A comparative analysis between students with sanguine and phlegmatic personality on their achievement in speaking skill: a survey study at the seventh semester of English Education Department UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta
(A Survey Study at the Seventh Semester of English Education Department UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta)
By
Arina Muntazah NIM. 108014000067
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATION
FACULTY OF TARBIYAH AND TEACHERS
’
TRAINING
SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY
JAKARTA
2015
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
v
Speaking Skill; A Survey Study at the Seventh Semester of English Education Department UIN Jakarta. Skripsi of English Education Department, Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teachers’ Training, State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, 2015.
This research is generally attempted to know and describe the difference between sanguine students and phlegmatic students in their achievement in speaking skill at the seventh semester of English Education Department UIN Jakarta.
The method use in this research is quantitative research and comparative analysis technique. This research is started by collecting theory. After wards, giving the students personality test taken from standardized test by Florence Littauer, and then classifying the sanguine student and phlegmatic student. Then, after classifying students’ personality, the writer took the students last speaking score in fifth semester in order to design compare both students’ personality with their speaking score achievement. In analyzing the data, first step is finding average of sanguine and phlegmatic students’ speaking score and deviation standard to do homogeneity test. After doing homogeneity test, t-test is used to prove the significant data. And the last step to do is answering hypothesis of the research. The result of analysis data between variable X1 and X2 using t-test
formula showed that the value of to (t-observation) was 1.71. In the t-table, score
degree of freedom of 5% is 2.07 and score degree of freedom of 1% is 2.81. It can be concluded that to is lower than t-table (2.07 > 1.71 <2.81). Based on statistic
calculation, it could be concluded that sanguine and phlegmatic students have no difference in English speaking skill achievement.
(6)
vi
ABSTRAK
ARINA MUNTAZAH, 108014000067. Analisis Perbandingan antara Siswa yang Berkepribadaian Sanguinis dan Plegmatis dalam Pencapaian Ketrampilan Berbicara Mereka. Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Fakultas Ilmu Tarbiyah dan Keguruan, Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, 2015.
Penelitian ini bertujuan mengetahui dan menjelaskan tentang perbedaan antara mahasiswa yang berkepribadian sanguinis dan mahasiswa yang berkepribadian plegmatis dalam pencapaian nilai ketrampilan berbicara mereka pada mahasiswa semester tujuh Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris UIN Jakarta.
Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode penelitian kuantitatif dan tehnik analisis perbandingan. Penelitian ini dimulai dengan mengumpulkan teori pendukung. Kemudian memberikan tes kepribadian kepada mahasiswa yang diambil dari tes standar personality oleh Florence Littauer, selanjutnya mahasiwa dikelompokan berdasarkan kecenderungan kepribadian sanguinis dan plegmatis. Setelah mahasiswa dikelompokan berdasarkan kepribadian sanguinis dan plegmatis, nilai akhir ketrampilan berbicara bahasa inggris mereka diambil untuk membandingkan perolehan nilai antara mahasiswa sanguinis dan plegmatis. Dalam menganalisis data, langkah pertama yaitu menemukan rata-rata nilai speaking dari mahasiswa sanguinis dan plegmatis dan standar deviasi untuk melakukan uji homogenitas. Setelah melakukan uji homogenitas, t-tes digunakan untuk membuktikan data yang signifikan. Dan langkah terakhir yang dilakukan yaitu menjawab hipotesis penelitian. Hasil analisis data dari kedua variable tersebut (variabel X1 dan X2) dengan
menggunakan rumus t-test menunjukan bahwa nilai to adalah 1.71 dan tingkat
kesalahan 5% adalah 2.07 dan tingkat kesalahan 1% adalah 2.81. Maka to lebih
rendah disbanding dengan nilai t-table (2.07 > 1.71 <2.81). Berdasarkan hasil perhitungan statistik dapat disimpulkan bahwa mahasiswa sanguinis dan mahasiswa plegmatis tidak memiliki perbedaan pada pencapaian mereka dalam keterampilan berbicara
(7)
vii
All praise is only for Allah, the Lord of the world, the Creator of everything in this universe, who has giving the blessing upon the researcher in finishing this research paper. Peace and blessing be upon to our beloved prophet Muhammad SAW, his families, companions, and all his followers.
The researcher sends her best regard to her beloved parents H. Abunashir, BA and Hj. Farikha. They always give many things as in learning a lot of aspects in life in order to be better with their abundant loves and care including their helps
during “skripsi” writing until she could finish her study at Department of English
Education UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
In this occasion, the gratitude is addressed to her advisors, Drs. Nasifuddin Jalil, M.Ag., and Zaharil Anasy, M.Hum., for their patiently guidance in
development during the “skripsi” writing. There are many suggestions, valuable
advices, constructive corrections and comments the researcher had got from them. Moreover, the researcher’s effort in doing this “skripsi” may not be separated from the involvement and contribution of others, so that the researcher would like to express her deep appreciation and gratitude to:
1. Nurlena Rifa’I, M.A., Ph.D., the dean of Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teachers’
Training,
2. The chairman of English Education Departmnet, Drs. Syauki, M.Pd. and his secretary, Zaharil Anasy, M.Hum., for their outstanding deducacy,
3. All the honorable lectures who have taught her new knowledge and have given her gorgeous experiences in study,
4. Her beloved brother and sister, and all best friend who have always been in the researcher side in facing all the laughter and tears during the study, especially for Husni Mubarok for anything given, Sopiah, Lia Nuramaliah, Ayu Fitriana, and Siti Apriyanti,
(8)
viii
5. All her beloved friends of English Education Department Class B for academic year 2008 who always motivate her in accomplishing this research paper.
No words to say except a thousand of gratefulness to everyone that they cannot be mention here. They are involved trough their prayer for this writing. Last word to say, may Allah always give His blessing to all of us. Amin.
Jakarta, 16 December 2014
The Writer
(9)
ix
COVER ... i
APPROVAL SHEET ... ii
ENDORSEMENT SHEET ... iii
SURAT PERNYATAAN KARYA SENDIRI ... iv
ABSTRACT ... v
ABSTRAK ... vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ... vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... ix
LIST OF TABLES ... xi
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. Background of the Research ... 1
B. Identification of the Problem ... 3
C. Limitation of the Research ... 4
D. Formulation of the Research ... 4
E. Objective of the Research ... 4
F. Significance of the Research ... 4
CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 5 A. Personality ... 5
1. The Definition of Personality ... 5
2. Type of Personality ... 6
a. The Sanguine Personality ... 7
(10)
x
B. Speaking ... 10
1. The Definition of Speaking ... 10
2. The Element of Speaking ... 12
C. Achievement ... 14
D. Thinking Framework ... 15
E. Review of Previous Study Related to Research ... 15
F. Hypothesis of the Research ... 16
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A. Location and Time of the Research ... 17
B. Method of the Research ... 17
C. Population and Sample ... 18
D. Technique of Data Collection ... 18
E. Technique of Data Analysis ... 20
F. Statistical Hypotheses ... 22
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION A. Research Finding 1. Data Description ... 23
2. Data Analysis ... 25
B. Interpretation ... 32
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION A. Conclusion ... 33
B. Suggestion ... 33
REFERENCES ... 35
(11)
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 The Four Temperaments ... 11
Table 3.1 Personality Traits ... 19
Table 4.1 The Sanguine Students of the Seventh Semester of English Education Department... 23
Table 4.2 The Phlegmatic Students of the Seventh Semester of English Education Department... 24
Table 4.3 Mean and Deviation Standard of the Two Variables ... 27
Table 4.4 The Statistic Descriptive of the Research ... 29
(12)
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
A.
Background of the Research
English speaking skill becomes the most important skill in the era of globalization. In education speaking also become the important skills that should be mastered by students. Speaking is the activity of giving speeches and talks. As the tool of communication, English speaking skill becomes an important component for the students since it makes their social intercourse becomes wider. It means learning English is not only learning about the theory, but also learning how to practice it in a real communication. So it cannot be denied that in the competitive era of globalization, the ability to speak in English is very important. Moreover, this skill is very important for the students of English education department who are prepared to be professional English teacher. To teach English of course they have to know how to speak it correctly. However, because English is not the students’ first language and as English has difference in the way it written with the way it pronounce, it is not easy to be mastered particularly speaking skill. In speaking, student needs more effort not only how to arrange the words, but also how to pronounce them well. Thus, students need more practice to speak English fluently.
In the class all students are required to practice speaking. Some students do it well, but not with some others. They keep quite is not because they are not able to speak English, but they are worried will do mistake or they feel anxiety. Some students are very active, they do not think too much about will do mistake. They have full confidence. Meanwhile, other students are very passive; they will speak if they think they sure they will right. This is what the psychology called as a personality. According to Hippocrates, there are four kinds of personality. They are choleric, sanguine, melancholic and phlegmatic.1 Clearly, the choleric is
1Jacques jouanna, Greek medicine from Hippocrates to Galen: Selected Papers, (Netherland:
(13)
personality with strong principle, has good leadership, and good in speaking, the sanguine is the cheerful and skillful person who always want to be famous person, the melancholic is perfectionist personality and has analytical thinking, and the phlegmatic is obedient personality which has consistency in learning.
