PENERAPAN PENGAJARAN BAHASA BERBASIS TUGAS DALAM MENGAJAR BERBICARA IMPLEMENTING TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING SPEAKING.

(1)

Nur Yanuary Koswara, 2015

IMPLEMENTING TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING SPEAKING

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

IMPLEMENTING TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING IN

TEACHING SPEAKING

A PAPER

Submitted to the English Department of FPBS Indonesia University of Education in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

By:

Nur Yanuary Koswara 0902383

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATION

FACULTY OF LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND LITERATURE

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

(2)

Nur Yanuary Koswara, 2015

IMPLEMENTING TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING SPEAKING

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

IMPLEMETING TASK-BASED LANGUAGE

TEACHING IN TEACHING SPEAKING

Oleh

Nur Yanuary Koswara

Sebuah skripsi yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Sarjana pada Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra

Januari 2015

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

Skripsi ini tidak boleh diperbanyak seluruhya atau sebagian, dengan dicetak ulang, difoto kopi, atau cara lainnya tanpa ijin dari penulis.

(3)

Nur Yanuary Koswara, 2015

IMPLEMENTING TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING SPEAKING

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

PAGE OF APPROVAL

IMPLEMENTING TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING SPEAKING

NUR YANUARY KOSWARA 0902383

Approved by:

First Supervisor Second Supervisor

Dr. Wachyu Sundayana, M.A. Muhammad Handi Gunawan, M.Pd NIP. 19580208 198601 1 001 NIP. 19730113 200912 1 002

Head of Department of English Education The Faculty of Language Education and Literature

Indonesia University of Education

Prof. Dr. H. Didi Suherdi, M.Ed. NIP. 19621101 198712 1 001

(4)

Nur Yanuary Koswara, 2015

IMPLEMENTING TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING SPEAKING Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

PENERAPAN PENGAJARAN BAHASA BERBASIS TUGAS DALAM

MENGAJAR BERBICARA

IMPLEMENTING TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING

SPEAKING

Nur Yanuary Koswara (Email: nurkoswara@gmail.com), Wachyu Sundayana*, Muhammad Handi Gunawan**

English Education Department, Faculty of Language and Arts Education, Indonesia University of Education

Abstrak: Penelitian ini dilaksanakan untuk mengetahui efektivitas pendekatan Task-Based Language Teaching untuk meningkatkan kemampuan berbicara siswa dan untuk mengetahui respon siswa pada penerapan pendekatan tersebut. Penelitian ini dilaksanakan di salah satu sekolah menengah atas di Majalengka yang melibatkan 40 siswa kelas sebelas. Desain kuasi eksperimental digunakan dalam penelitian ini. Data dikumpulkan melalui pre-test dan post-test dan kuesioner. Hasil menunjukan bahwa pendekatan TBLT efektif untuk meningkatkan kemampuan berbicara siswa. Sebagai tambahan, para siswa menunjukan respon positif terhadap penerapan teknik ini.

Kata kunci: berbicara, narrative, pendekatan Task-Based Language Teaching

Abstract: This research was conducted to find out the effectiveness of Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) approach to improve students’ speaking skill and to investigate the students’ responses to the implementation of the approach. This research was carried out in a senior high school in Majalengka, involving 40 students in Grade XI. A quasi-experimental design was employed in this research. The data were collected through pre-test and post-test and questionnaire. The result showed that TBLT Approach was effective to improve students’ speaking skill. In addition, the students showed positive responses to the implementation of TBLT.

(5)

Nur Yanuary Koswara, 2015

IMPLEMENTING TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING SPEAKING Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

* First Supervisor ** Second Supervisor

(6)

Nur Yanuary Koswara, 2015

IMPLEMENTING TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING SPEAKING

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 20

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Chapter three presents the methodology on conducting this study. This chapter provides four main parts of the investigation: research design, data collection technique, research procedures, and data analysis technique.

3.1Research Design

Quantitative method in the forms of quasi-experimental design was employed in this study, with nonrandomized or non-equivalent pre-test and post-test groups. Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) treatments were implemented in the experimental group of this study, whereas, the control group was the class which did not get TBLT treatments. This design was used because it allows for attempts to fulfill standards of the true experimental design as closely as possible (Hatch and Farhady, 1982).

