0

1

COMMON GRAMMATICAL ERRORS MADE BY BEGINNER

LEVEL STUDENTS (A STUDY OF LANGUAGE INTERFERENCE)

Maisarah

inmai5@yahoo.com

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

kartika@perbanas.ac.id

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

nafazi@ymail.com

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

dheenov@yahoo.com

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

akufanani@yahoo.com

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

Mizumi_nicui@yahoo.com

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.