In one class, certainly teachers face the different personality of their students. There is a passive and active student. The active students are named by sanguine personality and the passive students are named by phlegmatic personality. Of course the sanguine personality is more talkative than the phlegmatic personality who rather likes to keep silent. So, the teachers are required to understand the
students’ personality.
According to the researcher’s experience when she was in forth semester of her study, it was clearly seen that both type personality were found in one class. In teaching-learning process, the student with sanguine personality performed more confident than the students with phlegmatic personality.
Because the comparative analysis is to do in this study, the difference between sanguine and phlegmatic personality which is one from extrovert and one from introvert is chosen to be studied.
Based on the explanation above, the students with sanguine personality may have better ability in speaking than the phlegmatic personality especially in their fluency. In the other hand, the students with phlegmatic personality may also have better ability in speaking score because they will think deeper before they decide to speak up, then the students with phlegmatic personality may have better in accuracy when they speak up.
To prove the theory, it needs to compare both personalities above with their competence in speaking ability and compare those personalities with their speaking score to measure which personality is better in speaking skill. Based on that reason, therefore, this “skripsi” is under the title “A Comparative Analysis between Students with Sanguine and Phlegmatic Personality on Their Achievement in Speaking Skill” (A Survey Study at the Seventh Semester of English Education Department State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta).
(14)
3
The object of study should be specific; therefore the students on the seventh semester of English Education Department State Islamic University (UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta) are selected. Speaking is one of the subjects in English major which has levels. Only the students who already succeed in passing the basic level can take the next level. To do the research in this major is decided because speaking in English major in university becomes a specific subject of the study and of course it has specific score rather than in school which only has English subject in general. So it is more reliable to accomplish the research.
B.
Identification of the Problem
Problem clearly appear because students with different personality are in one class. There is a group with active and talkative students and other group is the group of passive students who really love to keep silent when they are learning. The active students in speaking are named by sanguine personality and the passive belong to phlegmatic personality.
The related problems that can be identified to the sanguine personality and phlegmatic personality of student are such the example below:
1. Some students are difficult to practice their speaking in the class.
2. Other students are eager to practice speaking but they miss grammatical structure.
3. Some lectures do not really put attention about students’ personality.
4. The teaching strategy used in the class did not consider students’
personality.
C.
Limitation of the Problem
Based on the identification of the problem above, it could be limited only on the differences between sanguine students and phlegmatic student in their learning process in speaking skill.
(15)
D.
Formulation of the Research
Based on the limitation of the problem, the research question of this “skripsi” can be formulated as follows:
“Did the sanguine students have differences speaking score with the phlegmatic students?”
E.
Objective of the Research
The objective of the study was to known and describe the difference score of speaking skill for the students with sanguine and phlegmatic personality.
F.
Significance of the Research
The result of this research was expected to make a deep understanding about
students’ personality and give significance not only theoretically but also
practically to: 1. Students
The result of this research is expected to help students to recognize their personalities and minimize their weakness.
2. Institutions
This research can contribute to all educational institutions to consider
students’ personality and determine the best strategy in teaching learning
process to minimize students’ gap and maximize their potential in speaking skill.
3. Further Researchers
The result of this study is expected to be used as consideration or preview for the next researchers in doing the same field of the study.
(16)
5
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This chapter is going to explain theoretical description that consists of personality including the sanguine and phlegmatic personality; speaking that consist of understanding of speaking and the element of speaking; achievement; thinking framework; review of previous study to research; and hypotheses of the research.
A.
Personality
1. The Definition of Personality
The word „personality’ originally comes from the Latin persona. It refers to the masks worn by actors in ancient Greek dramas in order to develop a role or false appearance. But according to psychologists the word „personality’ is more than the role people play.1
Psychologists have different view about personality. Golden Allport described personality is something real within an individual that leads to characteristic
behavior and thought. For Carl Roger, personality or „self’ is an organized,
consistent pattern of perception of the „I’ or „me’ that lies at the hearth of an
individual’s experiences. Whereas according to B. F. Skinner, the word
personality was unnecessary. Skinner did not believe that it is necessary or desirable to use a concept such as self or personality to understand human behavior. For Sigmund Freud, personality is largely unconscious, hidden and unknown.2
In addition, in the book Personality Psychology, Larsen defines personality as
“the set of psychological traits and mechanisms within the individual that are
1Jess Feist and Gregory J. Feist, Theories of Personality, (New York: McGraw Hill, 2009), p. 3.
2Barbara Engler, Personality Theories, 8th Ed., (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company: 2009), p. 2.
(17)
organized and relatively enduring and that influence his or her interaction with, and adaption to, the intrapsychic, physical, and social environment.”3
According to Lawrence “In psychology, the field of personality is concerned not only with the total individual but also with individual differences. While recognizing that all people are similar in some ways, those interested in personality are particularly concerned with the ways people differ from one another.”4
From the various definitions above, it could be synthesized that many different definitions are possible. Personality can be defined as a set of characteristics in the psychological behavior and thoughts, perception, and individual differences.
2. Types of Personality
The study of personality is broad and varied in psychology, one the topic is type of personality. There are two types of personality. They are extrovert and introvert.
On this discussion, the writer only concentrates on Hippocrates’s theory of personality traits which is grouped into big four temperament, they are sanguine, choleric, phlegmatic, and melancholic.5 In relation to the statement above, it can be classified that sanguine and choleric are extrovert while phlegmatic and melancholic are introvert.
In addition, according to Hippocrates in the book Pathology Student’s Library written by Ghozenko, he offered the first constitutional classification. He focused his attention on the differences of existing in various people reflected in temperament and social behavior. These observations were assumed by Hippocrates as the basic of his classification. According to his terminology, this ancient typology, the choleric, sanguine, phlegmatic and melancholic exist up to the present time. The choleric personality is impetuous, easily irritated and
3Randy J. Larsen and David M. Buss, Personality Psychology, 2nd Ed., (New York: Graw-Hill, 2005), p. 4.
4Lawrence A. Pervin, Personality Theory, Assessment and Research, (New York: John Willey & Sons, Inc, 1980), p. 4.
5
Thomas Chamorro-Premuzic and Adrian Furnham, Personality and Intellectual Competence, (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publisher, 2005), p. 4.
(18)
7
angered, sometimes uncontrollable. His work ability is high, but not constant. While sanguine personality is communicable, vivacious, lively, active and emotional. In other hand, phlegmatic personality is calm, apathetic, unexcitable, but stable. Moreover, melancholic personality is unsociable, sometime depressed, and hesitating.6
a. The Sanguine Personality
“The sanguine personality described enthusiastic, positive, and cheerful individuals, satisfied with life and generally enjoying good mental as well as physical health.”7 He tends to be cooperative and caring. Characteristic of sanguine person are sociable, outgoing, talkative, responsive, easygoing, lively, carefree, leadership.8
Sanguine personality also is one of the personalities type. Its characteristic is creative, fun-loving, enjoy with people, and seek out adventure sometimes result in label of superficiality and frivolity, more joyful place because of the inspiration, enthusiasm, and fellowship he provides.9
According to Eysenck, the sanguine person is carefree and full of hope, pleasant and friendly to help others, sociable, given to pranks, contended, does not take anything very seriously, and has many friends. Unfortunately he is bad debtor, he asks for time to pay, and does not really sure to keep his promise. He is not vicious but difficult to convert from his sins; he may feel sorry for a bad thing he did but then he forget so soon; he is easily fatigued and bored by work but enjoyed mere games that constant change, and persistence is not his forte.10
6A.I Gozhenko et al, Pathology Medical Student’s Library, (Radom: Radomska Szkola Wyisza Zubrzyckiego, 2009), p. 56.
7Thomas Chamoro-Premuzic and Adrian Furham, loc. cit.
8Walter Mischel et al., introduction to personality, 7th Ed., (New York: John Willey & Sons, Inc., 2004), p. 52.
9Art Bennet, LMFT and Laraine Bennet, The Temperament God Gave You, (Manchester, New Hampshire: Shopia Institute Press, 2005), p. 37.
(19)
1) The Strength of Sanguine
The points below are from the book of „Personality Plus’ authored by
Florence Littaure, they are traits (characters) which appear in variety of quantity.
Animated Delightful
Playful Cheerful
Sociable Inspiring
Convincing Demonstrative
Refreshing Mixes-easily
Spirited Talker
Promoter Lively
Spontaneous Cute
Optimistic Popular
Funny Bouncy11
2) The weakness of Sanguine
Traits below are the negative of the sanguine in some ways of the student type when he interacts in school environment. Florence Littaure mentioned the traits as follow:
Brassy Wants Credits
Undisciplined Talkative
Repetitious Disorganized
Forgetful Inconsistent
Interrupts Messy
Haphazard Loud
Permissive Scatter brained
Angered easily Restless
Naïve Changeable12
b. The Phlegmatic Personality
“Phlegmatic is a personality type based on the ancient Greek humors
discussed by Hippocrates and Galen in which one is apathetic and conforming
on the outside but tense and distraught on the inside.” He is lethargic, takes away from others; somewhat passive. Characteristic of phlegmatic person are
11Florence Littaure, Personality Plus, (Michigan: Fleming H. Revell, 1997), pp. 16—18. 12Ibid.