The quasi-experimental design using nonrandomized control group pre-test and post-pre-test design can be depicted bellow:

Table 3.1 Research Design

Group Pre-test Treatment Post-test

Experimental O1 X O2

Control O3 - O4

Note:

- X refers to the exposure of a group to an experimental variable - O refers to the process of observation or measurement

(7)

Nur Yanuary Koswara, 2015

IMPLEMENTING TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING SPEAKING

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 21

As cited from Hatch and Farhady (1982, p. 51), a variable can be defined as an attribute of a person, a piece of text, or an object which varies from person to person, text to text, object to object, or from time to time. In research, there are two kinds of variable, independent variable and dependent variable. Independent variable is the variable which is selected, manipulated, and measured by the researcher, while the dependent variable is the variable which a researcher observes to determine the effect of the independent variable. The independent variable of the research is TBLT approach and the dependent

variable is the students’ speaking skill.

Hypothesis is defined as a formal affirmative statement predicting a single research outcome, a tentative explanation of a relationship between two or more variables. It also limits the focus of investigation to a define target and determines what observations are to be made (Best and Kahn, 2006). Null hypothesis is the common hypothesis in which stated there is no difference (Hatch & Farhady, 1982). Null hypothesis is known as statistical hypothesis (Arikunto, 2010, p. 113). Therefore, the hypothesis of this study was as follows:

 H0 = There is no significance difference between students’ post-test scores in experimental group and control group.

 HA = There is a significance difference between students’ post-test in

experimental group and control group.

3.2Data Collection

3.2.1 Population and Sample

Population is any group or individuals that have one or more characteristics in common that are of interest of the researcher; while sample are a small proportion of a population selected for observation and analysis (Best, 1981). The sample of this study was chosen purposively, based on the same number of students and absence of significant difference between scores of the two groups.

(8)

Nur Yanuary Koswara, 2015

IMPLEMENTING TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING SPEAKING

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 22

The population of this study was second grade students of one senior high school in Majalengka whereas two classes were used as the sample: one class for the experimental group and the other one for the control group.

3.2.2 Research Instruments

Research instrument is a tool which is used in collecting data (Arikunto, 2010, p. 203). The data were collected to answer research questions of a study. There were two kinds of research instruments utilized in this study; pre-test, post-test, and interviews. The pre-test was conducted to both experimental and control group before the treatment, in order to measure

students’ ability of spoken narrative texts. The post-test was conducted to both groups after the treatment, in order to see whether or not there is a change on

students’ spoken narrative texts ability. The questionnaire was conducted to

the experimental group only. It was aimed to find out students’ responses

toward the implementation TBLT communicative approach.

The pre-test and post-test in this study were in the form of a speaking test. The taped performance was used because it can be kept as evidence to

support the teacher’s judgments and it is available for checking by others if

the teacher is unsure about assigning a score or grade to a particular student, as suggested by Brown and Yule (1999, p. 105).

Filling questionnaire was conducted in the last meeting. Questionnaire was distributed to 20 students of the experimental group. The questionnaire was distributed to explore students’ responses toward TBLT and to find out

the advantages and disadvantages of the approach based on students’

responses.

3.2.3 Research Procedures

3.2.3.1Organizing Teaching Procedures

In organizing teaching procedures, the researcher served as the teacher and facilitator for both experimental and control groups. The teaching procedure was organized through two steps. The first step was preparing

(9)

Nur Yanuary Koswara, 2015

IMPLEMENTING TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING SPEAKING

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 23

appropriate materials for the teaching and learning processes during the treatment. The material was about spoken narrative text. Spoken narrative text was chosen as the material of this study because it was appropriate with the Competence Standard and Basic Competence. The second step was organizing teaching procedure. The teaching procedure in the experimental class employed TBLT approach while the control group employed Presentation-Practice-Production.

3.2.3.2Organizing the Research Instruments

An instrument is used to gather data (Cresswell, 2008, p. 90). In this research, organizing the research instruments includes creating the test item for both pre-test and post-test and constructing closed and opened questionnaire.

