0.05 so that there is no difference
between the pre test and the post test in
the control group. It means that the
students are done the speaking
competence by recognizing the topic,
theme, main idea, and the participants in
the dialogue as the material, without role
playing practice, yet they did not have
the maximum achievement in the
speaking competence. The control group
done the teaching learning process is not
using the role-playing technique or the
conventional teaching technique.
The score on the pre test were tend to
be low then after the role playing is given
as the treatment to the experimental class,
the score of the speaking skill is getting
higher. The score is improved because
role playing technique that is applied here
let the students develop practice new
language from the dialogue. Then the
dialogue that they practiced they could
get the cultural value and practice the
behavioral skill there in a relatively
nonthreatening setting. They practice the
dialogue or the speaking in a relatively
nonthreatening setting, it means they
don`t have to be ashamed to take a certain
role because the other students also have
to take the role that he takes too. So that,
the students could feel more confident in
practicing the speaking or the dialogue.
They could practice the dialogue, then
they could easily recognize the main idea
and the details of the material such as
topic, theme, the participants there or the
setting of the dialogue and its language
expression that they had been practiced.
This opinion is also supported by
Haycraft (1978: 89) acting or role play in
language learning is valuable because
actors when speaking another language, it
accustoms students to perform in front of
others, it helps them to overcome the
nervousness which this entails, it gets
them speaking expressively in a situation
and thus make them aware of stress and
intonation in speech. It also involves
everyone, as those in the `audience` want
to see how their fellow students will
perform, conscious that thy too will soon
be on `stage` themselves.
Thoifuri in
http://nazwadzulfa.wordpress.com/2009/1
1/21/role-playing-bahasa-inggris-
landasan-teori/ also agree with this, he
stated that role playing that in the
simulation umbrella is a teaching
technique that used in a learning process
by behavior with the aim that student
could understand deeper about how he
feels and doing something or a technique
where students play the other person`s
role in himself as replication.
Before the students undergone the
conventional teaching, the pre-test is
given here. The result of the pre-test on
control class ranges from 50 up to 90
with the mean score 74.12. From the pre-
test score, the students have almost the
same level entry with the experimental
class students. Few sessions later, the
students here had given the non-role
playing teaching or conventional
teaching. To see the effect of
conventional teaching, the students here
were given the post test. After the
conventional teaching is applied on
control class their mean score is 71.4.
The gained between the mean score of
the pre-test and post test on control class
is only 2.72 with the value of t-count is -
22
0.3262 with the sig. (2-tailed) 0.089
whereas it is bigger than 0.05 so that
there is no difference between the pre test
and the post test in the control group. It
means that they did not have the
maximum achievement in the speaking
competence. The control group done the
teaching learning process is not using the
role-playing technique or the
conventional teaching technique. There is
no significant difference here. It could be
understood in reason learning speaking
especially for foreign learners are not
easy, as stated by Bailey (1994:115) that
many English for Speaker of Other
Languages (ESOL) learners must
struggle constantly to cope with both oral
and written directions, understand
conversation laced with the idiomatic
language, and master not just the
language of educational material but also
the culture on which they are based.
This is why role playing is very
important for several reasons. Often,
students are nervous when they have to
practice speaking, moreover in front of
the class. Also students tend to `read` the
dialogue because there is no expression
or intonation when they practice it, as
stated by Haycraft (1978: 89) acting or
role play in language learning is valuable
because actors when speaking another
language, it accustoms students to
perform in front of others, it helps them
to overcome the nervousness which this
entails, it gets them speaking
expressively in a situation and thus make
them aware of stress and intonation in
speech. Due to the control class
undergone Non role playing or the
conventional teaching with the difficulty
of learning speaking factors, so that the
effect is that they did not have any
significant improvement on their
speaking competence. This could be
drawn from the pretest score that is
gotten before the conventional teaching
or non role playing given and the post
test score that is gotten after the
conventional teaching or non role playing
on control class.
E. CONCLUSION
Generally, the effect of role playing
teaching technique is the students`
speaking competence is improved than
before this technique is applied, which
shown a significance difference on the
experimental class and there is no
significance difference on control class.
Specifically as below:
1. The effect of Role Playing teaching
technique applied to the students`
speaking competence on
experimental class is that there is a
significant difference on their score
after the role playing given.
a. The students` speaking competence
before role playing teaching
technique applied is in the middle
level with the mean score is
71.167.
b. The students` speaking
competence after role playing
teaching technique applied is
improved than before that in the
upper level with mean score is
91.067.
2. The effect of conventional teaching
applied to students` speaking
competence on control class that there
is no significant difference on their
score before and after the
conventional teaching is given.
a. The students` speaking competence
before conventional teaching
applied on control class is in the
middle level. Their average score
is 71.4.
b. The students` speaking competence
after conventional teaching
applied on control class is in the
23
middle up level. Their average
score is 74.12. There is no
significance difference here.
REFERENCES
Arifin,Zaenal. 2008. Metodologi
Penelitian Pendidikan. Surabaya:
Lentera Cendikia
Bailey,K.M & Savage, L (Eds). 1994.
New Ways in Teaching Speaking.
Alexandria, VA Teachers of English
to Speakers of Other Languages,Inc.
Bailey,K.M. 2005. Practical English
Language Teaching: Speaking. New
York : McGraw-Hill Companies,Inc.
Brown,Douglas H. 2004. Language
Assesment : Principles and
Classroom Practices. New York:
Addison Wesley Longman, Inc
Brown,Douglas H. 2000. Principles of
Language Learning and Teaching.
New York: Addison Wesley
Longman, Inc
Haycraft,John. 1978. An Introduction to
English Language Teaching. England
: Longman Group LTD.
Jack C. Richard and Richard Scmidth.
2002. Longman Language Teaching.
London : Pearson Education
Jafar Sodik. 2009. “The Effect of Role
Playing in SMA 1 Tenggarong”.
Unpublished S2 Thesis. Universitas
Negeri Surabaya
Joyce Bruce and Marshal Weil.1986.
Models of Teaching. Third Edition.
New Jersey: Prentice
Hall,Inc.Englewood Cliffs.
Harris P. David. 1969. Testing English as
a Second Language. New York :
Mc.GrawHill Company.
Ladousse, Gillian Porter. 1997. Role Play.
Oxford : Oxford University Press
Mitchell,M.L.,and Jolley,J.M. 2007.
Research Designs Explained.
Belmont,CA: Wadsworth.
Moedjiono and Mohammad Dimyati.
1991. Strategi Belajar Mengajar.
Jakarta : Depdikbud
Mudjiono and Mohammad Dimyati.
2002. Belajar dan Pembelajaran.
Jakarta : Rineka Cipta
Moleong,Lexi J. 2005. Metodologi
Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: Pt
Remaja Rodakarya
Nizar. 2007. Increasing of the Eleventh
Year Students of SMA Negeri 1
Tumpang Malang by Using Role
Playing. Unpublished S2 Thesis.
Universitas Negeri Malang
Nunan, David. 1989. Designing Tasks for
the Communicative Classroom.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Oemar Hamalik. 1989. Metodologi
Pengajaran Ilmu Pendidikan :
Berdasarkan Pendekatan Kompetensi.
Bandung: Bandar Maju.
Oxford,Rebecca L. 1990. Language
Learning Strategies : What Every
Teacher Should Know. Boston:
Heinle&Heinle Publishers.
Shaftel,Fannie and George Shaftel. 1967.
Role Playing for Social Value.
Engliwood Cliffs N.J
Sunarto.1997. Dasar dan Konsep
Penelitian. Institut Keguruan dan
Ilmu Pendidikan Surabaya
Tuckman,Bruce W. 1978. Conducting
Educational Research, Second
Edition. USA: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich,Inc.
http://nazwadzulfa.wordpress.com/2009/1
1/21/role-playing-bahasa-inggris-
landasan-teori/
http://www.jstor.org/pss/20198409
http://iteslj.org/ (The internet TESL
Journal,Vol IV,No.8, August 1998)
(www.pearson.ch/LanguageTeaching/Lon
gman/1449).
(http://oss.software.ibm.com/SPSS
Regression Models,2009
24
SELF-QUESTIONING IN TASK-BASED READING INSTRUCTION
Nailul Fauziyah, SS., M.Pd1
Unipdu - Jombang
Abstract
English is, in context, as the first foreign language taught in Indonesia. This has become
one of a major subject in our national academic curriculum for every grade. Hence,
English has been taught in all kind of disciplines and professions. And English is being
taught from the early learners as pre-school students till university learners. In English
foreign language teaching, reading comprehension is one of the most important factors in
assessing a learner‟s linguistic competence. Where the ability to read in EFL learners is
acknowledged to be the most stable and durable of the second language modalities. In
other words, reading plays a vital role in second language acquisition. Indeed, it is a
common problem for some English teachers to understand what happens when EFL read?
And what classroom activities can promote successful reading in a foreign/second
language? Then, self-questioning is the ongoing process of asking questions before,
during, and after reading that are used by a reader to understand text. The questions posed
are based on clues that are found in the text and are generated to spark curiosity that
focuses the reader's attention on investigating, understanding, and connecting to the text.
A Self-Questioning Strategy is a set of steps that a student follows to generate, think
about, predict, investigate, and answer questions that satisfy curiosity about what is being
read. Thus, its strategy guides the EFL learners to achieve a successful reading of English
text.
Key words: Self-Questioning, Task-Based Reading Instruction.
Introduction
When EFL learners read,
consequently, most of them have trouble
with how to read efficiently and
comprehensively. They always feel
confused about the main idea of the
passage even if they can get a full mark to
the questions following the passage.
Hence, the teachers find themselves
unconsciously just to focus on the
cultivation of students‟ skills to find the
corresponding answers to the particular
questions. The EFL learners demand the
teaching-learning English, especially in
Indonesia, to be more communicatively
within their purposes and needs. Its
reasons make the distinction between ESL
(English as a second language) learners
and EFL (English as a foreign language)
learners in learning English (Gass &
Selinker, 1994). Thus, it is important for
all English teachers, in EFL teaching-
learning process, to understand what their
learners‟ outcomes during reading
process, and also concentrate in choosing
and practicing an appropriate instruction
and interactive learning materials for
learner‟s reading consequences.
Whereas, reading comprehension
is a very complex process and precedes
the learners as readers to make sense of
25
written symbols, it is essential that the
process of reading comprehension and the
role of factors leading to the product of
this process be understood properly.
The EFLs learn English in order
to use it with any other English speakers
in the world – when students might be
tourists or business people. Then, it is
important now to point out the
investigation of the interactive classroom
activities in the present reading teaching
of EFL learners communicatively.
Whereas, task-based instruction in
reading process by self-questioning task
for English classroom activities will
recommend that instructed students with
reading task communicatively.
Particularly, during reading
strategies and activities the task
instruction attends to be helpful for
students‟ comprehension. Burns et al.
(1996) state that the task in
comprehension monitoring
(metacognitive activities): predicting and
self questioning encourage students to
apply a positive effect on comprehension.
Fortunately, self-questioning task in
reading activity will be a purposeful
process for EFL learners. It will promote
curiosity and learning, connect prior
knowledge with material in the text; make
the learners understand and master new
material better, clarify new ideas or
concepts; increases understanding of a
text; promotes active readers and critical
thinking; and increases motivation by
making the learners active members of
the learning process and they become
aware of what and how they learn. Thus,
self-questioning task has been the basic
instruction presented in this essay.
Method
Occasionally, self-questioning
involved in reading classroom instruction
as being students‟ task. The task will
require the students to produce their
comprehend text by doing self-
questioning. It will also demand the
teacher to specify what will be regarded
to succeed his/her classroom activities.
Nunan (2006) defines the definition of
“task” that
“A task is a piece of classroom work
that involves learners in
comprehending, manipulating,
producing or interacting in the target
language while their attention is
focused on mobilizing their
grammatical knowledge in order to
express meaning, and in which the
intention is to convey meaning rather
than to manipulate form. The task
should also have a sense of
completeness, being able to stand alone
as a communicative act in its own right
with a beginning, a middle and an end.”
In addition, William and Burden (1997)
in Littlewood (2004) define a task as „any
activity that learners engage in to further
the process of learning a language. These
views are as the task-based instruction
which performed by self-questioning for
the students‟ classroom activities.
In self-questioning task the learner
asks himself a question accompanied by
rising intonation with the purpose of
clarifying a problem in comprehension.
Ghonsooly & Eghtesadee, 2006) state that
self-questioning is the ongoing process of
asking questions before, during, and after
reading that are used by a reader to
understand text. The questions posed are
based on clues that are found in the text
and are generated to spark curiosity that
focuses the reader's attention on
investigating, understanding, and
connecting to the text.
A self-questioning strategy is a set
of steps that a student follows to generate,
think about, predict, investigate, and
26
answer questions that satisfy curiosity
about what is being read (Nunan, 2006).
Then, the students try to understand the
text within their own questions. This
motivates them to encourage their
strategy how to comprehend and interpret
the message informed in the text. For the
EFL learn English text is hard for them.
When, in reading process, they focused
on the vocabulary understanding and
form, they fell boring and spend much
time till getting understand the message
in. So, self-questioning task guide them to
focus what they need in comprehending
English text.
Self-questioning, on the other
hand, will motivate them that reading can
be learned effectively which exposes
them to English language and gives
chances to use English communicatively.
Besides it engages and guides the learner
to understand his reading text more
purposeful. Duke & Pearson (2002) in
Braunger & Lewis (2006: 91) state that as
good readers construct meanings with
text, they continually question and revise
these meanings. This task which is based
on the comprehension question is as
metacognitive learning strategies in
reading process: the learners manage and
evaluate their learning (McDonough &
Chaikitmongkol, 2007: 124). Thus, self-
questioning task attracts the students as
the readers in the process of asking
themselves questions they want answered
from reading that will require them to
integrate information while they read.
In addition, self-questioning
requires a reader to look for text clues
that make them wonder, think about
possible meanings, ask questions about
the meanings, make predictions about the
answers, read to find the answers,
evaluate the answers and their
predictions, and reconcile differences
between their questions, their predictions
about answers, and the information
actually provided by the author in the text
(Durkin, 1979; Ur, 1996; Nunan, 1991).
Furthermore, this classroom
activity makes some students can
generate questions fairly well. However,
as text becomes more difficult, becomes
more abstract, increases in length, is more
inconsiderate, or the student does not
have sufficient background knowledge,
comprehension will falter and more
deliberate work on self-questioning is
required (Ghonsooly & Eghtesadee,
2006). Struggling readers may need
instruction and practice in surveying text
and generating questions before they
read; other students may need instruction
and practice in using self-questioning as
they read; others might used self-
questioning as a way of summarizing or
studying. Regardless of when the self-
questioning process is used, the basic
components of the strategy are the same.
Moreover, self-questioning is
more than just asking questions. Indeed,
students must learn to pay attention to
textual clues that they typically pass by.
They must then use their background
knowledge to generate questions and
make predictions. This background
knowledge will personalize the questions
and predictions, but since background
knowledge will vary with the individual,
each reader will wonder about different
aspects of the text. Once these have been
generated, the student must learn that the
answers to all questions may not be
found, that predictions may not be
accurate. Then the student must learn to
correct his or her thinking. This is
important, because some research
indicates that once some students make
certain judgments or predictions about
what will be read, they read to confirm
their prediction regardless of the
information actually provided in the text.
27
Hence, teachers need to instruct
students and provide practice in self-
questioning strategies that help students
learn to continuously question, predict,
confirm, correct, and reconcile
information (Li-juan, 2007). As students
encounter text in different areas, they
need an approach to question what they
are reading, and they need to see how
individuals with sufficient background
knowledge use this question to
reconciliation process. Asking students to
self-question and read without the teacher
describing and routinely modeling how to
use an appropriate self-questioning
strategy, especially with varying text
lengths, content areas, and text
complexities, will not improve the ability
of students to self-question. However,
since almost all learning in school
requires that a student ask question and
answer questions, self-questioning
comprehension strategies are important to
teach.