(20)
9
passive, careful, thoughtful, peaceful, controlled, reliable, even-tempered, and calm.13
Phlegmatic are reserved or quite person, prudent, sensible, reflective, respectful, and dependable. They are not easily insulted or provoked to anger, even they do not like exaggeration in speech. They are loyal and committed, tolerant and supportive. They also have excellent quality, very discipline, and excel in profession where being calm under pressure, moreover they are agreeable people, they often hide their will even ignore it.14
1) The strength of Phlegmatic
Adaptable Diplomatic
Peaceful Consistent
Submissive Inoffensive
Controlled Dry Humor
Reserved Mediator
Satisfied Tolerant
Patient Listener
Shy Contented
Obliging Pleasant
Friendly Balanced15
2) The weakness of Phlegmatic
Numerous traits below are the simple descriptions to know about the weakness of the phlegmatic personality. Florence Littaure mentioned that traits:
Blank Worrier
Unenthusiastic Timid
Reticent Doubtful
Fearful Indifferent
Indecisive Mumbles
Uninvolved Slow
Hesitant Lazy
Plain Sluggish
Aimless Reluctant
Nonchalant Compromising16
13Walter Mishel et al., loc. cit.
14Bennet, op. cit, p. 40. 15Littaure, loc. cit.
(21)
The table below describes the personality characteristics which differ between one and others by Christian in Astrology and Personality Testing
book written by Martin and Deidre Bobgan:17
Table 2.1
The Four Temperaments
Sanguine Choleric Melancholic Phlegmatic
Cheerful Optimistic Melancholy Calm
Friendly Active Sensitive Dependable
Talk active Confidence Analytical Efficient
Lively Strong-willed Perfectionist Easy Going
Restless Quick to anger Unsociable Passive
Self-centered Aggressive Moody Stubborn
Undependable Inconsiderate Rigid Lazy
Based on the table above it can be concluded that phlegmatic personality is also called as introvert person. He is talkative less than sanguine personality because phlegmatic personality is passive. In characteristic, phlegmatic student likes to avoid the wrongness, and student who has this personality will be more keep silent than try to speak. In other hand, sanguine personality or extrovert person is more active. In this case, the student with sanguine personality is talkative more and he does not worry anymore about making a mistake in their speaking.
B.
Speaking
1. The Definition of Speaking
Speaking is one of the language production skills used for communication. It is the most natural way to communicate. In communication people do not only to respond to other people, but also to express their ideas, feeling, thought, etc. Thus, speaking is very significant to the quality of people’s living processes and experiences. The ability to which people develops an efficient and effective
(22)
11
communicative is by the way to speak. Without speaking, people might be hard to socialize even it can be isolated from any kind of society.
The speaking is used actively by a person to communicate with others in order to express ideas, feeling, as well as opinion to achieve a particular goal. Speaking is an interactive process of constructing meaning that involves producing andreceiving and processing information.
In addition, Nunan defined speaking as “the ability to carry out a conversation
in the language.”18
It can be said that in the conversation, people need special skill to take part in dialog. They need to know what language is appropriate and understanding what the other speaker means to the topic that is discussing. As
Littlewood said that “When we speak, we are constantly estimating the hearer’s
knowledge and assumptions, in order to select language that will be interpreted in accordance with our intended meaning.”19Further he explained that “…one factor
determining the speaker’s choice of language is the knowledge that he assumes
the hearer to process. A further important factor is his interpretation of the social situation in which communication is taking place: language carries not only
function meaning, it also carries social meaning”.20
In relation to the statement above, Jo McDonough and Christopher Shaw satated “Speaking is not the oral production of written language, but involves learners in the mastery of a wide range sub-skill which added together, consitute
an overall competence in the spoken language”.21
It means that speaking is nor merely to transform written language by speaking it. Speaking involves the ability to integrate sub-skill, such as grammar, vocabulary, and sound. In speaking, speaker needs to know how to produce a sound, the rules to produce an infinite numbers of sentences, and to understand of what language is appropriate in certain situation. In fact that one skill can not be performed without others.
18David Nunan, Language Teaching Methodology. A Textbook for Teachers, (Edinburgh: Longman Pearson Education, 1998), p. 39.
19William Littlewood, Communicative Language Teaching, an Introduction, (Landon: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 3.
20Ibid., p. 4.
21Jo McDonough, and Christopher Shaw, Materials and Methods in ELT: A Teacher’s Guide, (Cambridge: Blackwell Publisher, 1993), p. 151.
(23)
Based on the definitions above, it can be synthesized that speaking is the process of responding and expressing ideas, opinions, feeling or thought with the other people. As human beings, especially social creature need to express their thoughts, opinions, or feelings in appropriate way in order to have a good social life.
2. The Element of Speaking
Speaking a language is especially difficult for foreign language because effective oral communication requires the ability to use the language appropriately in social interaction. Speaking foreign language requires more than knowing its grammatical and semantic rules. It also acquires the knowledge of how native speaker use the language structurally, such as pitch, stress, and intonation or known as pronunciation, body language, fluency, control of idiomatic expression, and understanding of cultural pragmatics are required.22
a. Pronunciation
As one of the speaking element, pronunciation plays an important role to make sure that the productions of the words do not obscure the meaning. People need to acquire the words in the correct way. It is also often judged people by the way they speak, and so learners with poor pronunciation may be judged as incompetent or lack of knowledge, they make the meaning of words not clear. As stated on the article of AMEP Research Centre, “pronunciation refers to the production of sounds that we use to make meaning.”23 Pronunciation is the way for speakers’ produce clearer language when they speak. The speaker must be able to articulate the words, and create the physical sounds that carry meaning.
b. Grammar
Jeremy Harmer states that the grammar of a language is the description of rules which allows someone to generate language itself.24 For most people, the
22
Marianne Celce-Murcia (ed.), Teaching English as Second or Foreign Language, 2nd Ed,
(Boston: Heinle &Heinle Publishers, 1991), p. 204.
23Adult Migrant English Program Research Centre, Fact Sheet – What is pronunciation?, AMEP Research Centre, October 2002, 2014, p. 1.
24Jeremy Harmer, ´The Practice of English Language Teaching, (New York: Longman Publishing, 1991), p. 12.
(24)
13
essence of language lies in grammar. It enables people to make statements about how to use their language. In brief, grammar represent one’s linguistic competence; therefore it includes many aspects of linguistic knowledge: the sound system (phonology), the system of meaning (semantics), the rules of word formation (morphology), the rules of sentence (syntax), and the vocabulary of words (lexicon).
“Language without grammar would be chaotic; countless words without indispensable guidance for how they can be ordered and modified. A study of grammar (syntax and morphology) reveals a structure and regularity, which lies at the basic of language and enables us to talk of the language system.”25
c. Vocabulary
Vocabulary is single words, set phrases, variable phrases, phrasal verbs and idioms.26 Vocabulary has a significance role in speaking, without many sources of vocabulary, some people may have difficulty in their speech. Some people define vocabulary as words. Words are perceived as the building blocks upon which knowledge of a second language can be built. However a new item of vocabulary
may be more than a single word. For example, „police man’ and „father-in-law’
which are made up of two or three words but express a single idea. There are also
multi word idioms like „call it a day’, where the meaning of phrase cannot be deduced from an analysis of the word component.27
d. Fluency
Fluency can be reached with practice. Fluency is the ability to talk accurately, quickly, and use the expression properly. It means speaking a language without hesitation or producing some errors. It refers to the ability to talk with normal levels of continuity, rate and effort and to link ideas and language together to form coherent and connected speech. The key indicators of fluency are speech rate and
25Norbert Pachler (ed.), Teaching Modern Foreign Language (London: Routledge, 1999), p .94.
26Keith S. Folse, Vocabulary Myths: Applying Second Language Research to Classroom Teaching, (Michigan: University of Michigan, 2004), p. 2.
27Penny Ur, A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory, (London: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 60.
(25)
continuity.28 In fluency practice, the speakers’ attention is on the information they are communicating than on the language itself.
e. Comprehension
The last element of speaking is comprehension. As stated by Laura in her article, comprehension is a complex process that has been understood and explained in a number of ways.29 Comprehension means the ability to understand meaning which is spoken. Comprehension takes part in some situations for example discussing work or problems, making arrangements, chatting at social gathering, watching a film, and being interviewed.
C.
Achievement
According to Simpson and Weiner as quoted by Yusuf achievement is defined as measurable behavior in a standardized series of tests. They contended that achievement test intends to measure systematic education and training in school occupation towards a conventionally accepted pattern of skills or knowledge. Several subjects may be combined into an achievement battery for measuring general school proficiency either in point score or achievement age and perhaps achievement quotient. According to Bruce and Neville (1979) educational achievement is measured in relation to what is attained at the end of a course, since it is the accomplishment of medium or long term objective of education.