The first instrument was students’ pre-test and post-test scores in order to answer the first research question that investigates the effectiveness of Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) in teaching spoken narrative text. Then, the second instrument, questionnaires, was distributed to answer the second research question which gives the information about students’ responses to TBLT approach in spoken narrative text. The questionnaire consists of 12 questions in a form of likert scale.

3.2.3.3Testing the Validity of the Pre-Test and Post-Test through the Pilot Test

The pre-test and post-test were examined to find out whether or not the items have face and content validity. To test the two kinds of validity, the test item was pilot-tested to ten students of the same school with the subjects in this study. At first, the ten students were asked to read the instruction contained in the test item, in order to find out whether or not the instruction was understandable and clear enough. This was conducted to examine the face validity of the test item. Then, because the instruction was found to be clear,

(10)

Nur Yanuary Koswara, 2015

IMPLEMENTING TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING SPEAKING

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 24

were examined, to find out whether or not the students had performed the particular language skills and areas expected in the test item.

3.2.3.4Administering Pre-test to Experimental and Control Group

Administering pre-test to experimental and control group was

conducted before conducting the treatment in order to portray students’ ability

of spoken narrative text.

3.2.3.5The Teaching Program

The experimental group and the control group used a different treatment. The treatment in the form of Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) was only carried out in the experimental group, while the Presentation-Practice-Production was carried out in the control group. The learning materials and context were approximately similar, only the methods were different.

3.2.3.5.1 Experimental Group

In conducting the treatments, the researcher acted as the teacher. The teacher used Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) approach during teaching learning process in teaching spoken narrative texts in the experimental group.

The treatments were carried out in five meetings in which lasted for 90 minutes for each meeting. The treatments’ process that applied TBL approach in spoken narrative text will be systematically interpreted below:

 Step 1: Create a number of schema-building tasks.

The material given in this study was spoken narrative text. Spoken narrative text was chosen as the material of this study because it was appropriate with the SKKD. In this step, teacher introduces the topic, decides the context for the task, and introduces some keywords as the vocabularies to help the students completing their tasks (Nunan, 2004, p.

(11)

Nur Yanuary Koswara, 2015

IMPLEMENTING TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING SPEAKING

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 25

31). Teacher chose a topic that is closely related to the students’ real life in order to make them motivated in doing the tasks.

 Step 2: Give learners controlled practice in the target language

vocabulary, structures and functions (Nunan, 2004, p. 31). Students were given worksheet related to the topic and vocabularies gained in the previous step.

 Step 3: Give learners authentic listening practice (Nunan, 2004, p.

32). This step might use worksheet and video as the media. The students watch some videos while they have to fill in a worksheet.

 Step 4: Focus learners on linguistic elements, e.g. grammar and

vocabulary (Nunan, 2004, p. 31). This step focuses on the grammar and vocabularies of the material being given.

 Step 5: Provide freer practice (Nunan, 2004, p. 32).

Students were asked to work in groups. On the first day, the students were asked to brainstorm their idea helped by their own team. On

the second, third, and fourth day, the groups’ job was to practice together

and to give some feedbacks to the members in order to help improving the

students’ speaking skill.

 Step 6: Pedagogical task.

In this step, students have to perform their spoken narrative text with the chosen topic using their own ideas. In this step, the students feel more confident in doing final task alone after getting much input through the sequence of tasks (Nunan, 2004, p. 33). This step was done in the last meeting and considered as post-test.

3.2.3.5.2 Control Group

In conducting the treatments, the researcher acted as the teacher. The teacher used Presentation-Practice-Production approach during teaching-learning process in teaching spoken narrative texts in the control group.

(12)

Nur Yanuary Koswara, 2015

IMPLEMENTING TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING SPEAKING

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 26

The class was conducted in five meetings which lasted for 90 minutes for each meeting. The teaching process that applied Presentation-Practice-Production in spoken narrative text will be systematically interpreted below:

 Step 1: Class Presentation

In the class presentation, teacher delivered the materials about spoken narrative text to the students. The teacher delivered the material through lecturing to build students knowledge before the presentation. Class presentation is done in every meeting.

 Step 2: Students’ Practice

In this step, students were asked to work in groups. This step was given in every meeting. On the first day students were asked to brainstorm their own idea individually. Then, on the second, third, and fourth meeting, the students were asked to perform in groups and giving feedback to each other.