Fortunately, self questioning is a
learning strategy which can guide a
learner‟s performance of a task before,
during, and after that task is completed
(Sweet, 1993 as cited from Braunger &
Lewis, 2006). Moreover, this is great to
become one of reading comprehension
strategy that some readers apply its stages
above to construct meaning before,
during, and after reading strategies. Li-
juan (2007) suggests that the English
teachers have to perform their teaching
reading strategy into three stages of
teaching which she thinks should be
applied to EFL reading instruction to
efficiently improve students‟ reading
comprehension such: pre-reading, while-
reading, and post reading. Indeed, the
EFL learners can compose and answer
their own questions.
Bravo et. al. (2008) define that
self-questioning is used before, during,
and after reading text. However, if
students do not know or use self-
questioning as an ongoing strategy during
reading, they are likely to have trouble
with before and after use of the strategy.
Therefore, a self-questioning strategy for
use during reading is described first in
some detail, followed by descriptions of
how the strategy is used before and after
reading. Thus, the teacher has to provide
the appropriate procedure applied his/her
task-concept. It must preview the
learners‟ attention on the task, and guide
them to achieve the target language by
used their communicative purpose (goal)
(Littlewood, 2004).
Meanwhile, teaching procedures
during reading self-questioning task
implement EFL learners to be more aware
and motivate them within effective and
communicative reading activity. Burns et.
al. (1996) state that self-questioning
before and during the reading is
encouraged. The learners will be guided
by their questions from their pre-reading,
during reading, and the end of their
reading they can create the summarizing
of their reading.
Li-juan (2007), on the other hand,
concludes that three stages of classroom
teaching which she thinks should be
applied to EFL reading instruction to
efficiently improve students‟ reading
comprehension. For each three stages, she
explains that in pre-reading task provokes
reader interest, elicits or provides
appropriate background knowledge, and
guarantees that the students start to read
on the right track, while-reading task
focuses on the development of students‟
reading skills, trains students in applying
reading strategies and improves their
control of English, and in post-reading
task checks students‟ comprehension,
leads them to a deeper understanding of
the text, and steer the students toward
28
follow-up activities (Brown, 2001).
Furthermore, self-questioning in three
stages of classroom teaching should be
applied to EFL reading instruction
efficiently will improve students‟ reading
comprehension.
King in his research on 1992, who
engages his learners to take notes on a 20-
to 30-minute then review the notes in
self-questioning, concludes that this task
(self-questioning) help students focus on
their important material and help them
learn more deeply. As reviewed by Mayer
that he explains that this research shows
how questioning strategies can be used to
promote deep understanding that leads to
transfer (Mayer, 2003: 393).. In this case,
questions prime more than simply
selecting relevant information; it appears
skillfully used questions can guide the
process of organizing and integrating
knowledge.
Whereas, the goal of all reading
instruction is ultimately targeted at
helping a reader comprehend text.
Reading comprehension involves at least
two people: the reader and the writer.
And by self-questioning task, the students
can monitor themselves to comprehend
the text and to ensure comprehension
with reading for meaning. Where, the
process of comprehending involves
decoding the writer's words and then
using background knowledge to construct
an approximate understanding of the
writer's message. This task instruction
builds the learners applied a
metacognitive strategy. Consequently,
the metacognitive processes the reader
uses self-questioning involved in
monitoring understanding, electing what
to remember, and regulating the strategies
used when reading.
Conclusion
So far as the learning classroom
interaction, self-questioning task gives the
effective and communicative learning
outcomes for the EFL learners in
monitoring reading comprehension.
According to Murphy (2003) that learning
outcomes of task contribution are a
product of three main factors: the
contribution of the individual learner, the
task, and the situation in which the task is
carried out. First, self-questioning
motivate the EFL learner in reading
activity. They are being more aware and
purposeful with comprehending text.
Second, this task helps them to become
more independent learners and thinkers. It
included a self-evaluation exercise at the
end of each task from beginning, middle
and after reading, so that learners could
reflect on their task performance and
access whether they had achieved their
objective.
Furthermore, some students can
generate questions fairly well. However,
as text becomes more difficult, becomes
more abstract, increases in length, is more
inconsiderate, or the student does not
have sufficient background knowledge,
comprehension will falter and more
deliberate work on self-questioning is
required. Struggling readers may need
instruction and practice in surveying text
and generating questions before they
read; other students may need instruction
and practice in using self-questioning as
they read; others might used self-
questioning as a way of summarizing or
studying. Regardless of when the self-
questioning process is used, the basic
components of the strategy are the same.
29
The last, this task creates interactive
and communicative classroom activities
because when the learners got the
problems in question they can share and
discuss in groups or peers and also to the
lecturer.
References
Burns, P.C., Roe, B.D., and Ross, E.P.
1996. Teaching Reading In Today‟s
Elementary Schools (6th
edition).
USA: Hughton Millin Company.
Braunger, J., and Lewis, J.P. 2006.
Building a Knowledge Base in
Reading (2nd
edition). USA: IRA
and NCTE Publications.
Brown, H.D. 2001. Teaching by
Principles an Interactive Approach
to Language Pedagogy (2nd
edition).
USA: pearson Education. LTd.
Durkin, D. 1979. Teaching Them to Read
(3rd
edition). USA: Allyn and
Bacon, Inc.
Ghonsooly, B., and Eghtesadee, A.R.
2006. Role of Cognitive Style of
Field-dependence/ Independence in
Using Metacognitive and Cognitive
Reading Strategies by a Group of
Skilled and Novice Iranian Students
of English Literature. Asian EFL
Journal, Dec. 2006. Volume 8.
Number 4.
King, A. 1992. Comparison of Self-
questioning, Summarizing, and
Notetaking-review as Strategies for
Learning Lectures. American
Educational Research Journal, 29.
303-323.
Littlewood, W. 2004. The Task-Based
Approach: Some Questions and
suggestions. ELT Journal. October
2004. Volume 58. Number 4.
Li-juan, J. 2007. Problem EFL Reading
Teaching and Possible Solution.
Sino-US English Teaching.
September 2007. Volume 4.
Number 9 (Serial number 45).
Mayer, R.E. 2003. Learning and
Instruction. USA: Pearson
Education, Inc.
McDonough, K., and Chaikitmoghol, W.
2007. Teachers‟ and Learners‟
Reaction to a Task-Based EFL
Course in Thailand. Tesol
Quarterly, March 2007. Volume 41.
Number 1.
Murphy, J. 2003. Task-Based Learning:
The Interaction between task and
Learners. ELT Journal, October
2003. Volume 57. Number 4.
Nunan, D. 1991. Language Teaching
Methodology: A Text Book for
Teachers. Sydney: Prentice Hall
Nunan, D. 2006. Task-Based Language
Teaching In the Asia Context:
Defining „Task‟. Asian EFL
Journal, September 2006. Volume
8. Number 3.
Ur, P. 1996. A Course in Language
Teaching: Practice and Theory.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
30
THE STUDENTS’ SCORES ON THE DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONAL TOEFLS
AT THE SIXTH SEMESTER ENGLISH DEPARTMENT STUDENTS OF THE
PALANGKA RAYA STATE ISLAMIC COLLEGE
Sabarun
1
Unipdu – Jombang
ABSTRACT
The study attempts to investigate whether there is statistically difference or not on the
students‟ score between the Deborah‟s institutional TOEFL and the Barron‟s institutional
TOEFL. The study belonged to Ex post facto research. The study was conducted at the sixth
semester English department students of Palangka Raya State Islamic College of 2011/ 2012
academic year. The number of the subjects was 62 students. This study was restricted to two
focuses on testing: the Deborah‟s institutional TOEFL and the Barron‟s institutional TOEFL.
The research instruments applied in the study were test and documentation. To answer the
third research problem, the t test for correlated samples was applied.
The research findings showed that, based on the statistical calculation, it was found that
the t value was 2.904. Based on the Table of t value, if df was 61, the 5% of significant level of
t value was at 1.671 and the 1% of significant level of t value was at 2.390. It could be seen
that the empiric t value at 2.904 was higher than the t value theoretic. This could be interpreted
that at the 5% and 1% of significant level, there was significant difference on the students‟
score between the Deborah‟s institutional TOEFL (Mean= 398.63) and the Barron‟s
institutional TOEFL Mean= 413.92). This meant that Ha stating that there is statistically
difference on the students‟ score between the Deborah‟s institutional TOEFL and the Barron‟s
institutional TOEFL was accepted and Ho stating that there is no statistically difference on the
students‟ score between the Deborah‟s institutional TOEFL and the Barron‟s institutional
TOEFL was rejected. It meant that there was statistically difference on the students‟ score
between the Deborah‟s institutional TOEFL and the Barron‟s institutional TOEFL. In this
sense, the Barron‟s institutional TOEFL was easier than the Deborah‟s institutional TOEFL.
Key Words: Students‟ Score, Institutional TOEFL.
A. Background of the Study
One of the important aspects in
language learning is testing. Testing is an
important part of every teaching and
learning experience. According to Brown
(2002 : 3), test is a method of measuring a
person‟s ability, knowledge or
performance in a given domain. Tests can
serve a variety of purposes. For example,
educators can use them to pinpoint
students‟ strengths and weaknesses to
plan curricula and adopt teaching
practices tailored to their needs, both as
individuals and groups. Parents can
contribute more to their children‟s
learning if they understand their progress,
and, increasingly, they can choose their
children‟s school partly on the basis of
publicly available school report cards,
31
which reveal, to a greater or lesser degree,
the quality or effectiveness of teaching.
One of the standardized tests in
English ability for non-native speakers is
TOEFL. The TOEFL is the test of
English as a foreign language (Sharpe,
2007 : 10). It is a test to measure the level
of proficiency of nonnative speakers of
English (Phillips, 1996 : xiii). The Test
of English as a Foreign Language
evaluates the ability of an individual to
use and understand English in an
academic setting. The TOEFL test
measures a student's ability to use and
understand English at the university level
by evaluating how well a student
combines his or her listening, reading,
speaking and writing skills to perform
academic tasks. The TOEFL was first
administered in 1964 by the Modern
Language Association financed by grants
from the Ford Foundation and Danforth
Foundation. In 1965, The College Board
and ETS jointly assumed responsibility
for the continuation of the TOEFL testing
program. Then, in 1973, a cooperative
arrangement was made between ETS, The
College Board, and the Graduate Record
Examinations board of advisers to
oversee and run the program. ETS was to
administer the exam with the guidance of
the TOEFL board.
There are some studies conducted
by some researchers on TOEFL. One of
them is the study conducted by Dwi
Poejiastutie, et.al., in 1996, entitled: A
Study on Students‟ score on TOEFL at
English Department of Muhammadiyah
University of Malang. They found that
the students‟ ability on TOEFL was fair,
and the most difficult aspect was reading
comprehension and vocabulary. The
second study is conducted by Nisan
Susan in 1996 entitled: An Analysis of
Factors Affecting the Difficulty of
Dialogue Items in TOEFL Listening
Comprehension. The results of the
analyses indicate that, of the features
studied, five were significant: (1) the
presence of infrequent oral vocabulary;
(2) the sentence pattern of the utterances
in the stimulus; (3) the presence of
negatives in the stimulus; (4) the
necessity of making an inference to
answer the item; and (5) the roles of the
speakers in the stimulus.
The third study is conducted by
Hale, Gordon A. entitled: Multiple-
Choice Cloze Items and the Test of
English as a Foreign Language. This
study found that from a practical
standpoint, TOEFL performance can be
adequately described by two factors
relating to listening comprehension and
then to all other parts of the test.
Examination of the MC cloze test showed
that the total score was relatively reliable,
and that it was possible to estimate item
response theory parameters for the MC
cloze items with reasonable accuracy.
However, there was no strong empirical
evidence that the items types within the
MC cloze test reflected distinct skills. It
appeared that skills associated with
grammar, vocabulary, and reading
comprehension are highly interrelated as
assessed by the TOEFL and the MC cloze
test.
The fourth study is conducted by
Swinton, Spencer S. and Powers, Donald
E. entitled: Factor Analysis of the Test of
English as a Foreign Language for
Several Language Groups. The study
found that three major factors underlie
performance on the TOEFL and that these
factors are relatively unambiguous in
their interpretation. A factor underlying
the listening comprehension section was
noted for each language group; however,
there were differences among the
32
language groups in the interpretation of
two of the factors. The African, Arabic,
Chinese, and Japanese groups were
generally similar on a factor underlying
performance on structure, written
expression, and reading comprehension
items; and on another separate factor
underlying vocabulary items. The Spanish
and Germanic groups were also similar
on each of two other factors, which
correspond to the TOEFL sub scores
(structure/written expression and reading
comprehension/vocabulary). The
vocabulary factor exhibited positive
correlations with age and degree-
intentions in nearly every language group,
suggesting that vocabulary is the most
likely of any of the abilities to develop
with training or experience.
In The Palangka Raya State
Islamic College, the institutional TOEFL
score is required as one of the
requirements for all students who will
join the thesis seminar. For non-English
Department students, they are required to
have the institutional TOEFL score not
less than 400. Meanwhile, for English
Department students, they are required to
have the institutional TOEFL score at
least 500. Based on facts above, the
researcher is interested in conducting a
study on the students‟ score on the
different institutional TOEFLs at the sixth
semester English Department students of
the Palangka Raya State Islamic College.
The problems of the study are: How is the
students‟ score on the Deborah‟s
institutional TOEFL? How is the
students‟ score on the Barron‟s
institutional TOEFL? Is there any
statistically difference on the students‟
score between the Deborah‟s institutional
TOEFL and the Barron‟s institutional
TOEFL? Therefore, the aims of the study
are to describe the students‟ score on the
Deborah‟s institutional TOEFL; to
describe the students‟ score on the
Barron‟s institutional TOEFL; and to
measure whether there is statistically
difference or not on the students‟ score
between the Deborah‟s institutional
TOEFL and the Barron‟s institutional
TOEFL.
B. Significance of the Study
Therefore, the study has
theoretical and practical significance. In
terms of theory, this study is expected to
support the theory of language testing,
especially the TOEFL test, in English
language learning. Practically, the result
of the study can give empirical data about
the difference students‟ score on the
institutional TOEFL between Deborah‟s
and Barron‟s at English study program of
Tarbiyah Department of the Palangka
Raya State Islamic College, which is so
far there is no study on it. Moreover, the
result study can be used to classify the
students based on their institutional
TOEFL performance. The result study
can also be used by English study
program as a parameter of the students‟
quality to improve the quality of teaching
at English study program of Tarbiyah
Department of the Palangka Raya State
Islamic College.
C. Limitation of the Study The study belongs to ex post facto
research, since it attempts to see the
relationship between two different
variables (the institutional TOEFL of
Deborah and Barron). The research
attempts to measure whether there was
statistically difference or not on the
students‟ score between the Deborah‟s
institutional TOEFL and the Barron‟s
institutional TOEFL. Both models of
TOEFL test were selected since they
represent the model of standardized
33
TOEFL test; the TOEFL books of the
similar model are easily to get; the
TOEFL reference books are provided at
the college library and the students are
familiar with such kind of TOEFL
references.
The approach of the study is
quantitative approach, since the data are
in the form of quantitative data and the
statistical calculation is applied to analyze
the data. Here, the t test for correlated
samples is applied to analyze the data.
The study is conducted at the sixth
semester students of English study
program of Tarbiyah Department of the
Palangka Raya State Islamic College
2011/2012 academic years. There are
about 62 students of three classes. All
subjects are assigned to do the Deborah‟s
institutional TOEFL and then the
Barron‟s institutional TOEFL tests.
