THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TPR (TOTAL PHYSICAL RESPONSE) METHOD IN IMPROVING ENGLISH VOCABULARY MASTERY OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CHILDREN.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ……… i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ……… ii

STATEMENT ……….. iii

ABSTRACT ………. iv

TABLE OF CONTENT ……….… v

LIST OF TABLES ……… x

LIST OF APPENDICES ……….……….... xii

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ……….………..…….….. 1

1.1.Background of the Study ………...……….…….. 1

1.2.The Purposes of the Study ……….…...…....…... 8

1.3.Research Questions …………...……….………….…….. 8

1.4.Scope of the Problem ………..………...……. 9

1.5.The Significance of the Study ……….……….………9

1.6.Research Method ……….….…….. 9

1.7.Clarification of Terms ..…….……….…………... 10

1.8.Research Paper Organization ………... 10

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ……… 13

2.2. Total Physical Response (TPR) ....………..……. 15

2.2.1. Introduction to the Origin of TPR ………..… 15

2.2.2. Background Theories of TPR Method .……….…….. 17

2.2.3. Implementation of TPR Method ………..……….. 22

2.2.4. Roles in the Activities ………... 24

2.2.4.1. The Roles of Students and Teacher ………..…. 24

2.2.4.2. The Roles of Classroom Language and Learning Material … 26 2.2.5. Advantages of TPR Method ………..…..……… 27

2.3. Vocabulary Acquisition ……….………….……….. 29

2.4. Teaching English Vocabulary ……….…….. 30

2.4.1. Definition of Vocabulary ……….. 30

2.4.2. Different Kinds of Vocabulary Items or Words ……….…… 31

2.4.3. How to Teach English Vocabulary ……… 34

2.5. Teaching English to Children ………..………….. 38

2.5.1. Children or Young Learners ………..………. 38

2.5.2. The Characteristics of Young Learners ..………..…………..…….. 39

2.6. Teaching English Vocabulary to the First Graders of Elementary School

Using TPR Method ………...……. 42

2.7. Related Research Findings ……….………... 44

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHOD …………....….……….……... 46

3.1. Brief Explanation to Research Method ………. 46

3.1.1. Research Design ………….……….………. 48

3.1.2. Variable ……….……….……...………... 51

3.13. Hypothesis ……….……….... 52

3.2. Population and Sample ……….……. 53

3.3. Data Collection ……….………..………... 53

3.3.1. Pretest ………..….…… 54

3.3.2. Observation ……….………. 54

3.3.3. Posttest ……….……….... 55

3.4. Evaluating Test Instrument ………..…. 55

3.4.1. Instrument Validity ……….………. 56

3.4.1.1. The Measurement Result of Test Instrument Validity ……… 57

3.4.2.1. The Measurement Result of Test Instrument Reliability …… 60

3.5. Data Analysis ………..……….………. 62

3.5.1. Analyzing Data on Test Score ………..…… 62

3.5.2. Analyzing Data on Pretest …….………..…………. 62

3.5.3. Analyzing Data on Posttest ……….……….……… 64

3.5.4. Determination of the Effect Size ………..…….……... 66

3.5.5. Analyzing Data from Observation ……….……….. 67

3.6. Treatment Implementation ……….…...……… 67

3.7. Research Procedure ………..………. 68

CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ……..………... 70

4.1. TPR Method Was Effective in English Vocabulary Mastery of Elementary School Children ……….………… 70

4.1.1. Findings from Pretest of Experiment and Control Group……..….… 71 4.1.2. Findings from Posttest of Experiment and Control Group .……..….. 73

4.2. Students Responded Positively to Teaching English Vocabulary Using TPR method ………..… 82

4.3. Discussion on Findings ..………...………… 87

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS ………..……..…... 90

5.1. Conclusion ………..………...….… 90

5.2. Suggestions ………..……...….... 91

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1. Major classes of Experimental Research Design ……… 49

Table 3.2. Description of Research Design ……….. 51

Table 3.3. Interpretation of r Coefficient ………..……….. 56

Table 3.4. The Result of Test Item Validity .……….…..…. 57

Table 3.5. r Coefficient Correlation ………. 58

Table 3.6. Criteria of Discrimination Index ………. 59

Table 3.7. Criteria of Difficulty Index ………. 59

Table 3.8. The Result of Discrimination and Difficulty Index .………..…. 60

Table 3.9. Coefficient Correlation of the Effect Size Scale .………..…. 66

Table 4.1. Group Statistics of Pretest ……...……….…..…. 71

Table 4.2. Independent Samples Test of Pretest ………...………. 71

Table 4.3. Group Statistics of Posttest …….……….…..…. 73

Table 4.4. Independent Samples Test of Posttest ……..………..………… 73

Table 4.5. Paired Samples Statistics of Experiment Class …………....…….…. 75

Table 4.6. Paired Samples Correlation of Experiment Class ……….…...…..…. 76

Table 4.8. Paired Samples Statistics of Control Class ……….…..….…. 78

Table 4.9. Paired Samples Correlation of Control Class ……….……...…..…. 78 Table 4.10. Paired Samples Test of Control Class ...…..………...……… 78

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1. The Result of Data Analysis of Pilot Test Using Anatest for

Multiple Choices ………..……….…… 101

Appendix 2. The Score Result of Control Class Pretest ………….………... 105

Appendix 3. The Score Result of Experiment Class Pretest ……....……..…... 106

Appendix 4. The Score Result of Control Class Posttest ………….…..……... 107

Appendix 5. The Score Result of Experiment Class Posttest ..…..……….…...108

Appendix 6. Pilot Test Questions ……….. 109

Appendix 7. Pretest and Posttest Questions ……….……...….. 112

Appendix 8. Syllabus ………..………..… 118

Appendix 9. Lesson Plan ………...………...…………. 124

Appendix 10. The Primary Data Gained from Observation Using Field Notes ………. 141

Appendix 11. The Secondary Data Gained from Observation Using Field Notes ………. 146

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the background of the study that shows the enhancement of English education at elementary schools, and how this education requires good teachers to teach with appropriate method. This chapter consists of some subchapters, namely the purposes of the study, research questions, scope of the problem, the significance of the study, research method, clarification of terms and research paper organization.

1.1.Background of the Study

The enhancement of education that gives priority to the elementary students’ ability to master English as a result of this subject categorized as local content in the curriculum is responded positively by public (Yauri, 2007). Many parents ask their children to be taught English in their elementary schools like in others (Suyanto, 2004), as in the society as Istiqomah (2011) implies, English plays an important role not only as academic language but also as daily one, such as in computer, internet, banking, medic, tourism, flight, entertainment and radio. Moreover, Nunan (2003: 591) states, “In business, industry, and government, workers are increasingly expected to develop proficiency in English.” Therefore, the parents want their children to learn English as early as possible so that they will take advantage from English as an important part of their academic and business career in the future (Sad, 2010).

This condition also encourages a number of elementary schools to implement English education based on the government policy (Sukamerta, 2011), SK Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan (the Decree of Minister of Education and Culture) No. 060/U/1993 in February 25, 1993. This policy states that it is possible to teach English as local content subject in Elementary school starting from the fourth grade (Suyanto, 2004).