 Step 3: Production

This is the last step of PPP approach. Students were asked to students have to perform their spoken narrative text with the chosen topic using their own ideas. The students were given 5 minutes to perform. This step was done in the last meeting and considered as post-test.

Although the approaches were different, the learning materials and context were approximately similar between experimental group and control group, as can be seen in the following teaching schedule:

(13)

Nur Yanuary Koswara, 2015

IMPLEMENTING TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING SPEAKING

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 27

Table 3.2

The Teaching Program Activity (In-class Instruction) Day/ Date Experimental

Group

Day/ Date

Control Group Mon/ 31-Mar-14

(Pilot test)

Tue/ 1-Apr-14 Pre launch

(introduction of

Task-Based Language Teaching)

- -

Wed/ 2-Apr-14 Pre-test Wed/ 2-Apr-14 Pre test

Tue/ 8-Apr-14 Task 1: Keyword identification

Thu/ 3-Apr-14 Modeling of Listening Text

Wed/ 9-Apr-14 Task 2: Group discussion (groups brainstorming)

Wed/ 9-Apr-14 Listening Exercise

Tue/ 15-Apr-14 Task 3: Group discussion (groups brainstorming)

Thu/ 10-Apr-14 Listening Exercise

Wed/ 16-Apr-14 Task 4: Speaking practice

Wed/ 16-Apr-14 Listening &

Speaking Exercise

Tue/ 22-Apr-14 Task 5: Grammar error identification

Thu/ 17-Apr-14 Listening &

Speaking Exercise

Wed/ 23-Apr-14 Task 6: Speaking practice in group

Wed/ 23-Apr-14 Speaking Exercise Tue/ 29-Apr-14 Post-test Thu/ 24-Apr-14 Post-test

3.2.3.6Distributing Questionnaires

Questionnaires were distributed to 20 students in the experimental group. The questionnaire consisted of 12 questions in the form of closed-coded questionnaire. Closed questionnaire consists of five responses category: strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree, and strongly disagree. The

questionnaires were distributed to find out students’ responses toward TBLT.

(14)

Nur Yanuary Koswara, 2015

IMPLEMENTING TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING SPEAKING

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 28

Consist of 12 positive statements; presented below the framework of the Questionnaire:

Table 3.3

Framework of the Students’ Questionnaire

No. Categories Item

Number

Total

1 Response to the implementation of Task-Based Language Teaching

1, 2 2

2 Response to the importance of learning English using Task-Based Language Teaching

3, 4, 5 3

3 Response to the lesson content given in learning using Task-Based Language Teaching

6, 7, 8 3

4 Response to the role of the teacher in teaching and learning English using Task-Based Language Teaching

9, 10, 11, 12 4

Total 12

3.2.4 Data Analysis 3.2.4.1Scoring Rubric

As the pre-test and post test scores were the main data analyzed in this

study, the process of generating scores from the students’ work in the pre-test and post-test would use appropriate scoring rubric. The scoring rubric used in this study was adapted from C. J. Wein (1990) as described below:

(15)

Nur Yanuary Koswara, 2015

IMPLEMENTING TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING SPEAKING

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 29

Table 3.4 Scoring Rubric

No. Aspect Score Criteria

1. Fluency 10 The student has the ability to talk with normal level of continuity.

8-9 The student talks with normal levels of continuity but there are some hesitant responses.

7 Utterances may still be hesitant and there are some pauses but are gaining in normal levels of continuity.

5-6 Hesitant responses and there are many pauses in the utterance.

<5 There are many long pauses and often incomplete responses.

2. Grammar 10 The student uses appropriate and accurate words and conveys the information clearly.

8-9 Almost there are no grammatical error and convey the information given.

7 There are some grammatical errors but the information has clear meaning.

5-6 There are frequent grammatical error and unclear meaning.

<5 Almost all utterances are inaccurate grammar and unclear meaning.

3. Context 10 The student gives relevant and contextual responses.

8-9 The student conveys the contextual responses but only in general.

6-7 There are some redundancy responses and irrelevant responses.

<6 No context of the responses and irrelevant responses.