D. Review of Related Literature
TOEFL is abbreviation for Test of
English as a Foreign Language. It is
international test developed by ETS
Educational Testing Service in Princeton
University, USA. The goal of TOEFL is
to estimate a level of English language of
foreigner speakers. TOEFL test is a test to
measure the level of English Proficiency
of non-native speakers of English
(Phillips, 2001: p. xiv). The TOEFL test
measures a student's ability to use and
understand English at the university level
by evaluating how well a student
combines his or her listening, reading,
speaking and writing skills to perform
academic tasks. The TOEFL test also
measures the ability of nonnative
speakers of English to use and understand
English as it is spoken, written, and heard
in college and university settings.
1. Paper-based test (PBT) version
The PBT is a pencil and paper test
that is offered for two purposes. One
purpose of the PBT is for placement and
progress evaluations. Colleges or other
institutions use the PBT to test their
students. The scores are not valid outside
the place where they are administered, but
the college or institution accepts the PBT
that they administer as an official score.
This PBT is also called an institutional
TOEFL. The other purpose of the PBT is
to supplemental the Official Computer
Based TOEFL in areas where computer-
based testing is not possible. The scores
are usually valid outside the place where
they are administered. This PBT is also
called a supplemental TOEFL.
The paper version of the TOEFL
Test has the following sections:
a. Listening comprehension. This test is
to demonstrate the ability to
understand spoken English. The
examinees must listen to various types
of passages on a tape recording and
respond to multiple choice questions
about the passages.
b. Structure and written expression. This
test is to demonstrate the ability to
recognize grammatically correct
English. The examinees must either
choose the correct way to complete
sentences or find errors in sentences.
c. Reading Comprehension. This test is
to demonstrate the ability to
understand written English. The
examinees must answer multiple
choice questions about the ideas and
the meanings of words in reading
passages. In addition, Test of Written
English (TWE) is required essay that
provides a writing score. This test is
to demonstrate the ability to produce
correct, organized, and meaningful
English. The examinees must write an
essay on a given topic in thirty
34
minutes. The Test of Written English
(TWE) is not given with every
administration of the paper TOEFL
test.
Table 2.1. Format of paper-based tests
(PBT) version Aspects Number of
Questions
Duration
Listening
Comprehension
50 questions 35 minutes
Structure and
written
expression
40 questions 25 minutes
Reading
Comprehension
50 questions 55 minutes
Test of Written
English (TWE).
1 essay question 30 minutes
The PBT is a linier test, which
means that everyone who takes the
TOEFL during the same administration
will see and answer the same questions.
The total score is based on a scale 310-
677. Each of the sections is graded on a
scale from 31- 68. Then the scores from
the three sections are added together.
Finally the sum is multiplied by 10 and
divided by 3 (Sharpe, 2004 : 30)
2. Structure of the PBT TOEFL
Most PBT TOEFL test consists of
three sections and 140 questions. (Hinkel,
2005 : 1). Each test begins with the
listening comprehension section,
followed by structure and written
expression section, and reading
comprehension section.
1. Listening Comprehension Section
The Listening Comprehension
section is always first in the examination
and it is in three parts (Pyle and Mary
2002 : 17). The Listening Comprehension
section consists of 3 parts: part A, part B,
and part C. There are 50 questions in
three parts on the Listening
Comprehension section of the Paper
Based TOEFL Test (Sharpe, 2005 : 17).
In part A, the test taker will hear short
conversations between two speakers. At
the end of the conversation, a third voice
will ask a question about what was said
(Pyle and Mary 2002 : 17). The first one
contains 30 questions about short
conversations. In part B, the test taker
will hear longer conversations. After each
conversation, the test taker will hear
several questions about the conversation.
The second part has 8 questions about
longer conversations. In part C, the test
taker will hear several talks. After each
talk, the test takers will some questions.
The last part asks 12 questions about
lectures or talks.
The Listening section consists of
six passages 3–5 minutes in length and
questions about the passages. These
passages include two student
conversations and four academic lectures
or discussions. A conversation involves
two speakers, a student and either a
professor or a campus service provider. A
lecture is a self-contained portion of an
academic lecture, which may involve
student participation and does not assume
specialized background knowledge in the
subject area. Each conversation and
lecture stimulus is heard only once. Test-
takers may take notes while they listen
and they may refer to their notes when
they answer the questions. Each
conversation is associated with five
questions and each lecture with six. The
questions are meant to measure the ability
to understand main ideas, important
details, implications, relationships
between ideas, organization of
information, speaker purpose and speaker
attitude.
35
2. Structure and Written Expression
Section
The second section of TOEFL is
the Structure and Written Expression
section. This test is designed to measure
the ability to recognize language that is
appropriate for standard written English
(Phillips, 2001 : 185). The Structure and
Written Expression section includes two
question types: part A, Structure and part
B, written expression (Pyle and Mary,
2002 : 25). This section contains 40
questions with multiple choice responses:
15 questions in part A, and 25 questions
in part B. This section of the test must be
completed in 25 minutes. Therefore, it
takes approximately 35-37 seconds to
answer each question.
In part A, the test taker will see
15 incomplete sentences. The questions
are all multiple choice with four possible
answer choices. The test taker has to
choose the best answer choice from the
four possible answers to complete the
sentences in a grammatically correct way.
In part B, the test taker will see 25
incorrect sentences with four underlined
words or phrases marked (A), (B), (C),
and (D). The test taker has to choose one
underlined word or phrase that is not
correct and must be changed to correct
sentence. Those questions also progress
from easy to difficult.
3. Reading Comprehension Section
The third section of TOEFL is
Reading Comprehension section. The
Reading Comprehension section tests the
test taker‟s ability to understand,
interpret, and analyze reading passages on
a variety of topics. It also tests the ability
to understand written English as it is
presented in textbooks and other
academic materials (Sharpe, 2005 : 121.).
This section also tests the knowledge of
English vocabulary. The test taker must
find synonyms for selected words from
the passage among the four answer
choices given. The Reading
Comprehension section contains four to
six reading passages of approximately
200-250 words. A reading passage is
usually followed by seven to twelve
questions. The test consists of 50
questions and must be completed in 55
minutes. There is only one type of
question in Reading Comprehension.
Multiple choice questions ask the test
taker to select the best answer to
questions about the information given in
the reading passages. The test may ask
about the main ideas, directly answered
details, indirectly answered details,
vocabulary or overall review ideas.
4. Scoring Method of the PBT TOEFL
The scoring method is done to
determine the level of proficiency of the
test taker. When the paper-based TOEFL
test is scored, the test taker receives a
score between 20 and 68 in each of the
three sections. They are still in the form
of raw scores. The raw score is the total
number correct in each section (Pyle and
Mary, 2002 : 6.). The raw scores must be
converted into „converted scores.‟ The
total converted score is then determined
by adding the three converted scores and
multiplying by 10 and dividing by 3. The
test taker also receives overall score
between 217 and 677. The interpretation
of the overall score is explained in Table
1.
Table 1. Levels of Proficiency
Score Grade
> 550 Special advanced
501- 550 Advanced
426- 500 Pre-Advanced
351- 425 Intermediate
200- 350 Pre-intermediate
< 200 Elementary
36
E. Research Method
1. Research Design
Since the study attempted to
measure whether there was statistically
difference or not on the students‟ score
between the Deborah‟s institutional
TOEFL and the Barron‟s institutional
TOEFL, the design of the study was ex
post facto research. It was designed to
determine the cause for existing
differences in the behavior or status of
groups of individual. Ex post facto
research is similar to experiment, except
the researcher does not manipulate the
independent variable, which has already
occurred in the natural course of effect. In
addition, the study was also quantitative
in nature since it involved numerical data
to answer the research problems.
Therefore, the approach of the study was
quantitative research. In the present study,
the researcher attempted to measure
whether there was statistically difference
or not on the students‟ score between the
Deborah‟s institutional TOEFL and the
Barron‟s institutional TOEFL tests. The
data was the students‟ score on TOEFL
quantitatively in the form of numerical
data.
2. Population and Sample
The population of the study were
all the sixth semester students of English
department of the Palangka Raya State
Islamic College of 2011/2012 academic
years. The number of population is 62
students consisting of three classes: A, B,
and C. Since the number of the
population was less than 100, therefore,
in the study, the research took all the
population as sample or subject of study.
This study was called research
population. Therefore, the subjects of the
study were all the sixth semester students
of English department of the Palangka
Raya State Islamic College of 2011/2012
academic years. All subjects were
assigned to do the TOEFL tests composed
by Deborah Phillips and Pamela J.
Sharpe.
3. Instrumentation
In the instrumentation, detail the
relevant data about instrumentation (tests,
interview, questionnaires, and the like)
proposes for the study. The purpose of
any instrument should be to help gather
data to answer questions raised in the
problem statement (Mauch, and Namgi
Park : 160). In the study, the data of the
study were collected through two research
instruments, i.e. test, and documentation.
Test was the main instrument to
collect the data about the students‟
institutional TOEFL score. In the present
study, a standardized test was applied.
The standardized test is a prepared test for
which content has been selected and
checked empirically. In the study, the
type of the test was multiple choice tests
consisting of 140 test items covering 50
test items of Listening Comprehension,
40 test items of Structure and Written
Expression, and 50 test items of Reading
Comprehension. Here, the two models of
TOEFL test composed by Deborah
Phillips and Pamela J. Sharpe were tested
to the subjects. Both models of TOEFL
test were selected since they represent the
model of standardized TOEFL test; the
TOEFL books of the similar model are
easily to get; the TOEFL reference books
are provided at the college library, and
the students are familiar with such kind of
TOEFL references. Since it was a
standardized test, the test had fulfilled the
requirement of validity and reliability of
the test. The subjects had to take 120
minutes to complete the institutional
TOEFL test for each test.
37
Documentation is any written item
of a factual or informative nature, used to
obtain facts. This last instrument was
used to investigate the students‟ score on
the two models of the institutional
TOEFL tests. In this case, all students
were assigned to collect the TOEFL
answer sheets after they did the TOEFL
test. In the study, the students‟ portfolio
of the test was documented as the source
of data.
4. Data Collection Procedures
In data collection, the researcher
describes the nature of data and how the
data will be collected. The data collection
must be appropriate to the research
problem and the specific nature of data.
In the present study, the data collection
was done through test and documentation.
The first instrument was test. The test was
used to collect the data about the
students‟ institutional TOEFL score of
Deborah‟s and Barron‟s. In the study, the
students were assigned to do the two
models of the institutional TOEFL tests.
The students‟ answers were scored in
accordance with the scoring method for
the TOEFL test, as proposed by Deborah
Phillips. The subjects took 120 minutes to
complete the institutional TOEFL test for
each test. The second instrument was
documentation. This was done to get the
written data from students‟ answer sheet
of the TOEFL test, and the classroom
picture during the test.
5. Data Analysis Procedures
To answer the first research
problem, the researcher assigned the
students to do the Deborah‟s model of
TOEFL test, and then analyzed the
obtained TOEFL score in order to see
how the students‟ TOEFL score was.
Afterwards, the researcher applied SPSS
program version 12.0 and 16.0 (Pallant,
2000 : 2). in order to get descriptively the
frequency distributions of the students‟
TOEFL score. To answer the second
research problem, the researcher assigned
the students to do the Barron‟s model of
TOEFL test, and then analyzed the
obtained TOEFL score in order to see
how the students‟ TOEFL score was.
Afterwards, the researcher applied SPSS
program version 12.0 and 16.0 in order to
get descriptively the frequency
distributions of the students‟ TOEFL
score. The same steps were also done to
classify the score based on its level range.
Then, to answer the third research
problem, the researcher applied the t test
statistical calculation in order to measure
whether there was statistically difference
or not on the students‟ score between the
Deborah‟s institutional TOEFL and the
Barron‟s institutional TOEFL. Here, both
scores were compared and analyzed using
t test for correlated samples. To find the t
value, the SPSS 16.0 program was
applied. Then, the t value was compared
with t table at 1% and 5% significant
levels.
The interpretation of the result
was done to answer the third research
problem. If the t value was higher than t
table, ha was accepted and ho was
rejected. On the contrary, if the t value
was smaller than t table, ha was rejected
and ho was accepted. It meant that there
was no statistically difference on the
students‟ score between the Deborah‟s
institutional TOEFL and the Barron‟s
institutional TOEFL at 1% and 5%
significant levels. Finally, the discussion
was made to clarify the research findings.
38
F. Research Findings
1. The Students’ score of the Deborah’s
TOEFL test
In order to see how the students‟
score of the Deborah‟s model of TOEFL
test, the researcher assigned the subjects
to do the Deborah‟s model of the TOEFL
test. The TOEFL test was conducted in
three phases, since the capacity of the
language laboratory was limited. It only
covered maximally not more than 30
students. The first phase was given to
Class A. The number of the students was
19 students. The class A students took the
TOEFL test on Monday, April 16, 2012 at
room Lab 2. It took time about 120
minutes starting from 06.30 until 08.30.
All students did the test well. The second
phase was given to Class B. The number
of the students was 30 students. The class
B students took the TOEFL test on
Wednesday, April 18, 2012 at room Lab
2. Actually, the number of class B was
31. However, at the test time, one student
did not come to the class. Therefore, the
numbers of the test takers of Class B were
only 30 students.
The third phase was given to
Class C. The number of the students was
16 students. The class C students took the
TOEFL test on Thursday, April 19, at
room Lab 2.
Then data of the students‟ score
were classified based on the Level of
Proficiency as follows:
Table 2. Level of Proficiency No Interpretation Number
of
Students
Percentage
1 Special
Advanced : >
550
0 0%
2 Advanced
: 501 – 550
4 6.45%
3 Pre- 11 17.75%
Advanced :
426 – 500
4
Intermediate
: 351 – 425
39 62.90%
5 Pre-
Intermediate :
200 – 350
8 12.90%
6 Elementary
: < 200
0 0%
Total 62 100%
Based on result of the test, the
researcher found 4 of 62 students or
6.45% of the total students who got
advanced (score between 501 up to 550).
There were 11 students who got Pre-
Advanced (426 – 500) scores, or 17.75%
students got Pre-Advanced scores. There
were 39 students who got Intermediate
(351 – 425) scores, or 62.90% students
got Intermediate scores. There were 8
students who got Pre- Intermediate (200 –
350) scores, or 12.90% students got Pre-
Intermediate scores. But the writer did not
found students who got Special Advanced
(> 550) and Elementary (< 200) scores.
Based on the result of descriptive statistic,
it was found that the lowest score was
313, the highest score was 520, the
standard deviation was 47.93 and the
average score was 398. 63.
Based on the data above, it could
be stated as follows. First, the highest
score was 523. It meant that there were no
students who obtained special advanced
or upper 550. Second, the lowest score
was 323. It meant that there were no
students who obtained elementary. The
average score was 398.63. It meant that
the class was on intermediate category.
The numbers of the students who were in
intermediate category were 39 of 62
students or 62. 90%. The standard
deviation was 47.93.
39
2. The Students’ score of the Barron’s
TOEFL test
In order to see how the students‟
score of the Barrons‟ TOEFL test, the
researcher assigned the subjects to do the
TOEFL test. The TOEFL test was
conducted in three phases: Monday (May
7, 2012), Wednesday ( May 9, 2012), and
Thursday (May 10, 2012).
Based on result of the test, the
researcher found 3 of 62 students or
4.82% of the total students who got
advanced (score between 501 up to 550).
There were 16 students who got Pre-
Advanced (426 – 500) scores, or 25.86%
students got Pre-Advanced scores. There
were 40 students who got Intermediate
(351 – 425) scores, or 64.50% students
got Intermediate scores. There were 3
students who got Pre- Intermediate (200 –
350) scores, or 4.82% students got Pre-
Intermediate scores. Based on the result
of descriptive statistic, it was found that
the lowest score was 346, the highest
score was 547, the standard deviation was
42.28 and the average score was 413. 92.