I n I n d o n e s i a , E n g l i s h is now introduced to children at the early age (Matondang, 2005). Even, public interest in English for Young Learners (EYL) has become enhanced (Musthafa, 2010) as t here is a widely-held belief that younger second language learners do better than older learners supported by a theory of acquiring language called Critical Period Hypothesis (Ellis, 1996). This theory says that language could be acquired starting from roughly early infancy to puberty (Johnson & Newport, 1989). It means that according to Snow and Hoefnagel-Hohle (1978: 1114), “One prediction of this hypothesis is that second language acquisition will be relatively fast, successful, and qualitatively similar to first language only if it occurs before the age of puberty.” It is clarified by Marinova-Todd, Marshall, & Snow (2000: 9), that “children are generally considered capable of acquiring a new language rapidly and with little effort, whereas adults are believed to be doomed to failure.” Birdsong (1999) also highlights that one real advantage of having children start learning English at an early age is that they are better equipped to develop English language acquisition. As a matter of fact, it can be inferred that it would be advantageous for language learners to start studying English within a critical period - before 12 or 13 years

old - so that they can enjoy the developmental benefits of that period (Shin, 2006). B e s i d e s , Baker (2008), as cited in Fatmawati (2011), argues that in the present days, English is regarded as an important and prestigious language that many people in a particular domain may be exposed to it.

The process of teaching and learning English in elementary school, however, does not always run well (Yauri, 2007; Suyanto, 2004) as in this level it is relatively new in Indonesia, unlike in Malaysia, Philippines, etc. (Edisonyusman, 2011). Besides, teacher competency is as one of the obstacles (Yauri, 2007; Suyanto, 2004). The teachers mostly are not English teachers, but class teachers, and not all of them learn English as a major subject (Yauri, 2007; Suyanto, 2004; Edisonyusman, 2011). Consequently, they are not skillful in teaching English (Samudra, Kuswardono, & Idayanie, 1999). They are not supplied the concept of young learner psychology and theory of teaching and learning foreign language for young learner (Suyanto, 2004). They are professionally regarded not ready to teach English (Alwasilah, 2000: 80-81, as cited in Yaury, 2007). Edisonyusman (2011: 1) claims that “limited knowledge about the content of the teaching, in this case English, will mislead the students.” In other words, teachers should master English and language learning to be able to evaluate the accuracy of method, material and approach to help their students be successful (Suyanto, 2004) as well as create a classroom communicative context within which the students are motivated to share their ideas, feelings, perceptions and meaningful experiences (Liebling, 1984).

Substantially, according to Curtain and Pesola (1994), as cited in Suyanto (2004), children will learn foreign language well if the learning process is in the communicative context and conducive to them. In their opinion for children this context covers social and cultural situation, game, song, story, art experiences, handicraft and sport.

Teaching English to young learners or students of Elementary school, according to Shin (2006), is different from teaching adults as they especially have fun with movement and physical participation. He adds that the more fun the students have, the better they will remember the language learned. As Scott and Ytreberg (1990: 2) emphasize, “Children’s understanding comes through hands and eyes and ears, and the physical world is dominant at all times.”

So far, however, English teachers have been experiencing difficulty in teaching children since the method used is less appropriate (Widodo, 2005; Samudra, Kuswardono, & Idayanie, 1999). Related to this issue, the researcher has met an English teacher in one Islamic elementary school in Cibiru Bandung. The teacher admits that it is difficult to teach English especially for the first graders because of many reasons. One of the reasons is the students still learn reading and writing Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian). Meanwhile, the way to read and write English is different from the way to read and write Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian). Besides, the students love making disturbance and it is not easy to keep them quiet and concentrating for long. Hence, the researcher endeavored to find out the effective method to teach them English and she tried Total Physical Response (TPR) as an alternative one. She was interested in investigating whether

using TPR method was effective in teaching English, especially English vocabulary to children. She assumed it would improve their English vocabulary mastery and this method was enjoyable and engaging as there are many positive research findings related to using this method in teaching English to children. Some of them are: TPR method was found to be effective to improve English preposition mastery of the fifth grader in one elementary school in Semarang (Nugrahaningsih, 2007); TPR method enhanced students’ motivation and interests of elementary school in Taiwan in learning English (Hsu and Lin, 2012); TPR seemed to have been helpful to find a more economical way of helping students in one Japanese junior high school to learn English script, and to find more time when they were engaged in language activities touching on their personal experiences (Sano, 1986); TPR was a successful classroom management tool that teachers could easily implement at any stage of their lessons, or once they faced a management problem and it could be used in other grade levels as children in an elementary school in Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates, in general were active and they had fun in the English classroom (Sakhaweti, 2004). In addition, many researches show TPR method is also suitable for teaching other languages and many teachers use it alongside other tools. Cook (2001) suggests that teachers use TPR method as she reveals that teaching English through action (also in Spanish, French, German, Japanese, or Russian) has been highly successful with Beginning and Early Intermediate students/learners. She adds that 102 TPR lesson plans are widely used by both elementary and secondary teachers across the United States, and in 18 other countries. In her opinion, TPR is a suitable method to be used,

even if the beginner is enrolled in a traditional course. Moreover, Adam (2011) conducts his study about TPR in Latin class that seems to propose that TPR is one possible way of creating enthusiasm for languages. Furthermore, Glisan (1996, n.p.) reports his study dealing with TPR in Spanish class that “use of Asher's Total Physical Response strategy, through which students internalize meaning initially by physically responding to oral commands, results in better listening comprehension, speaking, and reading performance.” Besides, Mastromarco (n. d.: 5) reveals that “today, although TPR is still under-adopted in Europe, there is much literature on the topic and many university students choose to write their final paper on it.” He states that most importantly, more and more teachers decided to use TPR alongside other tools.

On one hand, using TPR method in teaching English to children is a lot of fun and enjoyable, does not demand many preparation or materials, is very effective for teenagers and young learners, is appropriate for kinesthetic learners to be active in the class, is memorable for students to remember phrases and words well, and works properly with mixed-ability classes (Sophaktra, 2009). Moreover, according to Maroto, Garrido & Fuentes (n.d.), it makes students obtain good pronunciation and memorize learnt things for long. On the other hand, Sophaktra (2009) mentions that there are cons of using this method such as: it makes students less creative to express their own thoughts, overuses the imperative form, can be ineffective to be used for long period of time, will be trouble to teach abstract vocabulary or expression, and causes boredom when teachers use the same style. Besides, teachers dislike it as it usually does not

happen in a desirable way and students are not aware they are in learning process (Maroto, Garrido & Fuentes, n.d.).

Meanwhile, vocabulary taught with the use of other methods, such as the grammar-translation method and FAIES (first aid in learning English) method studied by Renatha (2009), showed that: In FAIES (first aid in learning English) method, when the students asked about a vocabulary, the teacher was not able to give the meaning directly. They could not ask whole difficult words but only few words; In Grammar translation method, on the other hand, the teacher was able to give the meaning of the vocabulary directly and the students could also ask entire word which they did not understand. However, Yulianto (2009: 3) argues that in Elementary School 1 Ngadirojo, the researcher discovered that the teacher still employs GTM as teaching method and this causes the students feel bored because the teaching procedure is very monotonous. In addition, some other different methods (direct approach, and suggestopedia method) used for teaching vocabulary as Pribilova (2006) states, in direct approach, there are no translations. He states the mother tongue is never used, only target language is used in the classrooms and only complete sentences are used and culture is regarded as an important aspect. Meanwhile, he mentions that suggestopedia method is a very significant method in assisting learners to memorize words and stimulates the learner´s brain by music while learning but nowadays this method seems to be left.

In this case, this does not mean that other approaches, methods, or tools are without value (Asher, 2000). However, the researcher believes the TPR

method is the most suitable one to be applied to teach vocabulary to young learners as this method offers them enjoyable and active roles in the learning experience as one of the principles and best practices for teaching English to elementary learners (McCloskey, 2003). Therefore, the researcher was curious to prove it by doing this research.

Those all above are also the reasons that this study concerned with teaching English vocabulary to the first graders of elementary school using TPR method to know the effectiveness of TPR method in improving English vocabulary mastery of elementary school children.

1.2.The Purposes of the Study The study is intended:

1. to investigate whether the use of TPR method is effective in improving English vocabulary mastery of elementary school children.