4. Vocabulary 10 The student uses appropriate, varied, and relevant words to the context.

8-9 Almost there are no irrelevant and inappropriate words to the context.

7 There are some inappropriate and irrelevant words to the context but the information still has clear meaning.

5-6 There are less variation of words and there are lots of inappropriate words, but the information still has clear meaning.

<5 There are excessive repetitions, inappropriate and unclear information.

(16)

Nur Yanuary Koswara, 2015

IMPLEMENTING TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING SPEAKING

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 30

3.2.4.2Normal Distribution Test

In order to calculate the normal distribution of a set of data, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used in this research. The test compared the scores in the sample to a normally distributed set of scores with the same mean and standard deviation (Field, 2005). The test was employed through SPSS 18.0 for Windows.

Conducting the normal distribution test included three steps: stating the hypothesis and setting the alpha level; analyzing the scores using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov formula; and interpreting the output data. For the first step, the alpha level set is at 0.05 (two-tailed test) and the hypothesis is as follows:

 H0: The score between experimental and control group is normally

distributed

 HA: The scores between experimental and control group is not

normally distributed

The output data were interpreted by this way: if the result is non-significant (p < 0.05) it means that the distribution of the sample is significantly different from normal distribution (probably normal). If the result is significant (p > 0.05) then the distribution is not significantly different from normal distribution (Field, 2005).

3.2.4.3Homogeneity Variance

Homogeneity variance was calculated after calculating the normal distribution test between experimental group and control group. The first step in the measuring data was stating the hypothesis. In this study, the null hypothesis was stated. The null hypothesis (H0) is that the variances of the

control and experimental groups are homogenous. Afterwards, the next step was getting the level of significant 0.05, measuring homogeneity variance

using Laverne’s test and alpha level of significant. If Asymp. Sig < 0.05, the

(17)

Nur Yanuary Koswara, 2015

IMPLEMENTING TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING SPEAKING

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 31

contrary, if Asymp. Sig > 0.05, the null hypothesis is accepted which means the variance data of two group is equal (Hatch & Faradhy, 1982).

3.2.4.4Independent t-test

Independent t-test was used to analyze the significant differences

between the students’ means score of their first draft in experimental and

control groups. The first step was stating the null hypothesis in which it states that there is no significant difference of means between the control group and experimental groups. Then, the next step was setting the level of significance t-test 0.05 (two-tailed). If the significance value of students’ score of the control and experimental group is smaller than 0.05, then Ho is rejected. On the other side, if the significance value is larger than 0.05, then Ho is retained (Hatch & Farhady, 1982, p. 88). After that, the next step was calculating t-test score using SPSS 18.0; comparing tobt and tcrit. If tobt > tcrit, it means that the

hypothesis is not rejected, there is a significant difference between two groups. In contrary, if tobt < tcrit, it means that the hypothesis is rejected, there

is no significance difference between the two groups (Kranzler and Moursund, 1999).

3.2.4.5Effect Size

The effect size was used to determine how significant the impact of the

treatments was to the experimental groups’ scores. Effect size has positive

correlation to its value. The larger effect size value is the larger of treatment will be (Coolidge, 2000). The formula of effect size is described as follow:

� = √ � � + ��

Note:

r = effect size

t = t obt or t value from the calculation of independent t test df = N1 + N2 – 2

(18)

Nur Yanuary Koswara, 2015

IMPLEMENTING TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING SPEAKING

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 32

Value of effect size is described in the table below:

Table 3.5 Scale of Effect Size

Effect Size r value

Small .100

Medium .243

Large .371

(Coolidge, 2000, p. 151)

3.2.5 Data Analysis of the Questionnaire 3.2.5.1Validity of Questionnaire

The validity of the questionnaire was employed through Ms. Office Excel 2007 using the sample of the experimental group questionnaire. The question items in a questionnaire can be said valid if rot > rcrit, while if rot <

rcrit, it can be said that it is not valid (Arikunto, 1998). The result was

calculated by comparing the robt to rcrit with N = 10 and α = .05.

3.2.5.2Likert Scale

The questionnaires were distributed to the sample after questionnaire had been ensured to be valid. The questionnaire in this study consisted of 12 statements. Each statements had five various alternative options that should be chosen by the students. The study used Likert scale with typical five-level as shown in table below.