Then data above were classified based on
the Level of Proficiency as follows:
Table 4.5 Level of Proficiency No Interpretation Number
of
Students
Percentage
1 Special
Advanced :
> 550
0 0%
2 Advanced
: 501 – 550
3 4.82%
3 Pre-
Advanced
: 426 – 500
16 25.86%
4 Intermediate
: 351 – 425
40 64.50%
5 Pre-
Intermediate
: 200 – 350
3 4.82%
6 Elementary
: < 200
0 0%
Total 62 100%
Based on the data above, it could be
stated as follows. First, the highest score
was 547. It meant that there were no
students who obtained special advanced
or upper 550. Second, the lowest score
was 346. It meant that there were no
students who obtained elementary. The
average score was 413.92. It meant that
the class was on intermediate category.
The numbers of the students who were in
intermediate category were 40 of 62
students or 64. 50%. The standard
deviation was 42.28.
3. The Difference of the Students’ score
Between the Deborah and the
Barron’s and TOEFL tests
To measure whether there was
statistically difference or not on the
students‟ score between the Deborah‟s
institutional TOEFL and the Barron‟s
institutional TOEFL, both scores were
compared and analyzed using t test for
correlated samples. The comparison of
the students‟ score between the Deborah‟s
institutional TOEFL and the Barron‟s
institutional TOEFL was presented as
follows:
Table 4 Level of Proficiency from
Deborah and Barron’s TOEFL tests
No
Interpreta
tion
Deborah’s TOEFL
test
Barron’s TOEFL
test
Numb of
Students
% Numb
Students
%
1 Special Advanced :
> 550
0 0% 0 0%
2 Advanced
: 501 – 550
4 6.45% 3 4.82
%
3 Pre-
Advanced
: 426 – 500
11 17.75% 16 25.86
%
4 Intermediate : 351– 425
39 62.90% 40 64.50%
5 Pre-
Intermediate : 200 – 350
8 12.90% 3 4.82
%
6 Elementary
: < 200
0 0% 0 0%
Total 62 100% 62 100%
40
To answer the research problem,
the t test for correlated samples was
applied to measure whether there was
statistically difference or not on the
students‟ score between the Deborah‟s
institutional TOEFL and the Barron‟s
institutional TOEFL. Then a statistical
hypothesis was tested to examine the
interaction of the two independent
variables. The statistical hypothesis stated
that there was no statistically difference
on the students‟ score between the
Deborah‟s institutional TOEFL and the
Barron‟s institutional TOEFL.
a. Testing Statistical Hypothesis
To answer the third research
problem, whether there was statistically
difference or not on the students‟ score
the t test for correlated samples was
applied. For this reasons, the researcher
did the following steps. First, both data
were inserted in the SPSS 16.0 program
on t test for correlated samples, since
there was the same subjects‟ score being
compared. Then, the significant level of t
empiric was determined. The result of
calculation or t value could be seen from
the output.
Next, to determine the t empiric,
the t value was compared with the critical
value or t table at 1% and 5% significant
level. If the t value was smaller than t
table, the null hypothesis (ho) could not
be rejected and the alternative hypothesis
(ha) was rejected. On the contrary, if the t
value was higher than t table, the null
hypothesis (ho) was rejected and the
alternative hypothesis (ha) was accepted.
After calculating the t value of the
compare means of both groups using
SPSS 16 program, it was found that the t
value was 2.904. Based on the outcomes,
it was also found that the df (Degree of
freedom) of the distribution observed was
62-1= 61. Based on the Table of t value,
if df was 61, the 5% of significant level of
t value was at 1.671 and the 1% of
significant level of t value was at 2.390. It
could be seen that the empiric t value at
2.904 was higher than the t value
theoretic. Therefore, t table (5%=1.671) <
t value (2.904) > t table (1%=2.390). It
meant that the t value empiric at 2.904
was greater than t theoretic at the 5% and
1% of significant level.
b. Interpretation of the Results
Based on the results, it could be
concluded that at the 5% and 1% of
significant level, there was significant
difference on the students‟ score between
the Deborah‟s institutional TOEFL
(Mean= 398.63) and the Barron‟s
institutional TOEFL (Mean= 413.92).
This meant that Ha stating that there was
statistically difference on the students‟
score was accepted. On the contrary, Ho
stating that there was no statistically
difference on the students‟ score was
rejected. It meant that there was
statistically difference on the students‟
score between the Deborah‟s institutional
TOEFL and the Barron‟s institutional
TOEFL. In this sense, the Barron‟s
institutional TOEFL was easier than the
Deborah‟s institutional TOEFL.
4. Discussion
Based on the research findings, it
was found that; first, the average of the
students‟ score of Deborah‟s TOEFL test
was 398.63 and the average of the
students‟ score of Barron‟s TOEFL test
was 413.92. It meant that the class was
on intermediate category. The numbers of
the students who were in intermediate
41
category were 39 of 62 students or 62.
90% for Deborah model and the numbers
of the students who were in intermediate
category were 40 of 62 students or 64.
50% for Barron model.
This was possible due to a number
of reasons. First, the students might have
little preparation before joining the test.
Second, the students might be not familiar
the model of the TOEFL test. Third, the
students still lacked of language skills
such as some techniques in reading skills,
grammar, and on listening skills.
Second, based on the findings, the
average of the students‟ score of both
models of test was 406.27. It was on
intermediate category. In fact, the
required institutional TOEFL score for
English Department students was at least
500 or more. The finding showed that
there were only 4 students who passed the
test as required by STAIN Palangka
Raya. It meant that there were only 6.45%
fulfilled the requirement of the TOEFL
score, and 93.55% of the total number of
students did not fulfill the requirement of
the TOEFL score. This could be stated
that the TOEFL average score of the
students was far from the expected result.
Third, the result of the statistical
calculation showed clearly that there was
significant difference between the
Deborah‟s institutional TOEFL and the
Barron‟s institutional TOEFL on the
students‟ score. Therefore, the study
concluded that the mean for the
Deborah‟s institutional TOEFL was
significantly different from the mean for
the Barron‟s institutional TOEFL. This
meant that the Deborah‟s institutional
TOEFL differed significantly from the
Barron‟s institutional TOEFL. It meant
that the Deborah‟s institutional TOEFL
was more difficult than the Barron‟s
institutional TOEFL for the sixth
semester students of English study
program of Tarbiyah Department of the
Palangka Raya State Islamic College
2011/2012 academic years.
The further questions were that:
“Why is there significant difference
between the two independent variables?”
and “What are the possible results for it?”
Dealing with the research findings stating
that there was significant difference on
the students‟ score between the Deborah‟s
institutional TOEFL and the Barron‟s
institutional TOEFL, there were possibly
due to a number of arguments.
The Deborah‟s TOEFL model
was regarded to be more difficult than the
Barron‟s TOEFL model for students.
There were possibly due to a number of
causes. The Deborah‟s TOEFL books
were only available in the internet and in
the form of CD. The books were still not
available in the library and it was difficult
to get. On the contrary, the Barron‟s
TOEFL books were not only available in
the internet, but also available in the
library. Some book store also provided
Barron‟s TOEFL books. In addition, it
was easy to get. Furthermore, the students
were more familiar with Barron‟s TOEFL
books than Deborah‟s TOEFL books.
Since they could access Barron‟s TOEFL
books everywhere and every time. On the
contrary, they could not access Deborah‟s
TOEFL books in public places or even in
the college library.
Therefore, it was a great
responsibility for the STAIN Palangka
Raya academicians to improve the
TOEFL score quality of the students. This
needed serious work, togetherness, hand-
in-hand, among the academicians, both
lecturers, and students. Last of all, to
improve the TOEFL score quality of the
42
students of English department of the
Palangka Raya State Islamic College, the
students should be given more
opportunity to explore their English
knowledge as the major of their study.
G. Conclusions and Suggestions
1. Conclusions
Based on the research findings, it
could be concluded that.
a. The students‟ score on Deborah‟s
TOEFL was as follows. There were 4
of 62 students or 6.45% of the total
students who got advanced (score
between 501 up to 550). There were
11 students who got Pre-Advanced
(426 – 500) scores, or about 17.75%.
There were 39 students who got
Intermediate (351 – 425) scores, or
62.90% students got Intermediate
scores. There were 8 students who got
Pre- Intermediate (200 – 350) scores,
or 12.90%. The average score was
398.63. It meant that the class was on
intermediate category. The numbers
of the students who were in
intermediate category were 39 of 62
students or 62. 90%. The standard
deviation was 47.93.
b. The students‟ score on Barron‟s
TOEFL was as follows. It was found
3 of 62 students or 4.82% of the total
students who got advanced (score
between 501 up to 550). There were
16 students who got Pre-Advanced
(426 – 500) scores, or 25.86%
students got Pre-Advanced scores.
There were 40 students who got
Intermediate (351 – 425) scores, or
64.50% students got Intermediate
scores. There were 3 students who got
Pre- Intermediate (200 – 350) scores,
or 4.82% students got Pre-
Intermediate scores. The lowest score
was 346, the highest score was 547,
the standard deviation was 42.28 and
the average score was 413.92. It
meant that the class was on
intermediate category. The numbers
of the students who were in
intermediate category were 40 of 62
students or 64. 50%.
c. Based on the statistical calculation, it
was found that the t value was 2.904.
Based on the Table of t value, if df
was 61, the 5% of significant level of
t value was at 1.671 and the 1% of
significant level of t value was at
2.390. It could be seen that the
empiric t value at 2.904 was higher
than the t value theoretic. This could
be interpreted that at the 5% and 1%
of significant level, there was
significant difference on the students‟
score between the Deborah‟s
institutional TOEFL (Mean= 398.63)
and the Barron‟s institutional TOEFL
Mean= 413.92). This meant that Ha
was accepted and Ho was rejected. It
meant that there was statistically
difference on the students‟ score
between the Deborah‟s institutional
TOEFL and the Barron‟s institutional
TOEFL. In this sense, the Barron‟s
institutional TOEFL was easier than
the Deborah‟s institutional TOEFL.
2. Suggestions The suggestions are given to the
students, teachers and the future
researchers. First, it was suggested that
the students be familiar with the
instructions of every TOEFL test model
before joining the test. Second, the
students were advisable to work on
improving the knowledge of the English
language skills that are covered on the
TOEFL test, and understand the test-
taking strategies specific to the version of
the TOEFL test. For the teachers, it was
43
suggested that the teachers relate the
course material and the types of
instructions from the various TOEFL
reference books. It was also
recommended to provide students with
some reading techniques such as
previewing, reading for main ideas,
scanning, skimming, and making
inference of the passage. Fourth, ideally,
the teacher should introduce some models
of TOEFL tests. For Future Researchers,
it was advisable that future researchers
follow up the study by conducting
research on TOEFL with different design
and the same topic of the study.
REFERENCES
Ary, Donald, Lucy, C.J., Chris, S., and
Asghar R. Introduction to Research in
Education.(eighth edition).(United
States: Wadsworth Cengage Learning,
2010.
Best. J.W. Research in Education. Fourth
edition. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice Hall, 1986.
Brown, H.D. language Assessment:
Principles and Classroom Practices.
Sanfrancisco: Sanfrancisco State
University Press, 2002.
Callahan, Joseph F. and Leonard,
H.Clark. Teaching in the Middle and
Secondary Schools: Planning for
Competence. Third Edition. (New
York: Macmillan Publishing
Company, 1988).p.346.
Cohen, Louis. Lawrence, M. and Keith,
M. Research Methods in Education.
Fifth Edition. (London: Routledge
Falmer, 2000.
Dwi Poejiastutie, et.al., A Study on
Students‟ score on TOEFL at English
Department of Muhammadiyah
University of Malang. Jurnal
Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang.
Second edition. December 1996.p. 60-
66.
Earl, Babbie. The Practice of Social
Research. United States: Woodsworth
Thomson Learning, 2001.
Educational Testing Service. The Official
Guide to the New TOEFL IBT. New
York: Mc Graw-Hill Companies, Inc,
2006.
Gay, L.R. Educational Research:
Competencies for Analysis and
Application. Second Edition.
Colombus: A Bell and Howell
Company, 1981.
Hale, Gordon A. Multiple-Choice Cloze
Items and the Test of English as a
Foreign Language. http://eric.ed.gov.
Language Testing, accessed on
February 6, 2012).
Harmer, Jeremy. The Practice of English
Language Teaching. USA: Longman,
2002.
Heaton, J.B. Writing English Language
Tests. (London: Addison Wesley
Longman Limited, 1998.
Hinkel, Eli. TOEFL Test Strategies with
Practice Tests and 5 Audio Cassettes.
Third Edition . Jakarta: Binarupa
Aksara, 2005.
Hornby, A.S, Oxford Advanced Learner‟s
Dictionary of Current Language.
(New York : Oxford University
Press. 1995.
44
Hopkins, Charles, D. Understanding
Educational Research: An inquiry
Approach. Colombus: Charles E.
Merril Publishing Company, 1980.
Kral, Thomas Teacher Development
Making Right Moves (Washington,
D.C.: English Language Program
Division, 1993.
Michael.A.Pyle and Mary, Elen Munoz
Page. Cliffs TOEFL Preparation
guide Test of English as a Foreign
Language. (New Delhi: Wiley
Dreamtech India, Ltd, 2002.
Nisan, Susan. An Analysis of Factors
Affecting the Difficulty of Dialogue
Items in TOEFL Listening
Comprehension, 1996
(http://eric.ed.gov.Eric Education
Resource Information Center,
accessed on February 6, 2012).
Nunan, David. Research Methods in
Language Learning. Cambrigde:
Cambridge University Press, 1992.
ETS2007-
1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOEF
L#cite-note-ETS2007-1, accessed
on 2 February 2012.
Pallant, Julie F. SPSS Survival Manual: A
step by Step guide to data analysis
using SPSS. Monash: Monash
University Faculty of Education,
2000).p.2.
Mauch, E. James and Namgi, Park. Guide
to the Successful Thesis and
Dissertation. Fifth Edition. New
York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.2003.
Phillips, Deborah. Longman Complete
Course for the TOEFL test:
Preparation for the Computer and
Paper Tests. (New York: Pearson
Education Company, 2001.
Phillips, Deborah. Longman Preparation
Course for the TOEFL test: Volume
A, Skills and Strategies. Second
Edition. (New York: Addison
Wesley Longman, 1996.
Sharpe, Pamela J. Barron‟s Practice and
Exercises for the TOEFL, fifth
edition. Jakarta: Binarupa Aksara,
2005.
Sharpe, Pamela J. Barron‟s How to
Prepare for the TOEFL, ninth
edition. Jakarta: Binarupa Aksara,
2000.
Sekaran, Uma. Research Methods for
Bussiness: A Skill Building
Approach. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, Inc, 1992.
Vockel, Edward.L. and Asher, J. Williem.
Educational Research. Second
Edition.Englewood Clifs: Merrill,
Prentice Hall. 1983.
Webster. The New Lexicon Webster‟s
Dictionary of the English
Language.( Danbury: Lexicon
Publications, Inc, 2004.