2. to investigate how the students respond to teaching English vocabulary using TPR method.

1.3.Research Questions

In compliance with the aforementioned purposes, this research will strive to address the following questions below:

1. Is TPR method effective in improving English vocabulary mastery of elementary school children?

2. How do the students respond to teaching English vocabulary using TPR method?

1.4.Scope of the Problem

This research only focused on investigating the effectiveness of TPR method in improving English vocabulary mastery of elementary school children in the first grade and their response to teaching English vocabulary using TPR method.

1.5.The Significance of the Study

This research will give some contributions as follows:

- It attempts to reduce the stress students feel at studying foreign language. This method also can motivate and make students ease to learn English.

- The teachers can use TPR method to enrich their teaching method so that they have a variety of methods to be applied in teaching English.

1.6.Research Method

This study used embedded mixed method, combining quantitative and qualitative methods (priority to the major form of quantitative data collection, and secondary status to the supportive form of qualitative data collection as additional to the primary form).

To find out the answer for the first research question, a quasi-experimental design was used, involving two groups (control and experiment) and employing pretest and posttest. Besides, to answer the second research question, qualitative research approach was employed conducting observation by field notes.

1.7.Clarification of Terms

In order to make the terms stated in this research be clearly interpreted, the researcher would like to clarify and specify each terms as follows:

- Effectiveness means the effect or result of TPR method in improving English vocabulary mastery of elementary school children which will be measured by independent t-test formula.

- Total Physical Response is as a language teaching method used as treatment to teach English vocabulary in experiment class.

- Vocabulary in this research refers to single word vocabulary items about numbers (1 up to 10), colors (red, yellow, green, blue, brown, black, purple, orange, pink and white), things in the classroom (chair, table, window, door, whiteboard, clock, broom, lamp and dustbin), animals (bird, cat, dog, monkey, rabbit, cow, fish, snake and horse). and fruits (apple, orange, grape, strawberry, tomato, avocado, banana, melon and watermelon).

- Elementary school children refers to the first graders of one Islamic elementary school in Cibiru Bandung

- Students’ response refers to verbal and physical response of the students.

1.8.Research Paper Organization

The organization of the research paper consists of five chapters below is to present the readers the content of the paper.

Chapter I is introduction. It presents the background of the study that shows the enhancement of English education at elementary schools, and how this English education requires good teachers to teach with appropriate method. This chapter also consists of the purposes of the study, research questions, the significance of the study, research method, scope of the research, clarification of terms and research paper organization.

Chapter II is literature review. It deals with teaching method, total physical response (TPR), teaching English vocabulary, teaching English to children, teaching English to the first grade of elementary school, and related research findings.

Chapter III is research method. In this chapter, research method is briefly outlined for this study including research design, variable and hypothesis. This chapter also consists of population and sample, data collection, evaluating test instrument (instrument validity and instrument reliability with discrimination and difficulty index), data analysis (analyzing data on test score, pre-test, post-test, and from observation), treatment implementation and research procedure.

Chapter IV is findings and discussion. This chapter presents the findings of the research and further discussion about that. These findings were obtained from statistical computation using SPSS 15 for windows to know whether TPR method is effective in English vocabulary mastery of elementary school children. In addition, the findings were also obtained from observation using field notes to know how the students respond to teaching English vocabulary using TPR method.

Chapter V presents conclusion and suggestion. The researcher draws the conclusion taken from the result of the research about the effectiveness of Total Physical Response (TPR) method in improving vocabulary mastery of elementary school children, and proposes the suggestions for English teachers and for further research.

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD

In this chapter, research method is briefly outlined for this study including research design, variable and hypothesis. This chapter also consists of population and sample, data collection, evaluating test instrument (instrument validity and instrument reliability with discrimination and difficulty index), treatment implementation, data analysis (analyzing data on test score, pretest, posttest, and from observation) and research procedure.

3.1. Brief Explanation to Research Method

Research method is clearly stated by Dawson (2009) as the way or means to gather the data. Meanwhile research, as Creswell (2008) gives meaning, is as a series of actions or steps used to collect and analyze information to enhance our understanding of a topic or issue. Fraenkel and Wallen (1996) express that, the essence of all research originates in curiosity, a desire to know how and why things happen, including why people do the things they do, as well as whether or not certain ways of doing things work better than other ways. In short, research is simply defined as a systematic approach to finding answers to questions (Hatch and Farhady, 1982). Therefore, it can be concluded that research method is the way or means we use to collect the data in our research in order to find the answer of the research problems.

There are three recognized methods for conducting research: quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods (Creswell, 2008; Migiro and Magangi, 2011).

Qualitative research is a term with various meanings in educational Research (Savenye and Robinson, 2003). According to Hancock (1998), qualitative research is concerned with the opinions, experiences and feelings of individuals producing subjective data and it is concerned with developing explanations of social phenomena as they occur naturally and no attempt is made to manipulate the situation under study. Fraenkel & Wallen (1996) refer qualitative research as the research studies that explore the quality of relationships, activities, situations or materials. Moreover this method is given shape by the theory from Dawson

(2009: 14) who states that ―qualitative research explores attitudes, behavior and experiences.‖

Meanwhile, quantitative research is described as empirical, using numeric and quantifiable data (Belli, 2008). Marczyk, DeMatteo, & Festinger (2005: 17),

state, ―Quantitative research involves studies that make use of statistical analysis

to obtain their finding.‖ Experiment is frequently regarded as prime examples of

quantitative research and is evaluated against the strengths and weaknesses of statistical, quantitative research methods and analysis (De Vaus, 2001).

The last one is mixed method. This method involves both collecting and analyzing quantitative and qualitative data (Creswell, & Plano Clark, 2006). Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, and Turner (2007: 112) express,

―mixed method research is as becoming increasingly articulated, attached to research practice, and recognized as the third major research approach or research paradigm, along with qualitative research and quantitative research.‖

Bazeley (2002), argues that when thinking mixed method, in terms of some combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches to research are considered by most social scientists. And according to Bryman (2006: 97) ―There can be little doubt that research involves the integration of quantitative and qualitative

research has become increasingly common in recent years.‖

There are three types of mixed method according to Creswell (2008): 1. triangulation mixed method (equal priority to both quantitative and qualitative data), 2. embedded mixed method (priority to the major form of data collection, e. g., often quantitative data, and secondary status to the supportive form, e. g. often qualitative data collection as additional to the primary form), 3. explanatory mixed method (a priority on quantitative data collection and analysis followed by small qualitative data collection and analysis in the second phase of the research or conversely)

This study used embedded mixed method (combining quantitative and qualitative methods, priority to the major form of quantitative data collection, and secondary status to the supportive form qualitative data collection as additional to the primary form).

3.1.1. Research Design

There are eight research designs often used in educational research as mentioned by Creswell (2008). He states the first three are quantitative, the next three are qualitative, and the final two combine quantitative and qualitative approaches. The designs are: experimental research design, correlational research

design, survey research design, grounded theory design, ethnography design, narrative research design, mixed method design, action research design.

To find out the answer for the first research question, this study used experimental research design. According to Marczyk, DeMatteo, & Festinger

(2005: 3), ―Experiment research involves comparing two groups on one outcome

measure to test some hypothesis regarding causation.‖ In other words, it is a study

in which an intervention is intentionally introduced to observe its effects (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2001). Hatch and Farhady (1982) mention that there are major classes of this design, as can be seen in the table below:

Table 3.1

Major Classes of Experimental Research Design

Class Explanation

Pre-experimental design

It is not really considered model experiments because it does not account of extraneous variables which may have influenced the results.

True experimental design

It has three basic characteristics:

(1) a control group (or groups) is present,

(2) the students are randomly selected and assigned to the groups, and

(3) a pre-test is administered to capture the initial differences between the groups.