In the same occasion, Yusuf described that achievement is regarded as action of completing or attaining by exertion. It subsumes anything won by exertion, a feat, a distinguished and successful action.30
From the explanation above, it can be said that achievement is used to describe the status or level of person's learning and his ability to apply what he has learnt. In educational view, achievement is to measure how much has been
28Paul Davis and Eric Pearse, Success in English Teaching, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 57.
29Laura S. Pardo, What Every Teacher Needs to Know about Comprehension, International Reading Association: 2004, 2014, p. 1.
30Yusuf, Inter-Relationship among Academic Performance, Academic Achievement and Learning Outcomes. P. 6—7.
(26)
15
learned in a subject and what specific abilities or skills have been developed. So, the term denotes to the performance of students, which is determined at the end of a course.
Students’ achievement in this research refers to achievement in learning English. The achievement is reflected by students’ scores after following the lesson and through the test. However, students’ achievement was influenced by
certain factors; one of them was students’ personality.
D.
Thinking Framework
Many people think that some factors which initiate problem in the teaching or learning speaking skill are the students’ lake of practice to speak English. The teachers seldom expose them to speak English, and the method used by the teachers does not build students’ interest. However, the problems are not only those things; there is also a factor which influences students’ performance in speaking. It is personality. Every student has different personality; as stated in previous chapter that the sanguine personality is dominating in speaking than the phlegmatic personality. This statement will prove that sanguine student will have better score in speaking than the phlegmatic one.
Therefore, the writer is interested in analyzing whether the students who have sanguine and phlegmatic personality are influence their achievement in speaking skill score.
The first step in doing this research is giving the personality test that consist of 40 numbers of traits list of personality in order to determine whether the students are sanguine or phlegmatic. After students have been classified into sanguine and phlegmatic, the next step is comparing the student speaking score with those two personalities. This aimed to answer the research question.
E.
Review of Previous Study Related to Research
The writer found the similar research written by Nadiyah (2010) which the
title is “Comparative Analysis on Choleric Students and Melancholic Students
(27)
personality of the second grade students SMA Muhammadiyah 25 Pamulang with
students’ achievement in speaking score. Based on her opinion, different
personality of the student would make different result in students’ speaking
ability. In her research showed that there are no significantly differences between
students’ difference personality with their achievement in speaking score. The
relationship between Nadiyah’s research with the writer’s research is the variable used. Nadiyah used choleric and melancholic students as variables. However, the
writer in this “skripsi” has different focus. The writer focuses on two other types of personality, they are sanguine and phlegmatic personality and will do the research in seventh semester of English Education Department State Islamic University (UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta).
Another previous study related to research is from Lidya Catrunnada Ira Puspitawati with her paper research entitled “Prokrastinasi Task Differences on
Thesis Introvert and Extrovert Personality”. The result of this quantitative research showed that personality differences have statistically different to the
students’ prokratinasi on doing their thesis task. It was noted that, the students with extrovert personality have prokrastinasi more than the introvert one. The
relationship between this research and the writer’s research is the use of
dependent variable; however the writer used speaking as dependent variable, and the writer used sanguine and phlegmatic as independent variables. Sanguine is one of the categories of extrovert personality, and phlegmatic is one of categories of in introvert personality.
F.
Theoretical Hypothesis
Based on the theories which were described above, it can be posed a theoretical hypothesis that the sanguine students have better score that the phlegmatic students in speaking skill.
(28)
17
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter consists of the location and time of the research, the method of the research, the population and sample, the technique of data collecting, the technique of data analysis, and the theoretical hypothesis.
A.
Location and Time of the Research
The research was conducted at English Education Department State Islamic University (UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta) which is located on Jalan Ir. H. Juanda No.95 Ciputat. The research was successfully conducted on 20th of November 2014.
B.
Method of the Research
The method of this research is comparative analysis. It can be used to test hypotheses concerning about whether there is differences or not between variable tested. This is aimed to know whether the personality of students especially sanguine and phlegmatic students has difference achievement in speaking skill score.
This research is quantitative non-experimental research which describe things that have occurred and examine relationship between things without any direct manipulation of condition.1
The first step in doing this research was giving questionnaire to the students of the seventh semester to get the data about their personality, and then got their score from Department of English Education to compared students’ speaking score with their personality.
1James H. McMillan and Sally Schummacher, Research in Education: Evidence-Based Inquiry, 6th Ed.,, (Boston: Person Education, Inc., 2006), p. 24.
(29)
C.
Population and Sample
1. Population
The population target in this research was all students from the seventh semester of English Education Department State Islamic University (UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta) which consist of three classes with 128 students; VII. A, VII. B, and VII. C.
2. Sample
The sample used in this research was purposive sample by classified only sanguine and phlegmatic students, and those became the sample. There are 21 students from the sanguine personality and 27 students from the phlegmatic personality.
D.
Technique of Data Collection
The techniques of data collection in this research were questionnaire of personality test taken from standardized assessment written by Frolence Littauer. It identifies students’ personality by examining their personality based on the list of traits. There were 40 question numbers of test from the four personality types; sanguine, choleric, phlegmatic and melancholic. Then, the paper tests were given to the students in order to determine their type of personality.
Table 3.1 Personality Traits STRENGNESS
1. --- Adventurous --- Adaptable --- Animated --- Analytical
2. --- Persistent --- Playful --- Persuasive --- Peaceful
3. --- Submissive ---
Self-Sacrificing
--- Sociable --- Strong-willed
4. --- Considerate --- Controlled --- Competitive --- Convincing 5. --- Refreshing --- Respectful --- Reserved --- Resourceful 6. --- Satisfied --- Sensitive --- Self-reliant --- Spirited
(30)
19
8. --- Sure --- Spontaneous --- Scheduled --- Shy
9. --- Orderly --- Obliging --- Outspoken --- Optimistic
10. --- Friendly --- Faithful --- Funny --- Forceful
11. --- Daring --- Delightful --- Diplomatic --- Detail
12. --- Cheerful --- Consistent --- Cultured --- Confident
13. --- Idealistic --- Independent --- Inoffensive --- Inspiring 14. --- Demonstrative --- Decisive --- Dry Humor --- Deep
15. --- Mixes Easily --- Mover --- Musical --- Mediator
16. --- Thoughtful --- Tenacious --- Talker --- Tolerant
17. --- Listener --- Loyal --- Leader --- Lively
18. --- Contented --- Chief --- Chart maker --- Cute
19. --- Perfectionist --- Pleasant --- Productive --- Popular
20. --- Bouncy --- Bold --- Behaved --- Balanced
WEAKNESS
21. --- Blank --- Bashful --- Brassy --- Bossy
22. --- Undisciplined --- Unsympathetic --- Unenthusiastic --- Unforgiving 23. --- Reticent --- Resentful --- Resistant --- Repetitious
24. --- Fussy --- Fearful --- Forgetful --- Frank
25. --- Impatient --- Insecure --- Indecisive --- Interrupts 26. --- Unpopular --- Uninvolved --- Unpredictable --- Unaffectionate 27. --- Headstrong --- Haphazard --- Hard to please --- Hesitant
28. --- Plain --- Pessimistic --- Proud --- Permissive
29. ---Angered easily --- Aimless --- Argumentative --- Alienated
30. --- Naïve --- Negative
attitude
--- Nervy --- Nonchalant
31. --- Worrier --- Withdrawn --- Workaholic --- Wants credit
32. --- Too Sensitive --- Tactless --- Timid --- Talkative
33. --- Doubtful --- Disorganized --- Domineering --- Depressed 34. --- Inconsistent --- Introvert --- Intolerant --- Indifferent
(31)
35. --- Messy --- Moody --- Mumbles --- Manipulative
36. --- Slow --- Stubborn --- Show-off --- Skeptical
37. --- Loner --- Lord over others --- Lazy --- Loud
38. --- Sluggish --- Suspicious --- Short-tempered --- Scatterbrained 39. --- Revengeful --- Restless --- Reluctant --- Rash
40. ---Compromising --- Critical --- Crafty --- Changeable
The questionnaire has 40 numbers. Every number of items consists of traits from the four personality types. To do the test the students were asked to choose some traits which reflect themselves.
The students were asked to put a check list (v) to the four traits options on entirely items numbers. The answer represents their traits that fit them best. Then the check list test paper that have been done by the students are matched to the indicators table above. For example:
Number 1
( C ) Adventurous ( P ) Adaptable V ( S ) Animated
( M ) Analytical Each symbol means: C : is for Choleric S : is for Sanguine M : is for Melancholic P : is for Phlegmatic
By seeing the checklist, the students answer “animated” for items number 1. It means the item number 1 will be counted as sanguine students. The same way is applied to the next numbers until the last one.
The way of personality judgment is by seeing the highest result that appears on the total questions.
(32)
21
E.
Technique of the Data Analysis
First of all, the students were given questionnaire to determine students’ personality types, and then calculate the speaking score of both personalities with statistic count. The two groups; the sanguine and phlegmatic students and each score of English speaking are clearly distributed as the single data distribution into two tables.
Because the research is non-experimental research, it used data information to measure the hypotheses, and the result will explain how the results either support or refuse the hypothesis or answer the research question.