45
COMMON ERRORS MADE BY PMC STUDENTS AT EEC
(EFFECTIVE ENGLISH COURSE) JOMBANG IN
PRONOUNCING ENGLISH SILENT-LETTERS
Achmad Fanani1
Mohammad Yazid Mawardi2
Universitas Pesantren Tinggi Darul „Ulum Jombang
Abstract
Interference is the influence of first language (L1) into second language (L2)(negative
interlingual transfer) that generally leads to errors. Thus the mother tongue of first language in
fact interferes to the second language. Besides, markedness is the obvious factor contributing
the errors as well. This study investigates the interference of Indonesian language (L1) into
the English language acquisition commonly made by PMC, Prospective Model Class,
students at Effective English Course (EEC) Jombang. More specifically, this study describes
the influence of Indonesian pronunciation into English pronunciation acquisition that causes
errors and the language-based factors that influence the occurrence of interference. The result
of this research shows that the errors related to the interference of L1 are categorized into 12
kinds of errors: pronouncing silent „b‟, pronouncing silent „c‟, pronouncing silent „d‟,
pronouncing silent „g‟, pronouncing silent „gh‟, pronouncing silent „h‟, pronouncing silent „k‟,
pronouncing silent „l‟, pronouncing silent „p‟, pronouncing silent „s‟, pronouncing silent „t‟,
and pronouncing silent „w‟.
Keywords: L1 interference, markedness, PMC students
A. BACKGROUND
The second language acquisition
is really interfered by the mother tongue
or first language (L1). In Indonesia,
English language learners often
pronounce English words with Indonesian
spelling when they speak English. We
often find English language learners
pronounce “know [nəʊ]” with “[knəʊ]”,
“Might [maɪt]” with “[maɪg]”.
In the study of second language
acquisition, such kind of this
phenomenon is called the interference of
first language into second language
(negative interlingual transfer).
Interference generally leads to errors
(Krashen, Stephen, 1988). The
pronunciation errors in the second
language that often occur are caused by
the distinctions between Bahasa
Indonesia sound system and the
pronunciation of English words.
Especially in the spoken language,
many English learners of Indonesia often
make errors in pronouncing English
words. This is because the pronunciation
system in Bahasa Indonesia is different
from that of English. In Bahasa
Indonesia, each letter indicates a
distinctive sound/sounds (e.g. „satu‟ is
pronounced (satu)). On the other hand, in
English letters do not always represent
distinctive sounds (e.g. „know‟ is
46
pronounced (nəʊ)). Furthermore, English
has sounds (of letters) that cannot be
found in Bahasa Indonesia, for instance
the sound (ð) as in “the” and “θ” as in
“think”. Such differences often make
Indonesian students have difficulty
pronouncing English words.
Based on the explanation above, a
research on the interference of L1
(Bahasa Indonesia) sound system into L2
(English) pronunciation is necessary to
do. Gass and Selingker in Fanani (2011)
state that the language interference is one
of the central studies in the second
language acquisition process. Thus, the
results of this study is really expected to
be able to be used by English teachers to
identify the common pronunciation errors
made by the English learners, especially
the novice level learners when they speak
English.
This study is going to describe the
interference of Bahasa Indonesia (L1)
sound system into the English language
(L2) pronunciation acquisition especially
concerning the acquisiton of English
silent letters. More specifically what
silent consonant letters are commonly
incorrectly pronounced and how the
errors occur.
The respondents in this study are
the students of PMC level at EEC,
Effective English Course, Jombang. The
level is chosen because it is the novice-
high level. The English understanding of
the students in this level is still low. As
novice-high level students, they are prone
to make errors either in their L2
pronunciation or writing. Therefore, this
study is quite necessary to do because
many pronunciation errors will surely be
found among them, and mapping the
errors they make would be very helpful
for English teachers in anticipating the
errors they would likely make.
Furthermore, this study would explain the
language-based factors that influence the
occurrence of sound system interference.
B. RESEARCH DESIGN This is a descriptive qualitative
research and is a case study conducted to 8
students of PMC students at EEC, Effective
English Course, Jombang. Because this
research is descriptive, this study would
describe the forms of the interference of
Bahasa Indonesia sound system into English
pronunciation spoken by the students and the
linguistic factors that cause the interference.
C. SOURCES OF THE DATA The data in this study were taken
from the respondents‟ spoken tasks (the
results of the spoken tasks done by the
respondents). The spoken tasks provided the
data of the forms of the interference of
Bahasa Indonesia sound system into English
Pronunciation.
D. RESPONDENTS There were eight respondents in this
study. They were Hafid Zainal (17 years old),
Nadia Putri (15 years old), Novi Titah (16
years old), Rhima Stania (12 years old), Rudi
Hamzah (19 years old), Syafaruddin (15
years old), Sheka Dwi Pratama (17 years old)
and Wiwid (16 years old). The respondents in
this study were selected using criterion-based
selection technique, which means the
informants selected must meet the criterion of
novice-high level of speaking. The criterion
of novice-high level is following Richards
from the ACTFL Test (Richards 2001: 170).
The characteristic of novice-high
level according to Richards is that the oral
production is able to satisfy partially the
requirements of basic communicative
exchanges by relying heavily on learned
utterances but occasionally expanding these
through simple recombinations of their
elements. Can ask questions or make
statements involving learned materials.
Shows signs of spontaneity although this falls
short of real autonomy of expressions.
Speech continues to consist of learned
47
utterances rather than of personalized,
situationally adapted ones. Vocabularies
centers on areas such as basic object, places,
and most common kinship terms.
Pronunciation may still be strongly
influenced by first language. Errors are
frequent and, in spite of repetition, some
novice-high speakers will have difficulty
being understood even by sympathetic
interlocutors.
E. INSTRUMENTS
The instruments used to find out the
data of the forms of the interference of
Bahasa Indonesia sound system into English
Pronunciation was spoken tests which must
be done by recording the voice of the
respondents. There were various tasks of
speaking given to the respondents (see the
attachment pages in this study), namely:
1. A task to pronounce words with silent
letters “B”;
2. A task to pronounce words with silent
letters “C”;
3. A task to pronounce words with silent
letters “D”;
4. A task to pronounce words with silent
letters “G”;
5. A task to pronounce words with silent
letters “GH”;
6. A task to pronounce words with silent
letters “H”;
7. A task to pronounce words with silent
letters “K”;
8. A task to pronounce words with silent
letters “L”;
9. A task to pronounce words with silent
letters “N”;
10. A task to pronounce words with silent
letters “P”;
11. A task to pronounce words with silent
letters “S”;
12. A task to pronounce words with silent
letters “T”; 13. A task to pronounce words with silent
letters “W”.
F. TECHNIQUE OF DATA
COLLECTION
1. The Data of Students’ Silent Letters
Pronunciation The data of the phonological
interference forms were collected through the
spoken tasks given to the respondents. The
administration of the assignment was done by
the teacher of PMC level at EEC, Mr. Imron
Hamzah, S.Pd. The respondents were given
many tasks of speaking; tasks to pronounce
words with silent letters “B, C, D, G, GH, H,
K, L, N, P, S, T and W”. All tasks were
provided concurrently; all tasks done in the
same time. So, to complete the whole tasks, it
only requires one meeting. In doing the tasks,
first the respondents were given a piece of
paper that contains English words containing
certain silent letters, and then pronounce
them, while the teacher recorded the voice of
the respondents pronouncing the chosen
English words, so that the data collected were
in the form of voice recording.
2. The Data of Language Factors
Causing the Errors Such kinds of the data were collected
while respondents were pronouncing the
chosen English words containing silent
letters. The teacher interviewed the
respondents just after they pronounced each
English word in the research instrument. The
teacher then asked them why they
pronounced the words that way. From the
respondents‟ reasons, it could be identified
why they made errors when they pronounced
the given English words.
G. TECHNIQUE OF DATA
ANALYSIS The data collected were then
analyzed through the following steps:
1. The first data The following steps were applied to
analyze the first data (the students‟
pronunciation):
a. Identifying the errors the students
made for each silent letter (“B, C, D,
G, GH, H, K, L, N, P, S, T and W”)
48
b. Explaining how the errors occurred
2. The second data The second data were analyzed by
explaining the linguistic factors underlining
the occurrence of the errors.
H. FINDINGS
a. Errors in pronouncing silent “B”
The most problematic
pronunciation for silent “b” is when the
letter comes in the middle of a word. For
the words „debt‟ and „plumber‟, for
example, all respondents incorrectly
pronounced the words. They enunciated
the letter „b‟ which should be silent or
unpronounced. In case of the word „debt‟,
where the letter „b‟ comes before the
letter „t‟, most respondents clearly
pronounced the „b‟ and unpronounced the
letter „t‟.
A similar phenomenon occurred
on the word „plumber‟ where the letter „b‟
is preceded by the letter „m‟. All
respondents uttered clearly the letter „b‟,
resulting in a pronunciation error. Most respondents, however, did not
make an error when they pronounced „climb‟.
They did not state the letter „b‟ when in the
end of a word and being preceded by „m‟.
b. Errors in pronouncing silent “C”
It becomes a problematic
pronunciation for most respondents when
the letter „c‟ is in the middle of a word.
The word „muscle‟, for instance, all
respondents made an error to say that
word. In matter of the word „muscle‟, in
which the letter „c‟ is between the letters
„s‟ and „le‟ and the letter „s‟ is not the
initial of a word, the letter „c‟ ought to be
unpronounced. All respondents, however,
obviously pronounced the letter „c‟,
resulting in a pronunciation error.
A related phenomenon also
occurred on the words „scenery‟ and
„obscenity‟. Most respondents
inaccurately uttered those words. When
the letter „c‟ is preceded by the letter „s‟
and followed by the letters „en‟, the letter
„c‟ is to be unspoken or silent. Yet, most
respondents made an error by clearly
pronouncing the letter „c‟.
c. Errors in pronouncing silent “D”
Most respondents made an error
uttering the letter „d‟. Such kind of a
problematic pronunciation for silent „d‟ is
when the letter „d‟ is placed in the middle
of a word and should be unpronounced,
especially, in the word „wednesday‟. It
is, however, very rare occurrence. In
another word like the word kindness,
which has the similar construction of a
word Wednesday „wenzdeɪ‟, the letter „d‟
is clearly spoken. It is obviously seen that
in both words, the letter „d‟ comes before
the letters „nes‟ but they are quite
different to pronounce. In the word
„Wednesday‟, the letter „d‟ is unspoken
while in „kindness‟, the letter „d‟ is
clearly pronounced.
Still in the same phenomenon, the
letter „d‟ in the word „handkerchief‟ is not
stated. It is, however, very hard to find
out other words that is similar to the
structure of the word „handkerchief‟, in
which the letter „d‟ is placed in the
middle of a word and between the letters
„n‟ and „k‟ and unspoken. Most
respondents clearly enunciated the letter
„d‟, making an error in pronunciation.
d. Errors in pronouncing silent “G”
The most problematic
pronunciation for silent „g‟ is when the
letter „g‟ precedes the letter „n‟ and the
letter „g‟ becomes the initial of a word. In
case of the word „gnaw‟, the letter „g‟ is
silent. Many of the respondents obviously
stated the letter‟g‟, which is to be
unpronounced. They made an error
pronouncing the word „gnaw‟. In some
49
other words that have the same
construction of the word „gnaw‟ such as;
the words gnat „nɑt‟, gnome „nəʊm‟ and
gnosis „nəʊsɪs‟, the letter „g‟ is unstated.
A similar observable fact occurred
when the letter „g‟ is in the middle of a
word. For the word „sign‟, for instance,
the letter „g‟ is between the letters „i‟ and
„n‟ and the letter „n‟ is in the end of a
word. The letter „g‟ should be unspoken.
The words foreign „‟ and design „dɪzaɪn‟
also have the similar structure of the word
sign „saɪn‟. Thus the letter „g‟ has to be
unpronounced. A few respondents,
however, pronounced the letter „g‟
clearly. And a few others stated the letter
„g‟ by linking the letter „g‟ with the letter
„n‟ as the sound of ng „ŋ‟ as in sing „sɪŋ‟.
This caused an error on their
pronunciation.
The other phenomenon that has
similar case also occurred when the letter
„g‟ comes in the middle of a word. For
the word „designer‟, for example, the
letter „g‟ is preceded by the letter „i‟ and
ended by the letters „ner‟, the letter „g‟
ought to be unspoken. Some respondents
clearly pronounced and some others did
not pronounce the letter „g‟. In sense of
the word that has the similar construction
of the word „designer‟, the letter „g‟ is
sometimes spoken and sometimes not.
For the words designate „dəsɪgneit‟ and
designedly „dɪzaɪnədli‟, for instance, the
letter „g‟ in the word „designate‟ is
pronounced but in the word „designedly‟
is unpronounced.
When the letter „i‟, preceding the
letter „g‟, is pronounced „aɪ‟ and the letter
„g‟ is followed by the letters „nag‟ as in
signage „saɪnedʒ‟, „nee‟ as in signee
„saɪni:‟, „nb‟ as in signboard „saɪnbɔ:d‟
and „np‟ as in signpost „saɪnpɒst‟, the
letter „g‟ is obviously unspoken. On the
other hand, when the letter „i‟, following
the letter „g‟, is uttered „ɪ‟ and the letter
„g‟ follows the letters „nal‟ as in signal „‟,
„nat‟ as in signatory „sɪgnətəri‟, „net‟ as in
signet „sɪgnet‟, „nif‟ as in signify
„sɪgnɪfaɪ‟, the letter „g‟ is commonly
silent. The letter „g‟, however, is
pronounced when it is preceded by the
letter „i‟, which is pronounced „ɪ‟, and
followed by the letters „nor‟ as in the
words; signor „sɪnjə‟ and signorina
„sɪnjəri:nə‟.
The letter „g‟ is also silent when it
comes in the middle of a word and is
preceded by the letters „ei‟ or „oi‟ and
followed by the letter „n‟. In the words;
seignior „seɪnjə‟ and soigné „swʌnjeɪ‟, for
example, the letter „g‟ is unspoken. The
other words that have a similar
construction of the words seignior and
soigné are seigneur „seɪnjə:‟, seigniory
„seɪnəri‟ and soignée „swʌnjeɪ‟. When the letter „g‟, as the initial
of a word, follows the letter „n‟ as in the
word gnu „nju:‟, the letter „g‟ must clearly
be unpronounced. Some other words
which are similar to the structure of the
word gnu are gnash „nɑʃ‟, gneiss „nʌɪs‟
and Gnostic ‟nɒstɪk‟.
The letter „g‟ is clearly uttered
when it comes in the middle of a word
and is preceded by the letter „i‟ or the
letter „a‟, as the first letter of a word, and
followed by the letter „n‟. In the words;
ignore „ɪgnɔ:‟ and agnostic „ɑgnɒstɪk‟, for
example, the letter „g‟ is clearly
unspoken. The other words that are alike
to the construction of the words ignore
and agnostic are ignite „ɪgnʌɪt‟, ignous
„ɪgnɪəs‟ and agnate „ɑgneɪt‟.
e. Errors in pronouncing silent “GH”
The most problematic
pronunciation for silent „gh‟ when the
letters „gh‟ are placed whether in the
middle or in the end of a word. All
respondents inaccurately uttered the
words „might‟, „daughter‟ and „through‟.
50
For the three words might „maɪt‟, daughter „dɔ:tə‟ and through „θru:‟, the
letters „gh‟ have to be unspoken. All
respondents, however, clearly stated the
letter „gh‟.
f. Errors in pronouncing silent “H”
The most problematic
pronunciation for silent „h‟ is when the
letter „h‟ is the initial of a word and
followed by the letters „onor / onour‟,
„ones‟ and „our‟. Most respondents
pronounced the letter „h‟, which has to be
unspoken. It caused them error to
pronounce the words „honorable‟ and
„hour‟. For the word „honorable‟ for
example, all respondents made an error
pronouncing that word. They clearly
stated the letter „h‟, which ought to be
unpronounced.
A related fact also occurred when
the letter „h‟ comes as the initial of a
word. For the word „hour‟, for example,
the letter „h‟ precedes the letters „our‟, it
should be unstated. Most respondents
however, uttered the letter „h‟ clearly.
Thus it led them to a pronunciation error.