Quasi-experimental design

It is practical compromises between true experimentation and the nature of human language behavior to be investigated.

Ex post facto design

It is used when the researcher does not have control over the selection and manipulation of the independent variable. The researcher looks at the type and/or degree of relationship between the two variables rather than at a cause and effect relationship.

Factorial design

It is simply the addition of more variables to the other designs. There will be more than one independent variable (i. e., moderator variables) considered and the variables may have one or many levels.

In this case, the type of experimental research design employed was quasi-experimental design. This design as Fraenkel, & Wallen (1996); Creswell, (2008) state, is an experiment in which units are not assigned randomly. It is two or more intact groups (members of which were not randomly assigned) are compared after one (or more) has been given a specified treatment (Fraenkel, & Wallen, 1996).

Therefore, to know whether TPR method is effective in English vocabulary mastery of elementary school children this study employed a quantitative method research and it used a quasi-experimental design because it did not include the use of random selection involving two groups (control and experiment). For clearer description the design can be seen in the table below:

Table 3.2

Description of Research Design

Experiment Class

Pretest X (treatment with TPR method) Posttest

Control Class Pretest X (treatment with conventional method)

Posttest

Besides using quantitative method involving a quasi-experimental design, this research employed qualitative method conducting observation using field

notes to investigate students‘ responses toward teaching English vocabulary using TPR method. Observation was employed to know students‘ behavior and

responses during the treatment given to the experiment group. The field note was to describe their behavior and responses toward the method during the class. To transcribe, classify and interpret the data from observation, therefore, qualitative approach was used because in this research as according to Nunan (1992: 4),

qualitative research emphasizes ―understanding human behavior from the actor‘s

own frame of reference, naturalistic and uncontrolled observation, subjective close

to the data the ‗insider‘ perspective.‖

3.1.2. Variable

There are two variables involved in this research, independent and dependent variables. Variable according to Hatch and Farhady (1982: 12), ―is as an attribute of a person or of an object, which varies from person to person or

from object to object.‖ They state that independent variable is major variable to be investigated, which is selected, manipulated, and measured by the research. On the other hands, in their opinion, dependent variable is variable to be observed and measured to determine the effect of the independent variable. In line with their

opinion, Lane (2003: 1) mentions variables are as ―properties or characteristics of some event, object, or person that can take on different values or amounts.‖ He

states when conducting research, experimenters often manipulate variables. He further explains that the variable manipulated by an experimenter is named independent variable and dependent variable is the variable when the experimenter seeks to determine the effect of the independent variable.

This research is about the effectiveness of Total Physical Response method in English vocabulary mastery of elementary school children. Therefore the independent variable of this research is Total Physical Response method, and the dependent variable is English vocabulary mastery.

3.1.3. Hypothesis

Hypothesis, according to Marczyk, DeMatteo, & Festinger (2005: 8), is

―simply an educated—and testable—guess to your research question.‖ Based on

their opinion, it can be concluded that hypothesis is prediction about expected relationship between two variables tested in our research.

Null hypothesis (H0)was used in this research as foundation. It means that there will be no differences between groups being studied (Marczyk, DeMatteo, & Festinger, 2005). It would indicate that there was no difference between the

experiment and control group in English vocabulary mastery at the time the pretest had given to both groups.

Alternative hypothesis (Ha), on the other hand, means that there will be difference between groups being studied (Marczyk, DeMatteo, & Festinger, 2005), was used to indicate that there was significant difference between the experiment and control group in English vocabulary mastery at the time the posttest had given to both groups.

3.2. Population and Sample

A ―population‖ consists of all the subjects to be studied and ―sample‖ is a

(smaller) group of subjects which represents a (larger) population (Yount, 2006). The population of this research was elementary school children in one Islamic elementary school in Cibiru Bandung. The sample was students of the first class, class A (21 students) as control group and class B (21 students) as experiment group. The participant, as students involved in this research learnt English only at school and received the subject of very basic English once in a week. Hence the researcher hoped that materials given would be in line with their English capacity.

3.3. Data Collection

The data or kinds of information obtained in this research were collected from the instruments of pretest, observation, and posttest.

3.3.1. Pretest

Pretest in the form of multiple choices with 17 items of vocabularies to be taught was given to both control and experiment group after it had tested to other group as pilot test (pretesting of research instrument), to know the students‘ initial ability in English vocabulary and to make sure that the initial ability of the two groups was not significant difference.

3.3.2. Observation

To get additional data to support the data gained from pretest and posttest, the researcher conducted observation herself during the treatment given to the

experiment group. It was employed to know students‘ behavior and responses

toward teaching English vocabulary using TPR method.

The observation was conducted in this research as it gathers first hand information about social processes in a naturally occurring context as stated by Silverman (1993). Besides, it is emphasized by Merriam (1998) who states that one of the reasons why an investigator gathers data through observation is to observe things which may lead to understanding the context. Moreover, in line with Merriam, Alwasilah (2006) states that observation is performed to make a

conclusion about meaning respondents‘ perspective and event or processes

observed.

In conducting the observation, the researcher used field notes. This instrument was used because the respondents were still the first graders and in order to make them act naturally, so that they would not know that their activities were being recorded. By using this instrument, the researcher hoped that the data

gained would answer the second question of this research, to know the students‘

response to teaching English vocabulary using TPR (Total Physical Response) method.

Field notes here, as Fraenkel & Wallen (1996: 459) state, are as the detailed notes observers take in the educational setting (classroom or school) about what is going on, what they hear, see, experience, and think in the course of collecting and reflecting on their data.

3.3.3. Posttest

Finally, posttest in the form of multiple choices with 17 items of vocabularies the students had learnt was given to both control and experiment

group to know the progress of the students‘ vocabulary mastery. By comparing

the result of pretest and posttest, it would be known whether the use of TPR method was effective or not.

3.4. Evaluating Test Instrument

To gain accurate data, the test instrument used in this research requires the two most important and fundamental characteristics of any measurement procedure, validity and reliability (Miller, 2009). Therefore, to investigate the validity and reliability of the test instrument, pilot test was conducted before implementing it to the research. The pilot test consisted of 20 multiple choice questions (about the subject to be taught to experiment and control groups) and was given to another group, the first grade of one state elementary school in Cibiru Bandung.

3.4.1. Instrument Validity

Miller (2009: 1) defines instrument validity as ―the extent to which the instrument measures what it purports to measure over time or across raters.‖

According to Burton & Mazerolle, (2011: 28), ―It refers to the degree that an

instrument actually measures what it is designed or intended to measure.‖ In other words, it is about finding out if a test actually does measure what is intended (Fulcher and Davidson, 2007; Hughes, 2003).

The validity of each test item as Arikunto (2009: 78) states, can be measured by the technique of Pearson‘s product moment. Therefore, the test instrument validity was measured by the technique above using Anates for multiple choices and can be interpreted by the criteria from Arikunto (2009: 75), in the table below:

Table 3.3

Interpretation of r Coefficient

Raw Score Interpretation 0. 800 – 1.00 Very high 0. 600 – 0.800 High

0.400 – 0.600 Moderate

0.200 – 0.400 Low

The measurement result of the test instrument validity is presented in the subchapter below.

3.4.1.1. The Measurement Result of Test Instrument Validity

The validity of test instrument measured by the technique of Pearson‘s

product moment using Anates for multiple choices is 0.63. Based on the table 3.3, it can be interpreted that the instrument has high validity. To give clearer description, the result of test item validity is also provided in the table below:

Table 3.4

The Result of Test Item Validity

Validity

Item Numbers Score Interpretation

3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

>0.361 Valid

1, 2, 10 <0.361 Invalid

Note: The raw score of validity obtained from rcritical (2 - tailed) in the table of Pearson Moment Correlation with N = 30 and the significance level of 0.05, is 0.361.