In this research the writer used the formula:
Mean of Variable X1
∑
Mean of Variable X2
∑
Standard Deviation of Variable XI S =
√
∑
Standard Deviation of Variable X2 S =
√
∑t-
test√
Note:
X1 = The total scores of sanguine students
X2 = The total scores of phlegmatic students
N1 = The number of sanguine students
N2 = The number of phlegmatic students
(33)
2 = Mean of phlegmatic students
S1 = Standard deviation of sanguine students
S2 = Standard deviation of phlegmatic students
to = t- test
F.
Statistical Hypotheses
Significant critical value: 0.05 and 0.01 Criteria :
If to > t-table means there is influence and Ha is accepted, while Ho is
rejected.
If to < t-table means there is no influence and Ha is rejected, while Ho is
accepted.
The Hypotheses of the research describes how the research must be answered. Ho = There is no significantly difference between sanguine and phlegmatic
students’ on their achievement in speaking score.
Ha = There is significantly differencesbetween sanguine and phlegmatic students’ on their achievement in speaking score.
(34)
23
CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION
This chapter consists of the data description, the data analysis, the data interpretation and the statistic interpretation.
A.
Research Findings
1. Data Description
The following two tables are the students who have been categorized into the sanguine and the phlegmatic personality. They were sample which had been chosen by purposive sampling and the following are their En glish speaking score taken from English Education Department.
Table 4.1
The Sanguine Students
The Seventh Semester of English Education Department
No Name Speaking Score
1 Student 1 80.00
2 Student 2 70.40
3 Student 3 68.00
4 Student 4 80.00
5 Student 5 73.40
6 Student 6 71.80
7 Student 7 75.70
8 Student 8 76.00
9 Student 9 70.70
10 Student 10 70.70
11 Student 11 76.00
12 Student 12 78.50
13 Student 13 78.20
(35)
No Name Speaking Score
15 Student 15 80.90
16 Student 16 72.70
17 Student 17 80.00
18 Student 18 78.30
19 Student 19 77.70
20 Student 20 77.80
21 Student 21 80.00
Table 4.2
The Phlegmatic Students
The Seventh Semester of English Education Department
No Name Speaking Score
1 Students 1 74.40
2 Students 2 70.00
3 Students 3 80.30
4 Students 4 75.30
5 Students 5 80.00
6 Students 6 70.10
7 Students 7 74.70
8 Students 8 71.20
9 Students 9 70.60
10 Students 10 71.50
11 Students 11 80.00
12 Students 12 70.40
13 Students 13 74.50
14 Students 14 74.50
15 Students 15 72.10
16 Students 16 73.10
(36)
25
No Name Speaking Score
18 Students 18 80.30
19 Students 19 77.40
20 Students 20 74.80
21 Students 21 80.30
22 Students 22 78.30
23 Students 23 77.30
24 Students 24 77.40
25 Students 25 77.80
26 Students 26 71.30
27 Students 27 73.10
The 48 students are the sanguine and the phlegmatic students. From the total number of students of the seventh semester, only 73 students who participated to fill the questionnaire of personality test. The other 25 students belong to the other personalities; they are neither the sanguine students nor the phlegmatic students.
2. Data Analysis
To begin the data analysis, first step is finding the average of the sanguine and phlegmatic students.
The way to find the average of the sanguine and phlegmatic students’ score is by the following calculation. The average in statistics is known by mean (M). The pattern of Mean is
∑
Description:
: the total of students’ score : a number of students
(37)
This pattern is to find Mean from single data of which scores are more than one frequency; whether they are for some data or whole of them. The following is the calculation for x1 or the sanguine students.
∑
= 76.04
After having the first Mean, and the next step is forward to the second Mean. It is for the phlegmatic students. The calculation is as follows:
∑
= 75.17
Next step is finding the Deviation Standard of the sanguine and the phlegmatic students.
Deviation Standardof sanguine students is as follows: S = √∑
= √
= √
= √ = 4.01
Deviation Standardof phlegmatic students is as follows: S = √∑
= √
= √
=√ = 1.89
The calculation and the results of the mean and deviation standard were explained on the following tables.
(38)
27
Table 4.3
Mean and Deviation Standard of the Two Variables
No The Sanguine Students The Phlegmatic Students
Students Score )2 Students Score ( - )2
1 1 80.00 3.96 15.68 1 74.40 -0.77 0.59
2 2 70.40 -5.64 31.81 2 70.00 -5.17 26.73
3 3 68.00 -8.04 64.64 3 80.30 5.13 26.32
4 4 80.00 3.96 15.68 4 75.30 0.13 0.02
5 5 73.40 -2.64 6.97 5 80.00 4.83 23.33
6 6 71.80 -4.24 17.98 6 70.10 -5.07 25.70
7 7 75.70 -0.34 0.17 7 74.70 -0.47 0.22
8 8 76.00 -0.04 0.002 8 71.20 -3.97 15.76
9 9 70.70 -5.34 36.48 9 70.60 -4.57 20.88
10 10 70.70 -5.34 28.52 10 71.50 -3.67 13.47
11 11 76.00 -0.04 0.002 11 80.00 4.83 23.33
12 12 78.50 2.46 6.05 12 70.40 -4.77 22.75
13 13 78.20 2.16 4.67 13 74.50 -0.67 0.45
(39)
No The Sanguine Students The Phlegmatic Students
Students Score )2 Students Score ( - )2
16 16 72.70 -3.34 11.16 16 73.10 -2.07 4.28
17 17 80.00 3.96 15.68 17 78.80 3.63 13.18
18 18 78.30 2.26 5.11 18 80.30 5.13 26.32
19 19 77.70 1.66 2.76 19 77.40 2.23 4.97
20 20 77.80 1.76 3.10 20 74.80 -0.37 0.14
21 21 80.00 3.96 15.68 21 80.30 5.13 26.32
22 22 78.30 3.13 9.80
23 23 77.30 2.13 4.54
24 24 77.40 2.23 4.97
24 25 77.80 2.63 6.92
26 26 71.30 -3.87 14.98
27 27 73.10 -2.07 4.28
N=21 1596.8 321.444 N=27 2029.5 330.12
∑
= 76.04
S = √∑
= √
=
√ = √ = 4.01
∑
= 75.17
S = √∑
= √
=
(40)
29
The next table concluded the result of the calculation above.
Table 4.4
The Statistic Descriptive of the Research
Statistic Sanguine Students Phlegmatic Students
The Highest Score 80.90 80.30
The Lowest Score 68.00 70.00
Mean 76.04 75.15
Standard Deviation 4.01 1.89
The tables above described that the Mean of the sanguine students’ score was 76.04, while the Mean of the phlegmatic students’ score was 75.15 and the Deviation Standard of the sanguine students was 4.01, while the Deviation Standard of the phlegmatic students was 1.89. Looking on the Table 4.4, there were differences both the result of the Mean and Deviation Standard. The sanguine students were fine superior of 0.89 on Mean and 2.12 on Deviation Standard from phlegmatic students.
After analyzing the data and counting the formula, it has been found the result of the Means and the Deviation Standard of students speaking achievement from both personality, and finally gave interpretation of ‘to’.
a. Statistical Test (t-test)
In analyzing the data from the result above, it used statistical calculation of the t-test formula written by Sugiyono. As seen on the Table 4.4, it is suggested to measure the homogenity varian of both samples. It is the biggest varian divided by the smallest varian (the varian is taken from the deviation standard), and the result is compared to F table based on the result of the degree of freedom (DF) from both samples.
(41)
DF of this research is (N1 – 1) and (N2-1) = (21 – 1= 20) and (27 – 1= 26)
The homogeneity varian is F=
= 2.12
The F tabel of the degree freedom of 5 % of 20 and 26 is 1.99
Based on the calculation presented above the result of F was higher than F table (2.12>1.99), thus, it can be interpreted that the varian was not homogen.
Sugiyono further explained five procedures in determing the formula of comparing two groups of sample; if two groups of sample have different amount and the varian is not homogen, the Separated Varian formula is used. The Saparated Varian formula is as follows:
√
√
√
√
b.
t-
tableThe degrees of freedom (DF) determined the t-table. For DF of this research is
(N1 -1) + (N2-2) = (20-1) + (27-1) = 45 = 22.5
2 2 2
The degree of significance of 5% was 2.07, and the degree of significance of 1% was 2.81.
To prove the hypothesis, the data obtained from both personalities was calculated by using the t-test formula with the assumption as follows:
(42)
31
to > ttable : The alternative hypothesis (Ha) is accepted and the null
hypothesis (H0) is rejected. It means there is significance
difference between the sanguine students and the phlegmatic student on their speaking skill achievement.
to < ttable : The alternative hypothesis (Ha) is rejected and the null hypothesis
(H0) is accepted. It means there is no significance difference
between the sanguine and the phlegmatic students on their speaking skill achievement.1
Table 4.5
The Calculation Result of the Hypothesis Sample Mean Deviation
Standard DF
t-Test
ttable 1%
ttable 5%
Conclusion
Sanguine
Students 21 76.04 4.01
22.5 1.71 2.81 2.07
Ho is accepted Phlegmatic
Students 27 75.17 1.89
Ha is rejected
Based on the counting of the table above, it can be explained that:
a) The means of English speaking scores of the sanguine students was 76.04, with the highest score was 80.90 and the lowest was 68.00. Meanwhile the means of English speaking score of the phlegmatic students was 75.17, with the highest score was 80.0 and the lowest was 70.00.
b) The deviation standard of the sanguine students was 4.01, and the deviation standard of the phlegmatic students was 1.89.
c) The result of t-test was 1.71.
d) T-table for the degree of significance of 5% was 2.07, and the degree significance of 1% was 2.81.