On the other hand, all respondents
correctly pronounced the letter „h‟, which
is in the middle of a word. Alike the word
„rhyme‟, for instance, the letter „h‟ is
between the letters ‟r‟ and „y‟. It has to be
unspoken. All respondents obviously
unpronounced the letter „h‟.
g. Errors in pronouncing silent “K”
Some respondents accurately
enunciated the words consisting of the
letter „k‟, either the letter „k‟ is as the
initial of a word or in the middle of a
word and followed by the letter „n‟. In
case of the words „knowledge‟, „knock‟
and „knife‟, the letter „k‟ is to be
unpronounced. Some other respondents,
however, still clearly uttered the letter ‟k‟
causing them to make an error in
pronunciation.
h. Errors in pronouncing silent “L”
The most problematic
pronunciation for silent „l‟ is when the
letter „l‟ comes in the middle of a word.
For the words „calm‟ and „talk‟, for
example, the letter „l‟ is between the
vowel letter „a‟ and the letters „m‟ and
„k‟. In matter of the words calm „kɑ:m‟
and talk „tɔ:k‟, the letter ‟l‟ ought to be
unspoken. All respondents, however,
clearly pronounced the letter „l‟ leading
them to a pronunciation error.
A similar phenomenon occurred
when the letter „l‟ is placed between the
vowel letters ‟ou‟ and the letter „d‟. For
the word could „kʊd‟, for instance, the
letter „l‟ actually has to be unpronounced.
Yet, most respondents obviously
pronounced the letter „l‟ resulting in a
pronunciation error.
i. Errors in pronouncing silent “N”
There is no problematic
pronunciation for silent „n‟. when the
letter „n‟ is in the end of a word and
preceded by the letter „m‟, the letter „n‟
should be unpronounced. For the words
autumn „ɔ:təm‟, damn „dæm‟, and
column „kɒləm‟, for example, the letter
„n‟ is silent. All respondents absolutely
unpronounced the letter „n‟.
j. Errors in pronouncing silent “P”
It becomes the most problematic
pronunciation for silent „p‟ when the
letter „p‟ comes as the initial of a word or
in the middle of a word. For instance the
words „psychology‟ and „receipt‟, the
letter „p‟ is placed before the letter „s‟ and
as the first letter of a word as in
„psychology‟ or positioned in the middle
of a word, after the vowel letters „ei‟ and
before „t‟ as the end letter of a word as in
51
„receipt‟, the letter „p‟ is unuttered. All
respondents, however, clearly pronounced
the letter „p‟ causing an error in
pronunciation.
A related observable fact occurred
when the letter „p‟, as the opening letter
of a word, comes before the letter „n‟ as
in the word „pneumonia‟, the letter „p‟ is
unspoken. Yet, most respondents made a
mistaken pronunciation by clearly
uttering the letter „p‟.
k. Errors in pronouncing silent “S”
The letter „s‟ is in the middle of a
word, between the vowel letter „i‟ and the
letter „le‟, the most problematic
pronunciation for silent „s‟ occurred. In
matter of the words aisle „aɪl‟ and isle
„aɪl‟, the letter „s‟ should be
unpronounced. For the words „aisle‟ and
„isle‟, for example, all respondents
obviously uttered the letter „s‟, which is
to be unspoken. It led them to a
pronunciation error.
A related case for silent „s‟ was
also found when the letter „s‟ is preceded
by the vowel letter „i‟ and followed by the
letters „lan‟, as in the word island
„aɪlənd‟, the letter „s‟ has to be
unpronounced. Yet, most respondents
made an error pronunciation by clearly
uttering the letter „s‟.
l. Errors in pronouncing silent “T”
Most respondents inaccurately
pronounced the letter „t‟. when the letter
„t‟ comes in middle of a word, after the
letter „s‟ and before the letters „le‟ or „en‟,
the letter „t‟ is unpronounced, for
instance, in the words „whistle‟, „listen‟
and „castle‟.
m. Errors in pronouncing silent “W”
The most problematic
pronunciation for silent „w‟ would likely
occur when the letter „w‟ comes either in
the middle of a word or in the first of a
word. The letter „w‟, in the middle of a
word, is unpronounced when it is after the
letters „ns‟ as in the word answer „ɑ:nsə‟
while the letter „w‟, in the opening of a
word, is unspoken when it is followed by
the letters „ho‟ or „r‟ like who „hu:‟ and
wrong „rɒŋ‟. Most respondents, however,
clearly enunciated the letter „w‟ creating
an error in pronunciation.
I. GENERAL DISCUSSION
Native language (L1) can greatly
affect Second language (L2) acquisition,
and the most accepted term to describe
such an influence is transfer. Though it is
far from reaching a consensus about its
nature, the widely recognized opinion at
present is that transfer does occur in
language learning and may exert an
influence, positively or negatively, on the
acquisition of a second language. There is
overwhelming evidence that “language
transfer is indeed a real and central
phenomenon that must be considered in
any full account of the second language
acquisition process” (Gass & Selinker in
fanani, (2011)).
According to Chomsky‟s
Universal Grammar, in L1 transfer, the
unmarked settings of “parameters”
(highly abstract properties of grammar
that vary in certain restricted ways from
one language to another) will be
transferred before marked settings, and
items are not easily transferred when L1
has a marked setting. In case of the errors
made by the students concerning L1
interference, most of them are due to
some systems in L2 (English) is more
marked than those in L1 (Bahasa
Indonesia).
This study provides a view and an
indication of the kinds of language
second language learners produced in
52
pronunciation tasks in the classroom. It
also supplies evidence of L1 interference
with L2, its extent and effects, as shown
in the analysis of the learners'
pronunciation L1 and L2 sound system. It
is clearly shown that the learners used
their L1 sound system to help them
pronounce their L2 words, indicating a
direct interference of L1 on L2.
The respondents of this study have
received native language linguistic input
from their individual environments and
positive reinforcements for their correct
repetitions and imitations. Accordingly,
habits have been formed which have
influenced the L2 learning process as
these learners have started learning L2
with the habits associated with L1. These
habits interfere with those needed for L2
learning, and new habits are formed. The
errors made in L2 are thus seen as L1
habits interfering with the acquisition of
L2 habits (Beebe in Baljit Bhela 1999).
This theory also propounds the idea that
where there are similarities between L1
and L2, the learners use L2 sound system
with ease; where there are differences, the
learners have difficulty as shown in the
findings above. The eight learners have
constructed their own L2 interim rules
with the use of their L1 knowledge to
help them in the pronunciation tasks,
resulting in various L2 errors.
Dechert in Baljit Bhela (1999) has
already suggested that the further apart
L1 and L2 are structurally, the higher the
instances of errors made in L2 which bear
traces of L1 structures of sound system.
Errors can be viewed as a welcome sign
in that learners are testing their
hypotheses in forming linguistic
knowledge. Identifying errors students
make does not mean to judge or label
their competence. On the contrary, errors
can help teachers find correct ways to
improve students‟ learning. Particular
errors require well-designed problem-
solving methods. This study tries to
identify errors resulting from L1 (Bahasa
Indonesia) interference into L2 (English),
especially, uttering some consonants of
English letters that should be
unpronounced or silent. Such errors must
be anticipated by teachers in teaching
English to novice level students.
The major concern of this study
has been with the observable features of
interference of L1 on L2 and what its
effects are on the pronunciation of a
second language learner. As indicated in
the findings section, the learners have
used some L1 structures of sound system
to produce appropriate responses in L2,
producing pronunciation errors in L2,
indicating an interference of L1 on L2.
These structures are used to make them
understand and reflect the way they arrive
at a certain usage at a specific point
(Faerch & Kasper in Baljit Bhela (1999).
In using the L1 structures, the learners
have taken some risks that include
guessing of a more or less informed kind.
They have attempted to use invented
items, all more or less approximated to
the rules of L2 structure of sound system
as far as their knowledge of L2 allows.
When the learners experience
gaps in their L2 sound system structures,
they adjust the form of their L2
pronunciation responses by using sound
system items which are parts of their L1.
The analysis of the learners'
pronunciation revealed the extent to
which their L2 responses are affected by
their L1. The L2 errors made are
traceable to the learners' L1 and we can
conclude that there is definite interference
of L1 on L2 as indicated in the analysis of
the consonant silent letters discussed.
The eight learners relate L2 sound
system to what they already know about
the pronunciation of a language. The most
53
prominent facts they possess about
language are those of L1. In the process
of attempting to relate L2 to L1, they
speculate about the similarity or
difference between L2 and L1. The result
is a subsumption of L2 under known
categories in L1 competence. The sound
systems of L1 and L2 are similar and the
learner's lack of understanding its use in
L1 are also reflected as an error in L2 – as
reflected in the use of inappropriate
pronunciation.
These learners have accumulated
sound system entities of L2 but
demonstrate difficulty in organizing this
knowledge into appropriate, coherent
pronunciation. There is a significant gap
between the accumulation and
organization of this knowledge. When
pronouncing words in the target language,
these learners rely on their native
language sound system to produce a
response, as shown in this study. As the
sound systems of L1 and L2 have
differences, there has been a relatively
high frequency of errors occurring in the
target language, thus indicating an
interference of the native language on the
target language, as expected.
An important outcome of this
study is the significance of the effect of
the differences between the sound system
of L1 and L2 on the L2 pronunciation.
This has implications for the teaching and
learning process. An understanding of the
L1 sound system structures and the errors
made in L2, as well as the extent of the
learner‟s knowledge of L1 and L2 sound
system structures, will assist the teaching
and learning process. The teacher will be
able to predict possible future errors in
the target language and may begin to
attribute a cause to an error with some
degrees of precision. The teacher can also
build up a picture of the frequency of
types of errors; thus it would be possible
to find out whether, for example, L1
interference, or teaching techniques, or
problems inherent in L2, are the major
cause of the learner‟s errors. In this way it
is possible to plan classes giving very
specific help to the learners.
Knowing that linguistic
knowledge of Bahasa Indonesia, in
certain aspects, may interfere with the
learning of English, the contrastive
analysis between Bahasa Indonesia and
English may be incorporated into English
pronunciation instruction. To begin with,
learners‟ learning strategies in developing
their interlanguage would be constantly
questioned to see if L1 interference
occurs. For example, do they always
follow their L1 (Bahasa Indonesia)
thinking flow in the production of L2
(English)? If yes, they must be equipped
with more English sound system
structures, which are more or less
different from Bahasa Indonesia
pronunciation. Modeling after spoken
examples of native speakers of English is
one of the ways to alter L1 interference.
Besides, in behavioristic view,
more drills on the difference between L1
and L2 may serve as stimuli to produce
correct responses in the future. Therefore,
the use of pronouncing activity like
pronouncing some silent words is
important to enhance students‟ awareness
of differences between Bahasa Indonesia
and English.
From the cognitive view, the
transfer in language learning can be
regarded as a process in which students
use their mastered L1 knowledge to make
hypothesis about language rules. The
mistakes emerging from the hypothesis
and the correction of them can be seen as
evidence of learning process. Learners
make constant testing about hypothesis
and then amend, complement and perfect
those rules. So, in some sense, the process
54
of analyzing and correcting the emerged
mistakes can be taken as a strategy
learners use to construct an interlanguage.
J. CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis above, it
can be concluded that the interference of
L1 pronunciation (Bahasa Indonesia) into
the L2 (English) pronunciation
acquisition do occur in the production of
pronunciation tasks for silent consonant
letters made by the respondents. The
errors at least can be categorized into
twelve kinds of errors. The twelve kinds
of errors are; pronouncing silent „b‟ (e.g.,
debt „det‟ is pronounced „deb‟),
pronouncing silent „c‟ (e.g., muscle
„mʌsl ‟ is pronounced „mʌskəl ‟), pronouncing silent „d‟ (e.g., Wednesday
„wenzdeɪ‟ is pronounced „wednəsdeɪ‟), pronouncing silent „g‟ (e.g., designer
„dɪzaɪnə‟ is pronounced „dɪsaɪgnər‟),
pronouncing silent „gh‟ (e.g., through
„θru:‟ is pronounced „trug‟), pronouncing
silent „h‟ (e.g., Hour „aʊə‟ is pronounced
„haʊər‟), pronouncing silent „k‟ (e.g.,
Knock „nɒk‟ is pronounced „knɒk‟),
pronouncing silent „l‟ (e.g., Talk „tɔ:k‟ is
pronounced „tɒlk‟), pronouncing silent
„p‟ (e.g., Psychology „saɪkɒlədʒi‟ is
pronounced „psɪkɒlɒdʒi‟), pronouncing
silent „s‟ (e.g., Island „aɪlənd‟ is
pronounced „ɪslænd‟), pronouncing silent
„t‟ (e.g., Castle „kɑ:sl ‟ is pronounced
„kæstəl‟), and pronouncing silent „w‟
(e.g., Wrong „rɒŋ‟ is pronounced „wrɒŋ‟).
From the twelve kinds of errors, it
becomes the most problematic
pronunciation when the respondents
pronounce words that consist of the silent
letters in the beginning of a word or in
middle of a word such as the words debt,
muscle, designer, gnaw, might, through,
honorable, hour, knock, calm, talk, could,
pneumonia, psychology, receipt, island,
aisle, isle, whistle, listen, who, wrong and
answer, or when they utter the words that
have a similar construction of the words
mentioned earlier. While it is a simple
problematic pronunciation or, even no
problematic pronunciation when the
students utter the words consisting the
silent letters which come in the end of a
word like the words climb, autumn and
damn, or when they pronounce the words
which are alike to the structure of the
words stated earlier.
Markedness, besides the fact that
they are novice-high-level students, is the
most apparent factor that contributes to
the errors. According to Zobl in Fanani
(2011) claims that transfer of prior
linguistic experience to the acquisition
process is sharply limited by the
dynamics of the rule-creation process
which proceeds from unmarked to
marked properties. This means when a
definite pronunciation rule in L2
(English) is more multifarious, the
students lean to make errors as in matter
of pronouncing vowel letters and silent
ones.
Some dissimilar pronunciation
between English and Bahasa Indonesia
possibly will contribute to errors. When
the students fall across a definite sound
system of English words which is
different from that of Bahasa Indonesia,
they lean to use their knowledge of L1 to
create the pronunciation. As a result, their
sound (pronunciation) production
occasionally falls into error. In using the
L1 sound system structures, the learners
have taken some risks that include
guessing of a more or less informed kind.
They have attempted to use invented
items, all more or less approximated to
the rules of L2 structure as far as their
knowledge of L2 allows.
55
REFERENCES
Baljit Bhela. Native language interference
in learning a second language:
Exploratory case studies of native
language interference with target
language usage, International
Education Journal Vol 1, No 1,
1999
Bley-Broman, Robert. 1989 “What is the
logical problem of foreign language
learning?” Gass, Susan M.,
Jacquelyn Schachter (Eds.),
Linguistic perspective on second
language acquisition (pp. 41-52).
New York: Cambridge University
Press
Brown, H. Douglas. Principle of
Language Learning and Teaching.
San Fransisco State University.
2000
Corder, S.P. 1981a. Error Analysis and
Interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R. 1997, Second Language
Acquisition, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Fanani, Achmad & Khotimah, Khusnul.
2012, EYD Panduan Cerdas dan
Lengkap Berbahasa Indonesia.
Pelangi Indonesia, Yogyakarta.
Fanani, Achmad. The Interferences of
Acquiring English Grammar among
the Second Semester Students of
English Department – UNIPDU
Jombang. University of Pesantren
Tinggi Darul „Ulum: 2011.
Hatch, Evelyn Marcussen. 1983. “Syntax
and language acquisition.”
Psycholinguistics: A second
language perspective (pp. 89-108).
Massachusetts: Newbury House.