Based on the table above, considering the validity of each test item, the items used in the pre-test were 17, number 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20. Whereas, the rest of the items, number 1, 2, 10 are not appropriate to be used as the research test instrument.

Instrument reliability is defined by Miller (2009: 1), ―as the extent to which a questionnaire, test, observation or any measurement procedure produces the same results on repeated trials.‖ According to Burton & Mazerolle, (2011: 27),

―It refers to consistency or repeatability of a test or measurement.‖ In short it is

consistent and dependable (Brown, 2004; Woodley, 2004).

The reliability of the test including discrimination index, ―a measure of

how well an item is able to distinguish between examinees who are knowledgeable and those who are not, or between masters and non-masters,‖

(Professional Testing Inc., 2006: 1) and difficulty index, ―a measure of the

proportion of examinees who answered the item correctly‖ (Professional Testing Inc., 2000: 1) were computed using Anates for multiple choice.

For the reliability of a test, it can be interpreted by the following criteria from Karlik (2002) in the next table.

Table 3.5

r Coefficient Corelation

r Coefficient Corelation

0.0-0.2 very weak or negligible

0.2-0.4 weak or low

0.4-0.7 moderate

0.7-0.9 strong, high, or marked 0.9-1.0, very strong or very high

For discrimination index, according to Arikunto (2009: 218), is

Table 3.6

Criteria of Discrimination Index

Discrimination index Interpretation

0.00 – 0.20 Poor

0.20 – 0.40 satisfactory

0.40 – 0.70 good

0.70 – 1.00 excellent

Moreover, in her opinion for difficulty index, it is often classified as:

Table 3.7

Criteria of Difficulty Index

Difficulty index Interpretation

0.00 – 0.30 difficult

0.30 – 0.70 moderate

0.70 – 1.00 easy

The measurement result of test instrument reliability and the results of discrimination and difficulty index are presented in the subchapter below.

3.4.2.1. The Measurement Result of Test Instrument Reliability

The reliability test instrument measured by the technique of Pearson‘s

it can be interpreted that the instrument has high reliability. In addition, the results of discrimination and difficulty index measured by the same technique are also presented in the next table.

Table 3.8

The Result of Discrimination and Difficulty Index

Discrimination Index

Item Numbers Score Interpretation

1, 10 < 0.20 Poor

2, 4, 17, 9 0.20 – 0.40 Satisfactory 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,

16, 19, 20 0.40 – 0.70

Good

18, 0.70 – 1.00 Excellent

Difficulty Index

8, 10, 12, 14, 17 0.00 – 0.30 Difficult 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19 0.30 – 0.70 Moderate 1, 4, 6, 9, 16, 20 0.70 – 1.00 Easy

Based on the table above, considering the discrimination index of each test item, the item numbers 1 and 10 are not appropriate to be used as the research test instrument as they are poor to be able to distinguish between examinees who are knowledgeable and those who are not, or between masters and non-masters.

For the difficulty index, from 20 test items, 6 items (number 1, 4, 6, 9, 16, and 20) are categorized easy, 9 items (number 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 15, 18, and 19)

are categorized moderate, and 5 items (number 8, 10, 12, 14, and 17) are categorized difficult.

3.5. Data Analyses

3.5.1. Analyzing Data on Test Score

There are two types of formula to analyze score of multiple choice tests, with punishment and without punishment (Arikunto, 2009). In this research, the score was analyzed without punishment with the formula:

S = R

S = raw score,

R = right answer (Arikunto, 2009: 120).

3.5.2. Analyzing Data on Pretest

The pretest was given to both experiment and control group before the treatment (experiment group with TPR method, control group with conventional

method) to know the students‘ initial ability and students‘ initial equality between

the groups and to make sure that the initial ability of the two groups was not significant difference.

The data on pretest were measured by independent t-test, also called a between-subjects t-test to determine if the mean value on a given target variable for one group differs from the mean value on the target variable for a different group (DeCoster, 2004).

According to Hatch & Farhady (1982), in using t-test to compare two groups drawn from the population, they (1982: 114) assume that:

―(1) the subject is assigned to one (and only one) group in the experiment; (2) the scores are continuous and that there are only to levels to the variable (i. e., only two means; (3) the variances of the scores in the population are equal, and the scores are normally distributed.‖

In this case, they state that we need to state null hypothesis (H0, the difference between the two sample means is zero or not significant) and alternative hypothesis (Ha, the difference between the two sample means is significant) and set our significance level at .05.

Next, they (ibid., p. 112) mention that we can find the t value with the following formula:

xe - xc tobs = __________

s(xe – xc)

xe = score mean of experiment group xc = score mean of control group

s(xe – xc) = standard error of differences between the means

At this point, in their opinion, we need the critical value for t to be compared with the t value and if the t value is below t critical, the two groups are not significant difference.

Besides, the data on pretest can be measured by independent t-test using SPSS statistical analysis package with the steps as follows:

Step 1: A statement of statistical hypothesis

Ho : μ1 = μ2 or means for two groups are equal Ha : μ1 ≠ μ 2 (μ1 >μ 2 or μ1 < μ 2)

Step 2: Setting the α level of risk associated with the null hypothesis (or Type I error). The level of Type I error is .05.

Step 3: Test statistic using SPSS Step 4: Interpreting results. (Hayes, 2000)

3.5.3. Analyzing Data on Post-test

The posttest was given to experiment and control groups after the treatment (experiment group with TPR method, control group with conventional

method) to know the progress of the students‘ ability and students‘ equality

between the groups and to make sure that the ability of the two groups was significant difference.

Like the data on pretest, the data on posttest was also measured by independent t-test, also called a between-subjects t-test to determine if the mean value on a given target variable for one group differs from the mean value on the target variable for a different group (DeCoster, 2004). Besides, the data gained from the posttest given to both experiment and control groups were measured by matched t-test to determine whether the difference between the two mean (pretest and posttest) scores of each group was significant.

The procedure for matched t-test according to Hatch & Farhady (1982) is similar to the t-test for independent samples. They (1982: 115) state that ―the

difference is more conceptual rather than computational.‖ To make it clear they

obtained from two independent groups of students, while for matched t-test we compare two means from the same students.

To measure the data using matched t-test, they also imply that we need to state null hypothesis (H0, the difference between the pre-test and post-test means is not significant) and alternative hypothesis (Ha, the difference between the pre-test and post-pre-test means is significant) and set our significance level at .05.

Next, they (ibid., p. 117) mention that we can find the t value with the following formula:

x1 – x2 t = __________

sD

x1 = score mean of pre-test x2 = score mean of post-test

sD = standard error of differences between the means.

At this point, in their opinion, we need the critical value for t to be compared with the t value and if the t value is above t critical, the two groups are significant difference, there is significant difference between the pretest and posttest means. Besides, the data gained from pretest and posttest can be measured by matched t-test using SPSS statistical analysis package with the steps as follows:

Step 1 : A statement of statistical hypothesis

Ho : μ1 = μ2 or means for pretest and posttest are equal Ha : μ1 ≠ μ 2 (μ1 >μ 2 or μ1 < μ 2)

Type I error). The level of Type I error is .05. Step 3 : Test statistic using SPSS

Step 4 : interpreting results. (Hayes, 2000)

3.5.4. Determination of the Effect Size

Determining the effect size is important to know if the statistical test was significant (Creswell, 2008). “Whereas statistical tests of significance tell us the likelihood that experimental results differ from chance expectations, effect-size measurements tell us the relative magnitude of the experimental treatment.‖ (Thalheimer, & Cook, 2002: 2)

In other words, the effect size is a measure of the magnitude of the strength of a relationship between an independent (intervention) and dependent (outcome) variable (Dunst, Hamby, & Trivette, 2004; Marczyk, DeMatteo, & Festinger,

2005; Fraenkel & Wallen, 1996), or as ―a means for identifying the practical

strength of the conclusion about the relationship among variables in a quantitative

study‖ (Creswell 2008: 195). Therefore, according to Thalheimer & Cook (2002),

effect sizes are especially important because they allow us to compare the magnitude of experimental treatments from one experiment to another.