Table 3.6 Criteria Likert Scale

No Criteria Score

1 Strongly Agree 5

2 Agree 4

3 Undecided 3

4 Disagree 2

5 Strongly Disagree 1

(19)

Nur Yanuary Koswara, 2015

IMPLEMENTING TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING SPEAKING

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 33

Afterwards, the response frequencies were computed into percentages. The following presents the formula to calculate the percentages. (Ningrat, 2000 cited in Nurlaila, 2013).

p = ��

�

An the last, to interpret the scores by looking the following rule:

Table 3.7

Percentage Classification

No. Score Category

1. 0% None

2. 1% - 25% A few of

3. 26% - 49% Nearly half of

4. 50% Half of

5. 51% - 75% Best part of

6. 76% - 99% Nearly all of

7. 100% All of

(Moch. Ali, 2010)

P = Percentage F o = Frequency

N = The number of Respondent

(20)

Nur Yanuary Koswara, 2015

IMPLEMENTING TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING SPEAKING

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 54

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

In this chapter, various findings of the research are drawn together, and some theoretical as well as practical implications of these findings are suggested.

5.1Conclusion

This study was concerned with the effectiveness of the implementation of TBLT approach in teaching spoken narrative to eleven-graders. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether or not this approach is effective in teaching

speaking. Furthermore, this study also aimed to discover students’ responses

toward the technique.

The study found that the implementation of TBLT could improve students speaking ability. The implementation of TBLT was found to be potential to provide better learning compared with the PPP approach. This was proven by several advantages possessed by the approach. First, TBLT approach provided opportunities for students to listen and participate in the learning process to help them to acquire the new language more naturally. This could be seen by their speaking ability improvement. TBLT approach provided a lot of exposure, a fun language practice for the students. Second, TBLT approach motivated the students

to gain confidence in speaking. This could be seen by the students’ responses that

the friendly and cooperative classroom atmosphere which not forcing them to speak encouraged them to contribute or to ask freely if they need help. The major problem that teacher faced in dealing with TBLT was how to design interesting and beneficial tasks for the students. The teacher had to be able to relate the

(21)

Nur Yanuary Koswara, 2015

IMPLEMENTING TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING SPEAKING

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 55

5.2Suggestions

There are several suggestions that might be useful for the teacher and further researchers. First, for teacher, the teacher has to design interesting activities for the task. It should enable students to be creative and motivating them to learn English. In doing so, the activities should be relevant with their needs. The teacher has to pay attention to determine time allocation in using task-based in order to make conducive atmosphere in teaching and learning process. Besides the teacher has to learn how to be a good model in speaking because the students usually imitate how to pronounce word or utterances from their teacher.

Second, for further researchers who will conduct similar study, it is suggested that they have to consider some aspects. First, they should have willingness in finding some ideas for the interesting tasks. They can explore the ideas from many sources, such as from English textbook, the internet, educational magazines, etc. second, they have to consider the allocation time in giving the sequence of tasks for the students.

(22)

Nur Yanuary Koswara, 2015

IMPLEMENTING TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING SPEAKING

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 1

REFERENCES

Afriliyasanti, R. (2011, October 30). Teaching EFL speaking. Retrieved January 20, 2014, from The teaching of EFL speaking: http://efl-teaching.com/teaching-efl-speaking

Alksandrzak, M. (2011). Problems and challenges in teaching and learning

speaking at advanced level. Poznan: Adam Mickiewicza University.

Arikunto, S. (2010). Prosedur penelitian: Suatu pendekatan praktik (Edisi revisi). Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Bailey, T., Hughes, K. L., & Moore, D. T. (2004). Working

knowledge--Work-based learning and education reform. London: Routledge Falmer.

Best, J., & Kahn, J. (2006). Research in education. Baston: Pearson Educational Inc.

Branden, K. V. (2006). The role of the teacher in task-based language teaching. Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the spoken language: An approach

based on the analysis of conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge

University.

Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching (3rd edition). New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.

Brown, J. (2004). Performance assessment: Existing literature and directions for

research.