Krashen Stephen D. 1988. ”The role of
first language in second language
acquisition.” Second language
acquistion and second language
learning (pp.64-69). Englewood
Cliff: Prentice Hall.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane and Long,
Michael H. 1991. “Interlanguage
studies: substantive findings.” An
introduction to second language
Acquisition research (pp.81-113).
New York: Longman.
Odlin T. 1989. Language Transfer,
Cross-linguistic Influence in
Language Learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Parker, Frank, Kathryn Riley. 2000.
“Chapter 9: Second-Language
Acquisition.” Linguistics for non-
linguists: A primer with exercises
(pp.209-230). MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Richards, Jack C. 2001. Curriculum
Development in Language
Teaching, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/ha
yes/pbp/IntroToPBP.pdf, The
Ponetic Base of Phonological
Markedness, Hayes, Bruce and
Steriade, Donca. accessed on May
9th
2012.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/101495896/IP
A-Symbols, J. C. Wells, 2012,
accessed on May 9th
2012.
56
PENGARUH METODE PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE TAI
(TEAM ASSISTED INDIVIDUALIZATION)
TERHADAP KETERAMPILAN BERBICARA (話し方) BAHASA JEPANG
SISWA KELAS XI IPS SMA NEGERI 11 SURABAYA TAHUN AJARAN
2010-2011
Fitrotunnaja1
Universitas Pesantren Tinggi Darul „Ulum Jombang
Kesulitan siswa kelas XI SMA Negeri 11 Surabaya dalam melakukan percakapan bahasa
Jepang membuat proses belajar mengajar menjadi tidak efektif dan tidak menyenangkan,
sehingga hasil belajar yang diperoleh siswa juga kurang memuaskan. Berdasarkan hasil dan
pembahasan penelitian dapat ditarik simpulan bahwa perbedaan keterampilan berbicara
bahasa Jepang dalam penelitian ini semata-mata disebabkan oleh pengaruh penerapan metode
pembelajaran kooperatif tipe TAI dan metode pembelajaran konvensional, dengan demikian
metode pembelajaran kooperatif tipe TAI mempunyai pengaruh positif. Hal ini dibuktikan
dengan adanya peningkatan hasil belajar siswa di kelas eksperimen lebih besar dibandingkan
dengan peningkatan hasil belajar siswa di kelas kontrol. Berdasarkan koefisien korelasi yang
sangat rendah simpulan penelitian tidak dapat digunakan untuk memprediksi atau
menggeneralisasikan pada siswa kelas XI SMA Negeri Surabaya. Jadi metode pembelajaran
kooperatif tipe TAI mempunyai pengaruh positif tetapi tidak signifikan terhadap siswa kelas
XI IPS SMA Negeri 11 Surabaya tahun ajaran 2010/2011.
Kata kunci : pembelajara kooperatif, TAI, hanashikata
A. PENDAHULUAN
Pada era globalisasi seperti saat ini
bahasa Jepang menjadi sangat diminati.
Oleh karena itulah bahasa Jepang mulai
diajarkan di sekolah-sekolah. Bahasa
Jepang adalah bahasa yang sangat rumit,
maka dari itu pengajaran bahasa Jepang
harus dirancang semenarik mungkin juga
menyenangkan bagi siswa yang baru
pertama kali mempelajari bahasa Jepang.
Mempelajari bahasa Jepang tidak
hanya sekedar membaca dan menulis,
namun lebih kepada keterampilan
berbicara. Keterampilan berbicara
sangatlah diperlukan karena kemampuan
berbicara bahasa asing seperti bahasa
Jepang tidak hanya dilihat dari
kemampuan seseorang dalam memahami
suatu bahasa asing, namun juga dilihat
dari kemampuan berkomunikasi
menggunakan bahasa tersebut. Berbicara
merupakan kegiatan berbahasa lisan yang
penting bagi komunikasi antar manusia
(Tarigan, 2008: 86).
Salah satu metode pengajaran yang
dapat diterapkan dalam pembelajaran
bahasa khususnya untuk keterampilan
berbicara adalah metode kooperatif
(Cooperative Learning). Pembelajaran
kooperatif muncul dari konsep bahwa
siswa akan lebih mudah menemukan dan
57
memahami konsep yang sulit jika mereka
saling berdiskusi dengan temannya. Siswa
secara rutin bekerja dalam kelompok
untuk saling membantu memecahkan
masalah- masalah yang kompleks. Jadi,
hakikat sosial penggunaan kelompok
sejawat menjadi aspek utama dalam
pembelajaran kooperatif. Di dalam
pembelajaran kooperatif siswa belajar
bersama dalam kelompok- kelompok
kecil yang terdiri dari 4-6 orang siswa
yang sederajat (sekelas) tapi heterogen
(kemampuannya berbeda), dan satu sama
lain saling membantu. Tujuan
dibentuknya kelompok tersebut adalah
untuk memberikan kesempatan kepada
semua siswa untuk dapat terlibat secara
aktif dalam proses berpikir dan kegiatan
belajar. Selama bekerja dalam kelompok,
tugas anggota kelompok mencapai
ketuntasan materi yang disajikan oleh
guru, dan saling membantu teman
sekelompoknya untuk mencapai
ketuntasan belajar (Trianto, 2007: 41)
Berdasarkan daftar nilai ujuan
tengah semester gasal pada siswa kelas
XI IPS 1 dan kelas XI IPS 4 SMAN 11
Surabaya (terlampir pada lampiran 12)
membuktikan bahwa sebagian besar
siswa kelas XI IPS 1 dan XI IPS 4 belum
memenuhi standar ketuntasan minimal
belajar, yaitu ≥70. Hal tersebut semakin
menguatkan bahwa dalam pengajaran
bahasa Jepang masuh terdapat banyak
kendala. Selain itu, hasil observasi awal
peneliti saat melaksanakan PPL 2 di
SMAN 11 Surabaya, pada kelas XI siswa
mengalami kesulitan saat harus
melakukan kegiatan berbicara bahasa
Jepang. Hal tersebut membuat siswa
melakukan kegiatan di luar kegiatan
belajar dan bermalas-malasan. Hal
tersebut menandakan proses belajar
mengajar menjadi tidak efektif dan
efisien.
B. LANDASAN TEORI
1. Berbicara Bahasa Jepang
Menurut Hayashi ( 1992 : 170)
berbicara dalam bahasa Jepang adalah
話し言葉は、音声を媒介とし
て表現や理解がなされるものを話し
言葉という。また、音声言語。口頭
語。口語ともいわれる。
Bahasa percakapan(話し言葉) merupakan mediasi
apresiasi, ungkapan, pemahaman. Juga
disebut sebagai bahasa verbal, bahasa
lisan dan pengucapan.
Jadi, hakikatnya berbicara bahasa
Jepang merupakan ungkapan pikiran dan
perasaan seseorang dalam bentuk bunyi-
bunyi bahasa
Sudjianto (2004: 211)
menjelaskan bahwa (話す言葉)
hanasukotoba adalah bahasa yang
dibunyikan dengan suara yang terlihat di
dalam ceramah, rapat, percakapan dan
lain- lain.
Penyampaian bahasa baik
menggunakan ragam lisan maupun ragam
tulisan yang baik dapat menunjang
kelancaran proses komunikasi.
Pemaknaan lambang dalam proses
komunikasi juga diperlukan. Yang
dimaksud dengan pemaknaan lambang di
sini adalah pemaknaan lambang-lambang
bahasa dalam proses komunikasi.
Lambang-lambang bahasa seperti
intonasi, nada suara, dan sebagainya.
Pemaknaan lambang dalam berbahasa
memiliki fungsi yang lebih dalam
penguasaan bahasa lisan. Sehingga
penutur bahasa harus memperhatikan hal-
hal dalam berbicara agar proses
komunikasi dapat berjalan dengan lancar.
Begitu juga bahasa Jepang, terdapat hal-
hal yang harus diperhatikan dalam
berbicara menggunakan bahasa Jepang,
antara lain:
58
a. Sokuon
Menurut Sudjianto (2004:42),
yang disebut dengan sokuon yaitu bunyi
tertutup atau bunyi yang tersumbat, dalam
bahasa Indonesia dapat disebut konsonsn
rangkap dengan pemakaian bunyi
konsonan yang sama dengan konsonan
pada sebuah silabel yang ada pada bagian
berikutnya. Pemakaian sokuon perlu
diperhatikan karena dapat merubah arti.
Contoh:
きてください (kite kudasai)
= datanglah!
きってください (kitte kudasai)
= dengarkanlah!
b. Hatsuon
Menurut Sudjianto (2004:45),
Hatsuon terdiri dari satu bunyi
konsonan, tidak mengandung bunyi
vokal. Selanjutnya Sudjianto (2004:45),
menjelaskan bahwa hatsuon sangat
dipengaruhi oleh bunyi-bunyi konsonan
atau vokal yang ada pada bagian
berikutnya.
Contoh:
1) [n] menjadi [m]. Apabila dipakai
sebelum bunyi konsonan hambat
bilabel [p] dan [b] atau bunyi
konsonan nasal bilabel yang
bersuara [m] (Sudjianto, 2004:46)
Misalnya:
さんぽする (samposuru) =
jalan-jalan
かんぶ (kambu) =
manajemen
2) [n] menjadi [n]. Apabila dipakai
sebelum bunyi-bunyi konsonan
hambat dental-alveolar [t] dan [d],
konsonan hambat frikatif alveolar
[ts] dan [dz], konsonan hambat
frikatif alveolar-palatal [t∫] dan [d3]
(Sudjianto, 2004:46).
Contoh:
あんあい (annai) =
informasi
ほんだな (hondana) = rak buku.
3) [n] menjadi [n]. Apabila dipakai
sebelum bunyi konsonan nasal
palatal yang bersuara [ŋ]
(Sudjianto, 2004:46).
Contoh:
はんや (hannya) = pendeta
4) [n] menjadi [ŋ]. Apabila dipakai
sebelum bunyi konsonan hambat
velar [k] dan [g] dan bunyi nasal
velar yang berbunyi [ŋ]
(Sudjianto,2004:46)
Contoh:
かんごふ(kangofu) =
perawat wanita
おんがく(ongaku) = music
5) [n] menjadi [N]. Bunyi konsonan
nasal hambat/tutup secara longga
yang dibentuk dengan lidah
bagian belakang dan anak tekak
(uvula), bunyi konsinan ini
dipakai pada bagian akhir kata
(Sudjianto, 2004:46).
ほん (hon) = buku
パン (pan) = roti
c. Choo‟on
Menurut Sudjianto (2004:48),
choo‟on adalah bunyi panjang seperti
yuu, nee, too pada kata yuubin,
neesan, dan otoosan. Bunyi vokal
panjang dapat mengubah arti pada
kata. Sehingga choo‟on perlu
diperhatikan dalam penggunaannya.
Contoh:
おばさん (obasan) =
bibi
59
おばあさん(obaasan) = nenek
d. Aksen (tekanan suara)
Penempatan atau pengaturan
tinggi-rendah atau kuat-lemah pada
suatu kata yang ditetapkan secara
sosial disebut aksen (Sudjianto,
2004:51). Berdasarkan pendapat di
atas, kuat-lemah dan tinggi-rendah
harus diperhatikan dalam berbicara
karena dapat merubah arti suatu kata.
Contoh:
あめ(ăme) = hujan
あめ(ame) = permen
e. Intonasi
Menurut Sudjianto (2004:52),
naik-turun bunyi atau nada ujaran
pada suatu kalimat untuk menyatakan
berbagai macam makna atau perasaan
disebut intonasi. Selanjutnya
Sudjianto (2004:52), menjelaskan
bunyi ucap yang ada pada masing-
masing kata adalah aksen, sedangkan
intonasi dapat dianggap sebagai aksen
yang muncul dalam suatu kalimat.
Dari penjelasan tersebut di atas
dapt disimpulkan bahwa berbicara bahasa
Jepang harus memperhatikan hatsuon,
sokuaon, choo‟on, aksen dan juga
intonasi sehingga akan memperlancar
komunikasi. Apabila siswa tidak
mengetahui cara pengucapan yang benar
maka akan dapat menghambat proses
komunikasi. Sehingga pada penelitian ini
akan diperhatikan cara pengucapan dan
pelafalan yang benar.
2. Metode Pembelajaran
a. Metode Pembelajaran
Konvensional
Metode pembelajaran yang
digunakan di SMAN 11 Surabaya
adalah metode pembelajaran
konvensional yang berupa metode
ceramah yang dikombinasikan dengan
metode tanya jawab dan drill. Metode
pembelajaran konvensional adalah
pembelajaran tradisional atau disebut
juga dengan metode ceramah, karena
sejak dulu metode ini telah
dipergunakan sebagai alat komunikasi
lisan antara guru dengan anak didik
dalam proses belajar dan pembelajaran
(Djamarah: 2002). Metode drill adalah
metode latihan pada umumnya
digunakan untuk memperoleh suatu
ketangkasan atau keterampilan dari apa
yang telah dipelajari (Sudjana, 2005 :
86). Jadi metode drill merupakan
latihan yang diberikan guru untuk
siswa gunanya agar siswa memperoleh
ketangkasan atau keterampilan setelah
menerima materi pelajaran.
b. Metode Pembelajaran Kooperatif
Tipe TAI
Nur (2008:5) menyebutkan
kegiatan pembelajaran tipe TAI adalah
sebagai berikut:
1. Mengajar
Guru mempresentasikan materi
pelajaran kemudian memberikan
tugas pada siswa untuk
memperdalam materi yang sudah
dipresentasikan oleh guru. Guru
kemudian memberikan tes individual.
2. Belajar kelompok
Guru membentuk kelompok dengan
langkah-langkah sebagai berikut:
a. Guru memberikan tes yang telah
dikerjakan secara individual
sebelumnya untuk dipelajari
dalam kelompok.
b. Siswa dibagi dalam kelompok
yang terdiri dari 4 sampai 5
orang. Untuk menempatkan
siswa ke dalam kelompok, urutan
mereka berdasarkan kinerja
60
akademik tertentu, salah satunya
nilai rapor mata pelajaran bahasa
Jepang semester lalu. Setiap
kelompok diberi kesempatan
untuk memberi nama kelompok
mereka sendiri.
c. Selama belajar kelompok, tugas
anggota kelompok ialah saling
membentu mengerjakan tes.
Hasil belajar siswa secara
individual didiskusikan dalam
kelompok. Setiap anggota
kelompok saling memeriksa
jawaban teman satu kelompok.
d. Apabila siswa memiliki
pertanyaan, mereka diminta
mengerjakan pertanyaan tersebut
kepada teman satu kelompok
lebih dulu sebelum bertanya
kepada guru.
e. Pada saat siswa sedang bekerja
dalam kelompok, guru
berkeliling di dalam kelas secara
bergantian dan duduk bersama
tiap kelompok untuk
memperhatikan bagaimana
anggota kelompok itu bekerja.
Guru memfasilitasi siswa dalam
membuat rangkuman,
mengarahkan dan memberi
pujian kepada kelompok yang
bekerja dengan baik.
f. Memberi penekanan kepada siswa
bahwa mereka boleh mengakhiri
belajar bila seluruh anggota
kelompok benar-benar mampu
menguasai serta siap
mengerjakan soal kuis (tes)
secara individual terkait materi
yang dipelajari.
3. Tes
Di setiap akhir pembelajaran, siswa
dikenai tes individual.
4. Penghargaan kelompok (tim)
Skor kelompok dihitung berdasarkan
perolehan nilai peningkatan hasil
belajar individual dari skor dasar ke
skor berikutnya. Tiap kelompok
mendapatkan penghargaan dalam
bentuk sertifikat sesuai dengan
kategori masing-masing kelompok
berdasarkan jumlah skor perbaikan.
Pemberian penghargaan kelompok
akan meningkatkan motivasi siswa
untuk melakukan yang terbaik bagi
kelompok mereka.