The formula to determine the effect size, as quoted from Rosenthal (1991: 19), is as follows:

r = __________ t2 _______

√ t2 + df

r = correlation coefficient of the effect size t = t value

df = degrees of freedom

with the scale from Cohen‘s (1992, as cited in Thalheimer, & Cook, 2002) is

interpreted in the table below:

Table 3.9

Correlation Coefficient of the Effect Size Scale

Effect size r value

Small .20

Medium .50

large .80

3.5.5. Analyzing Data from Observation

The data obtained by the instrument of observation are qualitative data. Therefore, they are analyzed by using basic concepts of analyzing qualitative data. The data are transcribed, classified and interpreted.

After the pretest had been administered to experiment and control groups and there was no difference of mean statistically between two groups based on t-test calculation, treatment was given to both groups.

In conducting the treatment, the researcher did not do it by herself. There were two teachers who gave the treatment. They taught the same English vocabulary materials (single word vocabulary items) about numbers (1 up to 10), colors (red, yellow, green, blue, brown, black, purple, orange, pink and white), things in the classroom (chair, table, window, door, whiteboard, eraser, clock, broom, lamp and dustbin), animals (bird, cat, dog, monkey, rabbit, cow, fish, snake and horse), and fruits (apple, orange, grape, strawberry, tomato, avocado, banana, melon and watermelon) for eight meetings but the first teacher implemented Total Physical Response method as treatment to experiment group by introducing some language instructions (stand up, follow me, jump, sit down, draw, touch, point to, take, walk to, act like, imitate the sound of, and show us) (the syllabus and lesson plan for this group are enclosed in the appendices). Meanwhile, the other teacher treated conventional method to control group.

3.7.Research Procedures

In conducting this research, the procedure was divided into two phases as follows:

1. Planning the research

- Identifying a research problem

- Planning an experimental research (conducting observation to school and asking permission, making lesson plan, preparing material to be taught and test instrument)

- Conducting pilot test 2. Conducting the research - Conducting the experiment

. pretest to both groups (April 4, 2012)

. treatment with TPR method to experiment group (April 16 – May 28, 2012) . treatment with conventional method to control group (April 12 – May 31,

2012)

. observation to experiment group (April 16 – May 28, 2012) . posttest to both groups (June 2, 2012)

- Analyzing the data and making conclusion

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter presents conclusion and suggestion. The researcher drew the conclusion taken from the result of the research about the effectiveness of Total Physical Response (TPR) method in improving English vocabulary mastery of elementary school children, and proposed the suggestion for English teachers and for further research.

5.1.Conclusion

Based on the result of the analysis in the previous chapter, it can be drawn on conclusion that:

- Total Physical Response (TPR) method is effective in improving English vocabulary mastery of elementary school children, especially for the first grade. It is supported by the posttest result of experiment class is significantly improved after being given TPR method treatment, different from that of control class after being given conventional method treatment.

- TPR method is very suitable for children’s characteristics, as they love moving

around and get bored easily if just sitting on the chair. Moreover, it is supported by their good response toward TPR method.

- TPR method can motivate the children to be interested in learning English vocabulary, as it is entertaining them. It is proven by their being happy, enthusiastic and laughing much during the learning activity.

- TPR method, however, can cause some students reacting over as they are too excited participating in the learning activity.

5.2.Suggestions

Based on the conclusion above, the writer would like to offer some suggestions, they are:

The teachers can use TPR to enrich their teaching method so that they have a variety of methods to be applied in teaching English, especially for teaching English vocabulary for children. Besides, it attempts to reduce the stress students feel when studying foreign language. Therefore, it can motivate and make students ease to learn English.

Meanwhile, the findings revealed some limitations as the research was carried out only to two groups of participants and conducted over a short period of time starting from April 4 – June 2, 2012. Thus, to achieve the representative data, the next researcher can do the similar research in a big scale to more than two groups of participants over much longer schedule, even though, there is an issue of eliminating English in the new curriculum (2013-2014). However, the Minister of Education and Culture, Musliar Kasim, has clarified that English for elementary school in the new curriculum is not eliminated but it is not categorized as compulsory subjects just still as local content subject (Afifah, 2012).

REFERENCES

Adam (2011). The effectiveness of the total physical response technique in motivating students to learn vocabulary. A case study of a year 3 Latin

class. Retrieved 27 May, 2012, from

http://www.classicsteaching.com/research_pdfs/RP37_Adams_2011_F.pdf

Afifah, R. (2012). Sekali lagi ditegaskan, Bahasa Inggris SD tidak dihapus. (2012, November 13. Kompas. Retrieved Februari 1, 2013, from

http://edukasi.kompas.com/read/2012/11/13/11331821/Sekali.Lagi.Ditegas

kan.Bahasa.Inggris.SD.Tak.Dihapus.

Alwasilah, A. C. (2006). Pokoknya kualitatif. Jakarta Pustaka Jaya.

Aminudin (2009). Teaching vocabulary through TPR method to children.

Retrieved March 1, 2012, from

http://aminudin241072.wordpress.com/2009/02/08/teaching-vocabulary-through-tpr-method-to-children/.

Anderson, R. C., & Nagy, W. E. (1993, p. 2). The vocabulary conundrum.

Retrieved June 5, 2012 from

http://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/18019/ctrstreadtechre pv01993i00570_opt.pdf?sequence=1

Arikunto, S. (2009, p. 75). Dasar-dasar evaluasi pendidikan. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.

Asher, J. (1968, p. 38). The total physical response method for Second Language Learning. Retrieved May 28, 2012 from http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD0674868.

Asher, J. (1984, p. 35, 36). Language by command: The Total Physical Response approach to learning language. Context Institute. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC06/Asher.htm.

Asher, J. (2000). Year 2000 update for Total Physical Response. Retrieved, June

12, 2012, from

http://www.languageimpact.com/articles/other/ashertpr.htm.

Bazeley, P. (2002). Issues in mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. Paper Presented at: 1st International Conference - Qualitative Research in Marketing and Management University of Economics and Business Administration, Vienna.

Belli, G. (2008). No experimental quantitative research. Analysis and interpretation in nonexperimental studies. Retrieved June 20, 2012 from

http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/95/04701810/0470181095-1.pdf.

Biemiller, A. (2000). Teaching vocabulary early, direct, and sequential. Retrieved

May 28, 2012, from

http://www.wordsmartedu.com/Biemiller_Teaching_Vocab.pdf.

Birdsong, D. (1999). Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2005). Second language acquisition. London and New York: Routledge.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment principles and classroom practices. New York: Longman.

Bryman, A. (2006, p. 97). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) vol. 6(1) 97–113.

Burton, L. J., & Mazerolle, S., M. (2011). Survey instrument validity part I: principles of survey instrument development and validation in athletic training education research. Athl Train Educ Journal, 6(1):27-35.

Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Chung, T. M., & Nation, I. S. P. (2003). Technical vocabulary in specialised texts. Reading in a Foreign Language. Volume 15, No. 2,

Clarke, P. (2009, p. 13). Supporting children learning English as a second language in the early years (birth to six years). Victorian Curriculum and

Assessment Authority. Retrieved May 27, 2012, from

http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/earlyyears/supporting_children_learning_esl.p dfhttp://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/earlyyears/supporting_children_learning_esl .pdf.

Cook, B. S. (2001). What is TPR? Retrieved April 9, 2012, from

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2006). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Cresswell, J. W. (2008, p. 1). Educational research: Planing, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Third edition, Upper Saddle Creek, NJ:Pearson Education, Inc.