1Sugiyono, Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif Kualitatif dan R & D, (Bandung: Alfabeta, 2009), p. 196—199.
(43)
By comparing the values of t₀= 1.71 and ttable 2.81 and 2.07, the data
calculated with statistical result shows that t₀ was smaller than t-table. So, the
alternative hypothesis (Ha) was rejected and the null hypothesis (H₀) was accepted. It means there is no significance difference between the sanguine students and the phlegmatic students on their achievement in speaking skill.
B.
Interpretation
Based on the statistical calculation, it can be clarified that there was no significant difference between the sanguine students and the phlegmatic students in speaking skill achievement. The result of the t-test was 1.71, and it was smaller than t-table both in the degree of significance of 5% and 1% (2.07 > 1.71 < 2.81). So the null hypothesis (Ho) was accepted and the alternative hypothesis (Ha) was rejected. It can be interpreted that there is no significance difference between the sanguine students and the phlegmatic students on their speaking skill achievement.
The sanguine students are assumed to have a good ability and better ability in speaking. In this research, their score of speaking was 76.04 in average. The phlegmatic students were estimated to be people who have less ability in speaking than sanguine students. However, the average of their speaking score was 75.17. Based on t-test calculation, it showed that there was no difference between sanguine and phlegmatic students in speaking score achievement because of their different average score was not too significant.
In relation to this conclusion and looking at the previous research in chapter II that student with extrovert personality that was sanguine students had better in English speaking score, and now it have already been proved. The students with phlegmatic personality could also have better in their English speaking score.
(44)
33
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
This chapter presents conclusion and suggestion based on this research which has been done at Department of English Education State Islamic University Jakarta (UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta).
A.
Conclusion
This research showed that there was no significantly different between sanguine and phlegmatic student in their achievement in speaking skill. The data interpreted that sanguine students and phlegmatic students had no difference in their speaking score achievement. Even though the sanguine students had higher average of English speaking score and the phlegmatic students got lower average English speaking score, the t-test calculation showed that there was no significantly difference between students with sanguine and phlegmatic personality in their speaking score because the difference of their average is not too significant.
Based on the result above it can be concluded that students’ personality both sanguine and phlegmatic did not have any effect on students’ achievement in speaking skill.
B.
Suggestion
Based on the conclusion of this research, it can be recommended some suggestions go to:
1. Students
The result of this research is expected to help students to recognize their personalities and minimize their weakness, and students should not worry to have best score in speaking skill because personality is not significantly influence.
(45)
This research can contribute to all educational institutions to consider
students’ personality and determine the best strategy in teaching learning process to minimize students’ gap and maximize their potential in
speaking skill. 3. Further Researchers
The result of this study is expected to be used as consideration or preview for the next researchers in doing the same field of the study with the different object of the research.
(46)
35
REFERENCES
Baststone, Paul. Grammar, New York: Oxford University Press, 1950.
Bennet, Art., and Bennet, Laraine. The Temperament God Gave You, Manchester, New Hampshire: Shopia Institute Press, 2005.
Brudden, Philip M. Effective English Teaching, 2nd Ed, New York: The Bob’s Merrill Company, 1995.
Catrunnada, Lidya., and Puspitawati, Ira. Prokrastinasi Task Differences on Thesis Introvert and Extrovert Personality, Thesis of Undergraduate Program, Faculty of Psychology, Gunadarma University, 2008.
Celce-Murcia, Marianne (Ed.). Teaching English as Second or Foreign Language, 2nd Ed, Boston: Heinle &Heinle Publishers, 1991.
Chamorro-Premuzic, Thomas., and Furnham, Adrian. Personality and Intellectual Competence, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publisher, 2005.
Davis, Paul., and Pearse, Eric. Success in English Teaching, New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Engler, Barbara. Personality Theories, 8th Ed, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2009.
Eysenck, Hans. Fact and Fiction in Psychology, Baltimore: Penguins Book, 1965. Feis, Jess., and Feist, Gregory J. Theories of Personality, New York: Mc Graw
Hill, 2009.
Folse, Keith S. Vocabulary Myths: Applying Second Language Research to Classroom Teaching, Michigan: University of Michigan, 2004.
Friedman, Howard S., and Schustack, Miriam W. Personality: Classic Theories and Modern Research, 4th Ed, Boston: Pearson Higher Education, 2009. Gozhenko, A.l., et al., Pathology Medical Student’s Library, Radom: Radomska
Szkola Wyisza Zubrzyckiego, 2009.
Harmer, Jeremy. ´The Practice of English Language Teaching, New York: Longman Publishing, 1991.
Hewings, Martin. Pronunciation, London: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Larsen, Randy J., and Buss, David M. Personality Psychology, 2nd Ed, New
York: Graw-Hill, 2005.
(47)
Littlewood, Wlliam. Communicative Language Teaching, an Introduction, Landon: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Martin., and Bobgan, Deidre. Astrology and Personality Testing, California, 1992. McDonough, Jo., and Shaw, Christopher. Materials and Methods in ELT: A
Teacher’s Guide, Cambridge: Blackwell Publisher, 1993.
McMillan, James H., and Schummacher, Sally. Research in Education: Evidence-Based Inquiry, 6th Ed, Boston: Person Education, Inc., 2006.
Mischel, Walter., et al., Introduction to Personality, 7th Ed, New York: John Willey & Sons, Inc., 2004.
Nunan, David. Language Teaching Methodology. A Textbook for Teachers,
Edinburgh: Longman Pearson Education, 1998.
Pardon, Laura S. What every teacher needs to know about comprehension,
International Reading Association: 2004, 2014.
Pervin, Lawrence A., and John, Oliver P. Personality: Theory and Research, 7th Ed, New York: John Willey & Son, Inc., 1997.
Pervin, Lawrence A. Personality Theory, Assessment and Research, New York: John Willey & Sons, Inc, 1980,
Schmitt, Cornald J. Invitation to Language, Foreign Language Explanatory Program, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998.
Sugiyono. Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif Kualitatif dan R & D, Bandung: Alfabeta, 2009.
Ur, Penny. A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory, London: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
(48)
QUESTIONNAIRE The Purpose and Guidance:
1. This questionnaire is proposed in order to finish “skripsi” in Department of English
Education, Faculty and Tarbiyah and Teachers’ Training
2. The questionnaire conducted to identify kind of students’ personality
3. Please kindly help for answering by choosing each traits based on your personality by putting cross (x) in a, b, c or d.
4. Thank you very much for your kindly participation.
Respondent Identity Name :
NIM :
Class :
The Personality Test Of Florence Littauer The Four Personality Assessment
STRENGTHS
a. Adventurous, Orang yang mau melakukan suatu hal yang baru dan berani dengan tekad untuk menguasainya.
b. Adaptable, mudah menyesuaikan diri dan senang dalam setiap situasi.
c. Animated, penuh kehidupan, sering menggunakan isyarat tangan, lengan dan wajah secara hidup.
d. Analytical, suka menyelidiki bagian-bagian hubungan yang logis dan semestinya. a. Persistent, melakukan sesuatu sampai selesai sebelum memulai lainnya.
b. Playful, penuh kesenangan dan selera humor yang baik.
c. Persuasive, meyakinkan orang dengan logika dan fakta, bukanya pesona atau kekuasaan.
d. Peaceful, tampak tidak terganggu dan tenang serta menghindari setiap bentuk kekacauan.
a. Submissive, dengan mudah menerima pandangan atau keinginan orang lain tanpa banyak perlu mengemukakan pendapatnya sendiri.
b. Self-sacrificing, bersedia mengorbankan dirinya demi atau untuk memenuhi kebutuhan orang lain.
c. Sociable, orang yang memandang bersama orang lain sebagai kesempatan untuk bersikap manis dan menghibur, bukannya sebagai tantangan atau kesempatan bisnis. d. Strong-willed, orang yang yakin akan caranya sendiri.
a. Considerate, menghargai keperluan dan perasaan orang lain.
b. Controlled, mempunyai perasaan emosional tetapi jarang meperlihatkannya.
c. Competitive, mengubah setiap situasi, kejadian atau permainan menjadi kontes dan selalu bermain untuk menang.
d. Convincing, bisa merebut hati orang melalui pesona kepribadian.
a. Refreshing, memperbarui dan membantu atau membuat orang lain merasa senang. b. Respectful, memperlakukan orang lain dengan rasa segan, kehormatan dan
penghargaan.
c. Reserved, menahan diri dalam menunjukan emosi atau antusiasme.