C. METODE PENELITIAN
Penelitian ini analisis datanya
menggunakan pendekatan kuantitatif.
Pada penelitian, terdapat dua
kelompok yaitu kelompok eksperimen
yang menerima perlakuan khusus
berupa metode pembelajaran
kooperatif tipe TAI (Team Assisted
Individualization) dalam pengajaran
hanashikata. Sedangkan kelompok
kontrol menggunakan metode
pembelajaran konvensional berupa
ceramah yang dikombinasikan dengan
tanya jawab dan drill. Pada penelitian
digunakan dua kelas yaitu kelas XI
IPS 1 sebagai kelas eksperimen dan
XI IPS4 sebagai kelas kontrol.
Pemilihan dan penentuan kedua kelas
tersebut sebagai kelas eksperimen dan
kelas kontrol dalam penelitian
dilakukan secara acak diambil dua
kelompok yaitu kelas XI IPS1 dan XI
IPS4. Penelitian ini akan dilaksanakan
di Sekolah Menengah Atas Negeri 11
Surabaya. Sebagai sampel dalam
penelitian ini adalah seluruh siswa
kelas XI IPS-1 sebagai kelas
eksperimen dan XI IPS-4 sebagai
kelas kontrol, sedangkan sebagai
populasi dalam penelitian ini adalah
seluruh siswa kelas XI IPS SMA
Negeri 11 Surabaya tahun ajaran
2010-2011.
61
D. ANALISIS
Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian
kuantitatif dengan menggunakan
pendekatan eksperimen, jenis rancangan
dalam penelitian ini adalah eksperiman
murni (True Eksperiment Design). Dalam
penelitian ini dilakukan eksperimen pada
dua kelas yaitu kelas kontrol dan kelas
eksperimen. Penelitian ini dilakukan di
SMA Negeri 11Surabaya selama 6 kali
pertemuan, 3 kali pertemuan pada kelas
kontrol dan 3 kali pertemuan pada kelas
eksperimen dengan durasi waktu 90 menit
setiap pertemuan. Pada kelas kontrol
diberikan perlakuan berupa metode
pembelajaran konvensional berupa
ceramah yang dikombinasikan dengan
drill dan tanya jawab. Sedangkan pada
kelas eksperimen diberikan perlakuan
penerapan metode pembelajaran
kooperatif tipe TAI (Team Assisted
Individualization)
Pengambilan sampel dalam
penelitian ini menggunakan random
sampling.Kelas XI IPS 4 sebagai kelas
kontrol dengan jumlah 39 siswa dan kelas
XI IPS 1 sebagai kelas eksperimen
dengan jumlah 39 siswa. Sebelum
melakukan penelitian, terlebih dahulu
dilakukan pemasangan subjek antara
kelas kontrol dan kelas eksperimen.
Pemasangan subjek ini dimaksudkan agar
perbedaan yang terjadi semata-mata
hanya karena perbedaan perlakuan pada
kelas kontrol dan kelas eksperimen. Data
yang digunakan untuk pemasangan
subjek ini adalah nilai Ujian Tengah
Semester Genapkelas XI IPS 4dan XI
IPS1 tahun ajaran 2010/2011. Sebelum
dilakukan pemasangan subjek penelitian
dilakukan uji perbedaan Mean nilai Ujian
Akhir Semester Ganjil kelas XI IPS 4dan
XI IPS 1. Dari hasil uji perbedaan
(terlampir) di peroleh hasil analisis yang
menyatakan bahwa nilai Ujian Akhir
Semester Ganjil kelas XI IPS 4dan XI IPS
1 tidak berbeda secara signifikan, artinya
dua kemampuan awal antara XI IPS 4dan
XI IPS 1 dianggap sama. Selanjutnya
dilakukan pemasangan subjek dengan
mengacu pada distribusi frekuensi nilai
normal. Berdasarkan hasil dari
pemasangan subjek penelitian dari kelas
XI IPS 4dan XI IPS 1 (tabel 4.6)
diperoleh 35 pasang subjek penelitian.
Pasangan pertama XI IPS 4 dijadikan
kelas kontrol sedangkan XI IPS 1
dijadikan kelas eksperimen.
Berdasarkan analisis data pretest
dan posttest hasil belajar siswa kelas
kontrol diperoleh t-signifikansi 25,19> t
(0,05,34) = 2,034 atau nilai t-score pada
kelas kontrol lebih besar dari t-tabel yang
berarti bahwa ada perbedaan yang
signifikan antara Mean pretest dan Mean
posttest kelas kontrol. Hasil analisis data
ini menunjukkan bahwa pembelajaran
bahasa Jepang di kelas kontrol efektif,
yang berarti terjadi peningkatan antara
keterampilan berbicara bahasa Jepang
sebelum dan sesudah pemberian materi
menggunakan metode konvensional
berupa ceramah yang dikombinasikan
dengan drill dan Tanya jawab. Hal ini
sesuai dengan pendapat Bligh dan
Cranton mengenai strategi pembelajaran
konvensional bahwa strategi
pembelajaran konvensional dengan
ceramah dapat digunakan menjadi metode
yang efektif jika dipakai untuk pengajaran
pada tingkat rendah yaitu pengetahuan
dan pemahaman, dari pembelajaran ranah
kognitif, terutama pada kelas besar (Zaini,
2008;90).
Berdasarkan analisis data pretest
dan posttest hasil belajar siswa kelas
eksperimen diperoleh t-signifikansi 38,70
> t (0,05,34) = 2,034 atau nilai t-score
pada kelas eksperimen lebih besar dari t-
tabel yang berarti bahwa ada perbedaan
yang signifikan antara Mean pretest dan
62
Mean posttest kelas eksperimen. Hasil
analisis data ini menunjukkan bahwa
pembelajaran bahasa Jepang di kelas
eksperimen efektif, yang berarti terjadi
peningkatan keterampilan berbicara
sebelum dan sesudah pemberian materi
dengan menggunakan metode
pembelajaran kooperatif tipe TAI. Hal ini
sesuai dengan pendapat Slavin
(2010;190) bahwa TAI dirancang untuk
memperoleh manfaat yang sangat besar
dari potensi sosialisasi yang terdapat
dalam pembelajaan kooperatif.
Hasil perhitungan analisis data
posttest pada pelaksanaan di kelas kontrol
dengan menggunakan strategi
pembelajaran konvensional maupun
pelaksanaan di kelas eksperimen dengan
menggunakan metode pembelajaran
kooperatif tipe TAI, berdasarkan t-score
untuk sampel yang berkorelasi diperoleh
t-score t = -10,88< t (0,05,34) = -2,034
atau nilai t-score lebih kecil daripada t-
tabel. Dari hasil perhitungan nilai
diperoleh Me = 79,4 lebih besar daripada
Mk = 73,2. Hal ini berarti bahwa hasil
keterampilan berbicara siswa di kelas
eksperimen lebih baik dari siswa di kelas
kontrol.
Berdasarkan hasil perhitungan
koefesien korelasi pada t-score untuk
sampel-sampel yang berkorelasi diperoleh
koefesien korelasi antara keterampilan
berbicara kelas kontrol dan kelas
eksperimen sebesar r = 0,15≤ r (5%,33)
=0,3346 berarti ada korelasi positif yang
tidak signifikan. Soebakri (1992:80)
menjelaskan bahwa jika koefisien
korelasi korelasi (r) = 0,00 – 0,25
termasuk kategori korelasi positif yang
sangat rendah, maka secara praktis
korelasi tidak dapat digunakan untuk
memprediksi. Kemampuan awal siswa
sampel yang akan dijadikan kelas kontrol
dan kelas eksperimen sudah dikontrol
melalui adanya pemasangan subjek.
Dengan adanya pemasangan subjek
tersebut, kemampuan siswa diasumsikan
sama. Pasangan-pasangan subjek yang
diperoleh sudah mengikuti interval nilai
standar distribusi frekuensi normal.
Seluruh kegiatan penelitian jika
ditinjau ulang, mulai dari tahap persiapan
penelitian dan tahap pelaksanaan
penelitian telah mengikuti langkah-
langkah teknik pengumpulan data. Hasil
penelitian juga telah menunjukkan
perbedaan kemampuan akhir siswa
signifikan. Sampel yang diambil adalah
hasil pengambilan sampel secara random
sampling dari populasi. Berdasarkan nilai
korelasi hasil penelitian tidak dapat
diprediksikan untuk populasi.
Hal ini memberikan gambaran
secara keseluruhan proses eksperimental
yang dilakukan peneliti telah sesuai
dengan prosedur maupun kerangka
berpikir. Hasil pelaksanaan eksperimental
di kelas kontrol terbukti efektif begitu
pula di kelas eksperimen juga terbukti
efektif. Hasil analisis data posttest kelas
kontrol dan kelas eksperimen
menunjukkan adanya perbedaan yang
signifikan. Berarti perbedaan ini sesuai
dengan hakikat penggunaan t-score untuk
sampel-sampel yang berkorelasi.
Perbedaan ini dapat dimaknai semata-
mata dipengaruhi oleh treatmen dalam
penelitian eksperimental. Sesuai dengan
kriteria koefisien korelasi tersebut di atas
pengaruh treatmen hanya berlaku pada
kelas kontrol dan kelas eksperimen saja,
berarti hasil penelitian ini tidak berlaku
untuk populasinya. Artinya bahwa
kesimpulan penggunaan t-score untuk
sampel-sampel yang berkorelasi
walaupun berbeda secara signifikan tetapi
tidak dapat digunakan untuk memprediksi
atau menggeneralisasikan hasilnya
terhadap populasi yaitu kelas XI IPS
SMA Negeri 11 Surabaya.
63
E. KESIMPULAN
1. Kesimpulan
Perbedaan keterampilan berbicara
bahasa Jepang dalam penelitian ini
semata-mata disebabkan oleh pengaruh
penerapan metode pembelajaran
kooperatif tipe TAI dan metode
pembelajaran konvensional, dengan
demikian metode pembelajaran kooperatif
tipe TAI mempunyai pengaruh positif, hal
ini dibuktikan dengan adanya peningkatan
hasil belajar siswa di kelas eksperimen
lebih besar dibandingkan dengan
peningkatan hasil belajar siswa di kelas
kontrol. Berdasarkan koefisien korelasi
yang sangat rendah simpulan penelitian
tidak dapat digunakan untuk memprediksi
atau menggeneralisasikan pada siswa
kelas XI SMA Negeri Surabaya. Jadi
metode pembelajaran kooperatif tipe TAI
mempunyai pengaruh positif tetapi tidak
signifikan terhadap siswa kelas XI IPS
SMA Negeri 11 Surabaya tahun ajaran
2010/2011.
2. Implikasi dan Saran
Implikasi dari penelitian ini adalah
jika ingin menggunakan metode
pembelajaran kooperatif tipe TAI dalam
keterampilan berbicara bahasa Jepang di
SMA maka perlu memperhatikan atau
mengetahui tentang kekuatan, kelemahan,
tantangan dan peluang dari pembelajaran
kooperatif tipe TAI. Kelebihan metode
pembelajaran kooperatif tipe TAI dalam
proses pembelajaran berbicara bahasa
Jepang adalah terciptanya suasana
pembelajaran yang menyenangkan bagi
siswa sehingga tujuan pembelajaran akan
tercapai. Penerapan metode pembelajaran
kooperatif tipe TAI dalam proses
pembelajaran selain mempunyai
kelebihan juga mempunyai kelemahan.
Kelemahannya adalah menyita waktu.
Tantangannya adalah pengajar harus
benar-benar menguasai teknik tentang
metode pembelajaran kooperatif tipe TAI.
Jika tantangan tersebut dapat diatasi maka
peluang untuk meningkatkan hasil belajar
siswa dalam keterampilan berbicara akan
tercapai.
Berdasarkan implikasi tersebut di
atas, direkomendasikan beberapa saran
sebagai berikut.
1. Metode pembelajaran kooperatif tipe
TAI tidak selamanya dapat diterapkan
untuk semua materi pembelajaran
bahasa Jepang. Guru harus pandai
memilih tema yang sesuai untuk
menerapkan metode pembelajaran
kooperatif tipe TAI.
2. Metode pembelajaran kooperatif tipe
TAI memerlukan banyak waktu
dalam proses pembelajaran bahasa
Jepang, sehingga guru harus pandai
memperhitungkan waktu.
3. Hasil penelitian ini dapat
digunakan sebagai rujukan, baik
bagi peneliti yang akan meneliti
tentang metode pembelajaran
kooperatif tipe TAI ataupun para
pengajar bahasa Jepang.
DAFTAR PUSTAKA
Amari. 2005. Evaluasi Pengajaran.
Surabaya: University Press
Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2006. Prosedur
Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan
praktek. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Arsyat, Maidar G. 1987. Pembinaan
Kemampuan Berbicara Bahasa
Indonesia. Jakarta: Erlangga.
Baharuddin dan Wahyuni, Esa Nur. 2007.
Teori Belajar dan Pembelajaran.
Jogjakarta: Ar-Ruzmedia.
Djamarah, Syaiful Bahri. 2002. Strategi
Belajar Mengajar. Jakarta:
Gramedia
64
Hayashi, Ooki.1992. Nihongo Bunseki
Handobuk日本語教育ハンドブ
ッ. Tokyo: Daishuukan Shooten.
Mujianto, Sumardi dan Editor. Berbagai
Pendekatan dalam Pengajaran
Bahasa dan Sastra.
Mulyani, Anik. 2009. Peningkatan
kemampuan Berbicara Bahasa
Jepang Dengan Pembelajaran
Kooperatif Tipe STAD (Student
Team Achievement Divisions)
Pada Siswa Kelas XI Bahasa
MAN Nglawak Kertosono.
UNESA (Skripsi yang tidak
dipublikasikan)
Mulyasa. 2006. Kurikulum Tingkat
Satuan Pendidikan. Bandung: PT
Remaja Rosdakarya.
Muslimin, Ibrahim, dkk. 2005.
Pembelajaran Kooperatif.
Surabaya: University Press.
Nur, Muhammad. 2008. Pembelajaran
Kooperatif. Surabaya: Pusat Sains
dan Matematika Sekolah Unesa.
Nurgiantoro, Burhan. 2001. Penilaian
dalam Pengajaran Bahasa dan
Sastra. Yogyakarta: BPFE
Yogyakarta.
Slavin, Robert E. 2005. Cooperative
Learning. Terjemahan oleh Lita.
2009. Bandung: PT Nusa Media.
Soebakri. 1992. Statistik Terapan.
Surabaya : Institut Keguruan dan
Ilmu Pendidikan Surabaya.
Sudjana, Nana. 2005. Dasar-dasar Proses
Belajar Mengajar. Bandung:
Sinar Baru Algensindo.
Sudjana, Nana. 2009. Penilaian Hasil
Proses Belajar Mengajar.
Bandung: Rosdakarya.
Sudjianto dan Ahmad Dahidi. 2004.
Pengantar Linguistik Bahasa
Jepang. Jakarta: Kesaint Blanc.
Sugiyono. 2007. Metode Penelitian
Pendidikan. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Sutedi, Dedi. 2009. Penelitian Pendidikan
Bahasa Jepang. Bandung:
Humaniora.
Syamsuddin, AR dan Damianti, V.S.
2007. Metode Penelitian
Pendidikan Bahasa. Bandung:
Remaja Rosdakarya.
Tarigan, Dajo dan Tarigan, HG. 1990.
Tehnik Pengajaran Keterampilan
Berbahasa. Bandung: Angkasa.
Tarigan, Dajo dan Tarigan, HG. 2008.
Berbicara Sebagai Suatu
Keterampilan Berbahasa.
Bandung: Angkasa
Trianto. 2007. Model-model
Pembelajaran Inovatif
Berorientasi Konstruktivistik.
Jakarta: Prestasi Pustaka
Publisher.