Burk, A. L., & Burk, T. L. (1988). Teaching oral communication in grades K-8. Burns, A., & Joyce, H. (1997). Focus on speaking. Sidney: National Centre for

(23)

Nur Yanuary Koswara, 2015

IMPLEMENTING TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING SPEAKING

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 2

Byrnes, H. (2002). The role of task and task-based assessment in a content-oriented collegiate foreign language curriculum. Language testing .

Carless, D. (2005). Prospects for implementation of assessment for learning. Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (1995). Grammar and the spoken language. Applied

Linguistics.

Chaney, A. L., & Burk, T. L. (1988). Teaching oral communication in grades k-8.

itseljorg .

Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education (4th edition). London: Routledge.

Coolidge, L. F. (2000). Statistics: A gentle introduction. London: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed

methods approaches. London: Sage Publications.

Dave Willis, J. W. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Efrizal, D. (2012). Improving students' speaking through communicative language

teaching method at MTS Ja-alhaq, Sentot Ali Basa Islamic Boarding School of Bengkulu, Indonesia.

Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systematic functional linguistics. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Task-based language

learning and teaching (Vol. 7, No. 3) .

Ellis, R. (2006). The methodology of task-based teaching. Asian EFL Journal . Emilia, E. (2010). Teaching Writing: Developing Critical Learners. Bandung:

(24)

Nur Yanuary Koswara, 2015

IMPLEMENTING TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING SPEAKING

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 3

Emilia, E. (2011). Pendekatan genre-based dalam pengajaran bahasa Inggris:

Petunjuk untuk guru. Bandung: Rizqi Press.

Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd edition). London: Sage Publications.

Gerot, L., & Wignell, P. (1994). Making sense of functional grammar. Sydney: Gerd Stabler.

Harmer, J. (1998). How to teach English. Harlow: Longman.

Hatch, E., & Farhady, H. (1982). Research design statistics for applied linguistics. Massachusetts: Newbury House Publisher.

Knapp, P., & Watkins, M. (2005). Genre, text, grammar: Technologies for

teaching and assessing writing. New South Wales: University of New

South Wales Press.

Kranzler, G., & Moursund, J. (1999). Statistics for the terrified (2nd edition). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Kurniasih, E. (2011). Teaching the four language skills in primary EFL Classroom: Some considerations. Journal of English teaching (Vol. 1, No.

1) .

Long, M. H., & Norris, J. M. (2000). Task-based teaching and assesment.

Encyclopedia of language teaching .

Lukman, R., & Kranjc, M. (2012). exploring non-traditional learning methods in virtual and real-world environments. Journal of education technology &

society .

McDonough, J., & Shaw, C. (1993). Materials and methods in ELT. Blackwell. Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology. Prentice Hall.

(25)

Nur Yanuary Koswara, 2015

IMPLEMENTING TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING SPEAKING

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 4

Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Robertson, P., & Josep, J. (2006). Special conference proceedings volume: Task-based learning in the Asian context. The Asian EFL journal quarterly (Vol.

8, Issue 3) .

Rost, M. (2002). Teaching and researching speaking. UK: British Library.

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Smith, B. L., & MacGregor, J. T. (1992). What is collaborative learning? In

Collaborative learning: A source book for higher educational.

Washington DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Ur, P. (1995). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Van den Branden, K. (2006) The role of the teacher in task-based language

teaching. Task-based Language Education, from theory to practice.

Vystavělová, L. (2009). Common EFL methods applied at language schools in

Czech Republic: PPP or TBL. Brno: Masaryk University.

Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Widiati, U., & Chayono, B. Y. (2006). The teaching of EFL speaking in the Indonesian context: The state of the art. Bahasa dan seni, (Tahun 34, No.

2) .

Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2009). Task based language teaching: The language

teacher. London: Longman.

Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. London: Longman.

You-ha, Z. (2006). Task-based approach and its application in classroom English teaching and learning. Linguisorg .

(1)

Nur Yanuary Koswara, 2015

IMPLEMENTING TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING IN TEACHING SPEAKING

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 54

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

In this chapter, various findings of the research are drawn together, and some theoretical as well as practical implications of these findings are suggested.

5.1Conclusion

speaking. Furthermore, this study also aimed to discover students’ responses toward the technique.