1.
2.
3.
4.
(49)
b. Sensitive, secara intensif memperhatikan orang lain dan apa yang terjadi.
c. Self-reliant, orang mandiri yang bisa sepenuhnya mengandalkan kemampuan, penilainan dan sumber dayanya sendiri.
d. Sprited, penuh kehidupan dan gairah.
a. Planer, memilih untuk mempersiapkan aturan-aturan yang terinci sebelumnya dalam menyelesaikan proyek atau target dan lebih menyukai keterlibatan dengan tahap-tahap perencanaan dan produk jadi, bukannya melaksanakan tugas.
b. Patient, tidak terpengaruh oleh penundaan tetap tenang dan toleran.
c. Positive, mengetahui segala-segalanya akan beres kalau dia /orang lain yang memimpin.
d. Promoter, mendorong atau memaksa orang lain mengikuti, bergabung atau menanam investasi melalui pesaona kepribadiannya.
a. Sure, yakin, jarang ragu-ragu atau goyah.
b. Spontaneous, memilih agar semua kehidupan merupakan kegiatan yang implusif, tidak dipikirkan lebih dulu dan tidak dihambat oleh rencana.
c. Scheduled, membuat dan menghayati menurut rencana sehari-hari tidak menyukai rencananya terganggu.
d. Shy, pendiam, tidak mudah terseret ke dalam percakapan.
a. Orderly, orang yang mengatur segala-galanya secara metodis dan sistematis. b. Obliging, bisa menerima apa saja. orang yang cepat melakukanya dengan cara lain. c. Outspoken, bicara terang-terangan dan tanpa menahan diri.
d. Optimistic, orang yang periang dan meyakinkan drinya dan orang lain bahwa segala-galanya akan beres.
a. Friendly, orang yang menanggapi dan bukan orang yang punya inisiatif, jarang memulai percakapan.
b. Faithful, secara konsisten bisa diandalkan teguh setia dan mengabdi kadang-kadang tanpa alasan.
c. Funny, punya rasa humor yang cemerlang dan bisa membuat cerita apa saja menjadi peristiwa yang menyenangkan.
d. Forceful, kepribadian yang mendominasi dan menyebabkan orang lain ragu-ragu untuk melawanya.
a. Daring, bersedia mengambil risikio tak kenal takut, berani. b. Delightful, orang yang menyenangkan sebagai teman.
c. Diplomatic, berurusan dengan orang lain secara penuh siasat,perasa dan sabar. d. Detailed, melakukan segala-galanya secara berurutan dengan ingatan yang jernih
tentang segala hal yang terjadi.
a. Cheerful, secara konsisten memiliki semangat tinggi dan mempromosikan kebahagian pada orang lain.
b. Consistent, tetap memiliki keseimbangan secara emosional, menanggapi sebagaimana yang diharapkan orang lain.
c. Cultured, orang yang perhatiannya melibatkan tujuan intelektual dan artistik seperti teater, simponi, balet.
d. Confident, percaya diri dan yakin akan kemampuan dan suksesnya sendiri.
10. 7. 8. 9. 11. 12.
(50)
a. Idealistic, memvisualisasikan hal-hal dalam bentuk yang sempurna, dan perlu memuhi standard itu sendiri.
b. Independent, memenuhi diri sendiri, mandiri, penuh kepercayaan diri dan rupanya tidak begitu memerlukan bantuan.
c. Inoffensive, orang yang tidak pernah mengatakan atau menyebabkan apa pun yang tidak menyenangkan atau menimbulkan rasa keberatan.
d. Inspiring, mendorong orang lain untuk bekerja,bergabung atau terlibat dan membuat seluruhnya menyenangkan.
a. Demonstrative, terang-terangan menyatakan emosi. Terutama rasa sayang dan tidak ragu-ragu menyentuh orang lain ketika bicara kepada mereka.
b. Decisive, Orang yang mempunyai kemampuan membuat penilaian yang cepat dan tuntas
c. Dry humor,Memperlihatkan “kepandaian bicara yang menggigit.”
d. Deep, Intensif dan introspektif tanpa rasa senang kepada percakapan dan pengejaran yang pulasan.
a. Mediator, secara konsisten mencari peranan merukunkan pertikaian supaya bisa menghindari konflik.
b. Musical, ikut serta atau punya apresiasi mendalam untuk musik, puya komitmen terhadap musik sebagai bentuk seni bukannya kesenangan pertunjukan.
c. Mover, terdorong oleh keperluan untuk produktif, pemimpin yang diikuti orang lain, merasa sulit duduk diam-diam.
d. Mixes easily, menyukai pesta dan tidak bisa menunggu untuk bertemu dengan setiap orang dalam ruangan, tidak pernah menganggap orang lain asing.
a. Thoughtful, orang yang tanggap dan mengingat kesempatan istimewa dan cepat memberikan isyarat yang baik.
b. Tenacious, memegang teguh, dengan keras kepala, dan tidak mau melepaskan sampai tujuan tercapai.
c. Talker, terus-menerus bicara biasanya mencritakan kisah lucu dan menghibur setiap oarang di seklilingnya, merasa perlu mengisi kesunyian supaya membuat orang lain merasa senang.
d. Tolerant, mudah menerima pemikiran dan cara-cara orang lain tanpa perlu tidak menyetujui atau mengubahnya.
a. Listener, selalu bersedia utnuk mendengarkan.
b. Loyal, setia kepada seseorang, mempertahankan gagasan atau pekerjaan.
c. Leader, pemberi pengarahan karena pembawaan yang terdorong untuk memimpin dan sering merasa sulit mempercayai bahwa orang lain bisa melakukan pekerjaan dengan sama baiknya.
d. Lively, penuh kehidupan, kuat,penuh semangat.
a. Contented, mudah puas dengan apa yang dimiliknya, jarang iri hati.
b. Chief, memegang kepemimpinan dan mengaharapkan orang lain mengikutinya. c. Chartmaker, mengatur kehidupan, tugas dan pemecahan dengan membuat daftar,
formulir atau grafik.
d. Cute, tak ternilainya harganya, dicintai ,menjadi pusat perhatian.
a. Perfectionist, menempatkan standar tinggi pada dirinya, dan sering pada orang lain, menginginkan segala-galanya pada urutan yang semestinya sepanjang waktu.
13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.
(1)
NO NOMOR POKOK NAMA Formatif30.0% 30.0%UTS 40.0%UAS NILAI AKHIR
ANGKA HURUF
1111014000074
28 SITI RAUDOTUL FUSHIAH 70,00 75,00 70,00 71,50 B
1111014000075
29 FARHAN 80,00 75,00 80,00 78,50 B
1111014000076
30 TRI HANIFAH AGUSTINA 74,00 75,00 65,00 70,70 B
1111014000077
31 LULU WALIDAINI 78,00 75,00 75,00 75,90 B
1111014000078
32 SAFITRI OKTAVIANI 71,00 75,00 67,00 70,60 B
1111014000079
33 AGUNG PRASETIA 67,00 75,00 42,60 E
1111014000080
34 FAUZIAH PUTRI ROSALINA 70,00 75,00 67,00 70,30 B
1111014000081
35 NICKY DWININGRUM 75,00 83,00 70,00 75,40 B
1111014000082
36 YULIANTI SARI 77,00 83,00 70,00 76,00 B
1111014000083
37 AUDREY NINGTYAS 65,00 83,00 67,00 71,20 B
1111014000084
38 UTAMI FAUZIYAH 80,00 75,00 77,00 77,30 B
1111014000085
39 PUTIK DELIMA 76,00 83,00 70,00 75,70 B
1111014000086
40 SELINDA FEBRIANI 66,00 83,00 67,00 71,50 B
1111014000130
41 JUMAYEVA AYGOZEL 65,00 77,00 63,00 67,80 C
1111014000132
42 MAHMUDOVA AYNA 60,00 75,00 62,00 65,30 C
1111014000135
43 FARZONA JURAKHON 60,00 83,00 65,00 68,90 C
Jakarta, 19 November 2014 Dosen1
Ummi Kultsum, M.Pd.
NIP.197908112009122001 NIP.
(2)
MATA KULIAH : PUBLIC SPEAKING
DOSEN 1 : Ummi Kultsum, M.Pd.