Dawson, C. (2009, p. 14). Introduction to research methods. London: How to Book Ltd.

DeCoster, J. (2004). Data analysis in SPSS. Retrieved August 10, 2012 from http://www.stat-help.com/notes.html

De Vaus, D. A. (2001). Research design in social research. London: SAGE. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Creating a motivating classroom environment. In Jim

Cummins and Chris Davison (Editors) International Handbook of English Language Teaching (p. 719-731). New York, USA: Springer Science+Business Media.

Dunst, C. J., Hamby, D. W., & Trivette, C. M. (2004). Guidelines for Calculating Effect Sizes for Practice-Based Research Syntheses. Centerscope. 3(1), p. 1 – 10.

Edisonyusman (2011, p. 1). Teaching English for young learner. Retrieved April

9, 2012, from

http://edisonyusman.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/teaching-english-for-young-learner/.

Elizabeth (2010). Methods of teaching English. Discovery Publishing House. Ellis, R. (1996). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University

Press.

Evan. (2011, n. p.). Total Physical Response. Retrieved February 9, 2012 from http:// blog.hhereareyourkeys.org/2011/01/10/4-total-physical-response=tpr-top-20-techniques-of-wayk/

Fatmawati. (2011). Teaching Mathematics using two-languages. Retrieved Mei 3, 2012 from http://lovewatergirl.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/teaching-mathematics-using-two-languages/

Fegen, N. (2006). What is IMS vocabulary definition exchange? Retrieved June 8, 2012 from http://metadata.cetis.ac.uk/guides/WhatIsVDEX.pdf

Fillmore, L. W. and Snow, C. (2000). What teachers need to know about language. Washington D.C.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.

Folse, K. S. (2004). Myths about teaching and learning second language vocabulary: What recent research says. TESL Reporter 37(2), p 1-13. Folse. K. S. (2008). Six Vocabulary Activities for the English Language

Classroom. English Teaching Forum no 3. Retrieved June 11, 2012 from http://exchanges.state.gov/englishteaching/forum/archives/docs/08-46-3-c.pdf

Fraenkel J. R., & Wallen N. E. (1996, p. 7, 459). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraww-Hill, Inc.

Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (2007). Language testing and assessment: An advanced resource book. London and New York: Routledge.

Glisan, E. (2008). TPR: a technique for teaching all skills in Spanish. American Council on the teaching of Foreign Language.

Halliwell, S. (1992, p. 3). Teaching English in the primary school. London: Longman.

Hancock, B. (1998). Trent Focus for Research and Development in Primary Health Care: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Trent Focus, University of Nottingham

Harmer, J. (2001, p. 38). The practice of English language teaching. Longman. Harmer, J. (2007). How to teach English. Essex: Pearson Longman.

Hatch, E., & Farhady, H. (1982). Research design and statistics for applied linguistics. Rowley, Mass. : Newbury House Publishers, Inc.

Hayes, A. F (2000). Research method and statistics. Lecture and commentary

notes. Retrieved July 12, 2012 from

http://www.une.edu.au/WebStat/unit_materials/c6_common_statistical_tes ts/independent_samples_t.html

Head, A. (n. d., n. p.). Total Physical Response. Retrieved Mei 21, 2012 from http:// mindsowncommunications.wikispaces.com/.../...

Hsu, H., & Lin, C. (2012). The effects of total physical response on English functional vocabulary learning for resource classroom students in the elementary school (National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan).

Abstract retrieved February 9, 2012 from

http://conference.nie.edu.sg/paper/new converted/0600466.pdf.

Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Istiqomah (2011). Globalisasi dan Bahasa Inggris. Retrieved April 9, 2012, from

http://www.psb-psma.org/taxonomy/term/230/0.

Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60-99. Retrieved May 31, 2012 from http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~siegler/JohnsnNewprt89.pdf.

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1; 112. Sage Publication.

Jurickova, O. (2006). Teaching English vocabulary to children with specific learning difficulties (Thesis, Pardubice University, 2006). Retrieved Mei 3, 2012 from http://dspace.upce.cz/bitstream/10195/23901/1/D16163.pdf

Karlik, S. J. (2002). Exploring and summarizing radiologic data. Retrieved Jully 10, 2012 from http://www.ajronline.org/content/180/1/47.full.

Kennedy, A. (2000). Total Physical Response: An innovative strategy for the second language classroom. Retrieved Mei 16, 2012 from

http://www.southalabama.edu/coe/bset/dempsey/isd613/stuproj/summer00

is/angelakennedy.pdf.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press Inc.

Lane, D. (2003). Independent and dependent variables. Retrieved June 30, 2012, from http://cnx.org/content/m10802/latest/.

Larsen, D., and Freeman. (1986). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lefever, S. (2007). English for very young learners. Retrieved May 28, 2012 from

Levine, L. N. (2005). Unique characteristics of young learners. Retrieved May 28,

2012 from

http://home.comcast.net/~educo-atlanta/Handouts05/UniqueCharacteristics_HO_LNLTESOLArabia05.pdf. Letalova, T. (2011). English versus mother tongue in primary English classes

(Thesis, Masaryk University BRNO). Retrieved Mei 16, 2012 from

http://is.muni.cz/th/174392/pedf_m/thesis.pdf

Lewis, B. (2012). TLM – Teaching/learning materials. Retrieved Juni 8, 2012 from http://k6educators.about.com/od/educationglossary/g/gtlm.htm. Liebling, C. R. (1984). Creating the classroom’s communicative context: How

parents, teachers and microcomputer can help. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc.

Lin, Y. (2007, p. 5). General perspectives on EFL vocabulary acquisition and

teaching. Retrieved May 27, 2012 from

http://ir.lib.au.edu.tw/bitstream/987654321/681/1/019604121139.pdf. Louwerse, M. (2001). Encouraging classroom language use. Retrieved Mei 16,

2012 from

http://www.eltnews.com/features/kids_world/2001/06/encouraging_classro om_language.html

Marinova-Todd, S. H., Marshall, D. B., & Snow, C. E. (2000, p. 9). Three misconceptions about age and L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 34( 1), pp. 9-34.

Marczyk, G., DeMatteo, D., & Festinger D. (2005, p. 17). Essentials of research design and methodology. Hoboken, New Jersey. John Willey & Sons, Inc. Maroto, L. M. P., Garrido, C. S., & Fuentes, E. M. (n.d., n. p.). TPR and activities

in the language class room. Retrieved February 9, 2012 from http://www4.ujaen.es/-gluque/TPR_presentation.pdf.

Mastromarco, A. (n. d.). Learning Italian at school with TPR by playing, creating, and doing: An Italian version of Total Physical Response. Retrieved June 12, 2012 from http://www.tpr-world.com/Learning_Italian.pdf

Matondang, M. E. (2005). Menumbuhkan minat belajar bahasa Inggris anak. Jurnal Pendidikan Penabur - No.05/ Th.IV/ Desember, 129.

McCharten, J. (2007, p. 26). Teaching vocabulary. Cambridge University Press. McCloskey, M. L. (2003). Principles and best practices for teaching English to

http://home.comcast.net/~mlmccloskey/Handouts03/Principles_of_ESL_A rkansas.pdf.

Merriam, S. B. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Migiro, S. O., and Magangi, B. A. (2011). Mixed methods: A review of literature and the future of the new research paradigm. African Journal of Business Management Vol.5 (10), pp. 3757-3764, 18 May 2011

Miller, M. J. (2009, p. 1). Reliability and validity. Retrieved July 5, 2012 from http://michaeljmillerphd.com/res500_lecturenotes/reliability_and_validity. pdf.