DAFTAR NILAI
KODE MK : BHS 7133
KELAS : 5 C
PROGRAM STUDI PENDIDIKAN BAHASA INGGRIS
UNIVERSITAS ISLAM NEGERI SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH JAKARTA
DOSEN 2 :
NO NOMOR POKOK NAMA Formatif30.0% 30.0%UTS 40.0%UAS NILAI AKHIR
ANGKA HURUF
1111014000087
1 FUAD HASAN 75,00 80,00 73,00 75,70 B
1111014000089
2 RAHMI RABBANI 70,00 77,00 73,00 73,30 B
1111014000090
3 AMINAH SITI ROHANAH 65,00 81,00 60,00 67,80 C
1111014000092
4 DITTA FIDIA ANGGIARINI 73,00 80,00 72,00 74,70 B
1111014000093
5 BAGAS FEBRIANSYAH W. 70,00 76,00 70,00 71,80 B
1111014000094
6 WILDAN AHDIYAT 67,00 76,00 68,00 70,10 B
1111014000095
7 AULIA RACHMAWATI 78,00 77,00 67,00 73,30 B
1111014000096
8 MAYA SYARIE 80,00 80,00 80,00 80,00 A
1111014000097
9 ACHMAD BADRUN 76,00 76,00 72,00 74,40 B
1111014000098
10 TIAS SIL ROMANSYAH 65,00 76,00 66,00 68,70 C
1111014000099
11 SULIS SETYANINGSIH 64,00 77,00 65,00 68,30 C
1111014000100
12 MUTHIA HANIFAH 70,00 77,00 71,00 72,50 B
1111014000101
13 FITROTUN NISA 70,00 80,00 70,00 73,00 B
1111014000102
14 NUNKY APRILLIA 75,00 80,00 72,00 75,30 B
1111014000103
15 OKY PRIMADEKA YULIANA 80,00 81,00 80,00 80,30 A
1111014000104
16 FAHMI FAUZJI 70,00 81,00 71,00 73,70 B
1111014000105
17 DWI RATNASARI 80,00 80,00 80,00 80,00 A
1111014000106
18 AJENG RIZKY AGITA 70,00 80,00 70,00 73,00 B
1111014000107
19 ESTI SETYANINGRUM 70,00 80,00 71,00 73,40 B
1111014000108
20 ELLEN FIRDHAYANA 80,00 77,00 78,00 78,30 B
1111014000109
21 NIKI BRILIAN RINDU PUTRI 80,00 80,00 80,00 80,00 A
1111014000110
22 LILI SAMROTUL KARIMAH 80,00 80,00 73,00 77,20 B
1111014000111
23 HASRUL HUTAGAOL 74,00 78,00 68,00 72,80 B
1111014000112
24 WIYUDO SERENA 65,00 75,00 65,00 68,00 C
1111014000113
25 PUTRA DIAN KHARISMA IVADA 67,00 78,00 70,00 71,50 B
1111014000114
26 MUHAMMAD KAHFIANAN 70,00 78,00 65,00 70,40 B
1111014000115
(3)
NO NOMOR POKOK NAMA Formatif30.0% 30.0%UTS 40.0%UAS NILAI AKHIR
ANGKA HURUF
1111014000116
28 FIKRI ABDILLAH 73,00 78,00 71,00 73,70 B
1111014000117
29 IRFAN MUJAHID 68,00 76,00 78,00 74,40 B
1111014000118
30 RIZKA MUSLIMAINI 67,00 77,00 68,00 70,40 B
1111014000119
31 MUHAMAD ADNA 80,00 80,00 80,00 80,00 A
1111014000120
32 MUHAMMAD FADLY 77,00 81,00 70,00 75,40 B
1111014000121
33 SHENDY PRATAMA 71,00 78,00 72,00 73,50 B
1111014000122
34 MUH MIFTAHUSSURUR 83,00 77,00 80,00 80,00 A
1111014000123
35 FANDI ROHMAN DIANTO 60,00 76,00 66,00 67,20 C
1111014000124
36 DESSI WULANDARI 75,00 80,00 70,00 74,50 B
1111014000125
37 AHMAD MUCHLISHON 82,00 81,00 75,00 78,90 B
1111014000126
38 DZAWIN NUR IKRAM 80,00 76,00 80,00 78,80 B
1111014000127
39 SRI PUJIASTUTI
1111014000128
40 LALA NURMALASARI DEWI 80,00 80,00 80,00 80,00 A
1111014000129
41 M. ISKAK SAQOFI 75,00 81,00 66,00 73,20 B
1111014000134
42 MONASIA GUSTI 72,00 81,00 71,00 74,30 B
Jakarta, 19 November 2014 Dosen1
Ummi Kultsum, M.Pd.
NIP.197908112009122001 NIP.
(4)
THE RESULT OF STUDENTS’ PERSONALITY TEST
SEVENTH SEMESTER OF ENGLISH EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
VII A
No Name S C M P Domination 1 Sarah Aslamiyah 6 6 18 10 Melancholic 2 Imam Achmad
Damasullah 7 11 17 15 Melancholic 3 Akhmad Furqon 10 4 16 10 Melancholic 4 Utul Azkiya 6 5 12 17 Phlegmatic 5 Eka Fitriyani 10 5 6 19 Phlegmatic 6 Eva Nurlaela 2 12 10 16 Phlegmatic 7 Rismalia Nur Febriani 15 4 10 11 Sanguine 8 Nurina Ayuningtiyas 20 7 4 9 Sanguine 9 Mega Anjar Sari 6 5 9 20 Phlegmatic 10 Haqim Hasan Albana 4 7 12 17 Phlegmatic 11 Miryanti 13 5 7 15 Phlegmatic 12 Nisa Hasanah 7 2 16 15 Melancholic 13 Rosya Kurniati 8 9 11 12 Phlegmatic 14 Dara Sabila 11 7 12 10 Melancholic 15 Nurania Gita Ayuningtyas 14 8 11 7 Sanguine 16 Faras Labieb Ahmad 15 9 7 9 Sanguine 17 Novian Chintiami 3 17 10 10 Choleric 18 Nurul Fatmawai 19 3 3 15 Sanguine 19 Farah Aini 14 9 4 13 Sanguine 20 Dewi Nur Fitriyani 14 10 6 10 Sanguine 21 Indra Wira Swasono 5 7 18 10 Melancholic 22 Synthia Dian Septiani 10 4 7 19 Phlegmatic 23 Fauzia Firdausya 10 2 12 16 Phlegmatic 24 Hayzun Amalia 6 5 7 22 Phlegmatic 25 Khilda Shopia 9 10 7 14 Phlegmatic 26 Utari Wahyuningsih 12 8 10 10 Sanguine 27 Mutiara Junita 18 3 5 14 Sanguine
(5)
VII B
No Name S C M P Domination 1 Amy Rahmadania 9 7 10 14 Phlegmatic 2 Fuji Herawati 6 4 7 23 Phlegmatic 3 Elin Ermasi 24 1 3 13 Sanguine 4 Kumala Dewi 16 3 13 8 Sanguine 5 Afni Amalia 9 3 12 15 Phlegmatic 6 Putik Delima 18 2 6 14 Sanguine 7 Ari Armadi 3 7 12 17 Phlegmatic 8 Nadia Karimah 15 1 5 19 Phlegmatic 9 Audrey Ningtyas 1 5 13 16 Phlegmatic 10 Safitri Oktaviani 7 6 12 15 Phlegmatic 11 Rachmanita Oktaviani 12 3 9 16 Phlegmatic 12 Siti Apiah Yustiani 8 6 10 16 Phlegmatic 13 Wurry Aprianty 4 12 14 10 Choleric 14 TitinSupartini Y 10 4 16 10 Melancholic 15 Ervi Nur Azizah 7 11 18 3 Melancholic 16 Selinda Febriani 14 14 7 4 Sanguine Choleric 17 Salsabila Firdaus 7 6 20 7 Melancholic 18 Utami Fauziah 6 12 16 6 Melancholic 19 Yulianti Sari 17 4 5 14 Sanguine 20 Tri Hanifah 20 2 6 12 Sanguine 21 Ayatika Adawiyah 13 11 7 9 Sanguine 22 Novika Rahayu 7 6 17 10 Melancholic 23 Syifa Fauziah 9 13 7 11 Choleric 24 Lulu Walidaini 7 13 11 9 Choleric 25 Nurita Wulandari 4 7 20 9 Melancholic 26 Rani Desita 3 9 18 10 Melancholic 27 Siti Khafidoh 9 4 14 13 Melancholic
(6)
VII C
No Name S C M P Domination 1 Dessi Wulandari 13 3 11 13 Sanguine Phlegmatic 2 Fitrotun Nisa 8 6 16 7 Melancholic 3 Shendy Pratama 9 9 14 8 Melancholic 4 Ajeng Rizky Agita 13 2 9 16 Phlegmatic 5 Wildan Ahdiyat 8 8 10 14 Phlegmatic 6 Maya Syarie 5 5 13 18 Phlegmatic 7 Irfan Mujahid 8 2 12 18 Phlegmatic 8 Dwi Ratnasari 9 11 9 11 Choleric Phlegmatic 9 Achmad Badrun 2 13 13 11 Choleric Melancholic 10 Fikri Abdillah 5 14 14 7 Choleric Melancholic 11 Ditta Fidia Anggiarini 5 9 10 16 Phlegmatic 12 Rizka Muslimaini 15 5 8 10 Sanguine 13 Esti Setyaningrum 12 9 9 10 Sanguine 14 Wiyudo Serena 15 9 7 8 Sanguine 15 Nunky Aprillia 14 4 6 16 Phlegmatic 16 Oky Primadeka Yuliana 5 6 12 17 Phlegmatic 17 Bagas Febriansyah W 14 7 9 10 Sanguine 18 Nikki Brilian Rindu P 19 9 6 6 Sanguine 19 Lala Nurmala Sari D 16 7 8 9 Sanguine