Moeslichaton, R. (2004). Metode pengajaran di taman kanak-kanak. Cet ke 2, Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Mora, J. K. (2010). Second-language teaching method: principles and

procedures. Retrieved February 8, 2012 from

http://www.moramodules.com/ALLMethods.htm.

Muhren, A. (2003, p. 1). Total Physical Response (TPR): An effective language learning method at beginner intermediate levels. Retrieved February 8,

2012 from

http://www.hik.se/dokument/.%5Chumsam%5Cengelska%5Cengfteach20

p%5Cyoung/primer_tpr.pdf.

Munoz, M. E. (2011, p. 33). Teaching English vocabulary to third graders through the application of the total physical response method (Thesis, Universidad Tecnologica De Pereira, 2011). Retrieved Mei 17, 2012 from

http://recursosbiblioteca.utp.edu.co/tesisdigitales/texto/4281M971.pdf

Musthafa, B. (2010).

Teaching English to young learners

in Indonesia: Essential requirements

. Educationist

Journal IV(2), p. 120 – 125.

Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nation, P. (2005, p. 47). Teaching Vocabulary. The Asian EFL Journal, 7(3), p. 47.

Neupane, G. (2008). Act, don't explain: Total Physical Response at work. Journal of NELTA Vol. 13 No. 1-2

Levine, L. N. (2005). Unique characteristics of young learners. Retrieved May 28,

2012 from

http://home.comcast.net/~educo-atlanta/Handouts05/UniqueCharacteristics_HO_LNLTESOLArabia05.pdf. Letalova, T. (2011). English versus mother tongue in primary English classes

(Thesis, Masaryk University BRNO). Retrieved Mei 16, 2012 from

http://is.muni.cz/th/174392/pedf_m/thesis.pdf

Lewis, B. (2012). TLM – Teaching/learning materials. Retrieved Juni 8, 2012 from http://k6educators.about.com/od/educationglossary/g/gtlm.htm. Liebling, C. R. (1984). Creating the classroom’s communicative context: How

parents, teachers and microcomputer can help. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc.

Lin, Y. (2007, p. 5). General perspectives on EFL vocabulary acquisition and

teaching. Retrieved May 27, 2012 from

http://ir.lib.au.edu.tw/bitstream/987654321/681/1/019604121139.pdf. Louwerse, M. (2001). Encouraging classroom language use. Retrieved Mei 16,

2012 from

http://www.eltnews.com/features/kids_world/2001/06/encouraging_classro om_language.html

Marinova-Todd, S. H., Marshall, D. B., & Snow, C. E. (2000, p. 9). Three misconceptions about age and L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 34( 1), pp. 9-34.

Marczyk, G., DeMatteo, D., & Festinger D. (2005, p. 17). Essentials of research design and methodology. Hoboken, New Jersey. John Willey & Sons, Inc. Maroto, L. M. P., Garrido, C. S., & Fuentes, E. M. (n.d., n. p.). TPR and activities

in the language class room. Retrieved February 9, 2012 from http://www4.ujaen.es/-gluque/TPR_presentation.pdf.

Mastromarco, A. (n. d.). Learning Italian at school with TPR by playing, creating, and doing: An Italian version of Total Physical Response. Retrieved June 12, 2012 from http://www.tpr-world.com/Learning_Italian.pdf

Matondang, M. E. (2005). Menumbuhkan minat belajar bahasa Inggris anak. Jurnal Pendidikan Penabur - No.05/ Th.IV/ Desember, 129.

McCharten, J. (2007, p. 26). Teaching vocabulary. Cambridge University Press. McCloskey, M. L. (2003). Principles and best practices for teaching English to

http://home.comcast.net/~mlmccloskey/Handouts03/Principles_of_ESL_A rkansas.pdf.

Merriam, S. B. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Migiro, S. O., and Magangi, B. A. (2011). Mixed methods: A review of literature and the future of the new research paradigm. African Journal of Business Management Vol.5 (10), pp. 3757-3764, 18 May 2011

Miller, M. J. (2009, p. 1). Reliability and validity. Retrieved July 5, 2012 from http://michaeljmillerphd.com/res500_lecturenotes/reliability_and_validity. pdf.

Moeslichaton, R. (2004). Metode pengajaran di taman kanak-kanak. Cet ke 2, Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Mora, J. K. (2010). Second-language teaching method: principles and

procedures. Retrieved February 8, 2012 from

http://www.moramodules.com/ALLMethods.htm.

Muhren, A. (2003, p. 1). Total Physical Response (TPR): An effective language learning method at beginner intermediate levels. Retrieved February 8,

2012 from

http://www.hik.se/dokument/.%5Chumsam%5Cengelska%5Cengfteach20 p%5Cyoung/primer_tpr.pdf.

Munoz, M. E. (2011, p. 33). Teaching English vocabulary to third graders through the application of the total physical response method (Thesis, Universidad Tecnologica De Pereira, 2011). Retrieved Mei 17, 2012 from

http://recursosbiblioteca.utp.edu.co/tesisdigitales/texto/4281M971.pdf

Musthafa, B. (2010).

Teaching English to young learners

in Indonesia: Essential requirements

. Educationist

Journal IV(2), p. 120 – 125.

Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nation, P. (2005, p. 47). Teaching Vocabulary. The Asian EFL Journal, 7(3), p. 47.

Neupane, G. (2008). Act, don't explain: Total Physical Response at work. Journal of NELTA Vol. 13 No. 1-2

Nugrahaningsih, N. (2007). The use of Total Physical Response (TPR) method in English preposition teaching (Skripsi, Universitas Negeri Semarang, 2007). Retrieved February 8, 2012 from http://www.scribd.com/doc. Nunan, D. (1992, p. 4). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (2003, p. 591). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asia-Pacific region. TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 37, No. 4 p. 589 – 614.

Octaviany. (2007). The application of TPR in teaching English vocabulary to the fourth graders of SD Negeri 04 Krajankulon Kaliwungu Kendal in the academic year of 2006/2007 (Skripsi, Universitas Negeri Semarang, 2007). Retrieved February 8, 2012 from http://lib.unnes.ac.id/1405/

Pearson, P. D., Hiebert, L. H., & Kamil, M. L. (2007). Vocabulary assessment: What we know and what we need to learn. Reading Research Quarterly Vol. 42, No. 2.

Phillips, S. (1993, p. 3). Young learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pribilova (2006). Teaching vocabulary to young learners (Thesis, Masaryk University, 2006). Retrieved Mei 18, 2012 from

http://is.muni.cz/th/29895/pedf_b/Final_Thesis.pdf

Professional Testing Inc. (2000, p. 1). Conduct the item analysis. Retrieved July 12, 2012, from http://www.proftesting.com/test_topics/pdfs/steps_9.pdf. Pupo, R., & Celani, G. (2007). Trends in graduate research on IT & Architecture:

a qualitative comparison of tendencies in Brazil and abroad. Retrieved May 24, 2012, from http://www.fec.unicamp.br/~lapac/papers/pupo-celani-2007.pdf

Renatha, A. K. (2009). A comparative study between FAIES and grammar translation method in teaching English vocabulary at LPIA (Skripsi, Universitas Gunadarma, 2009) retrieved March 1, 2012 from

http://papers.gunadarma.ac.id/index.php/letter/article/view/2301.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers. (1987, p. 87, 90, 92, 95). Approaches and methods in language teaching. US: Cambridge University Press.

Richard, J. C., & Rodger, T. S. ((2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Second edition. Cambridge University Press.

Rodgers, T. S. (2001, p. 1). Language teaching methodology. Retrieved Mei 20, 2012 from http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/digest_pdfs/rodgers-methods-paper.pdf.

Rosenthal, Robert (1991, p. 19) Meta-analytic procedures for social research (revised). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Sad, S. N. (2010, n. p.). Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies Vol.6, No.2, October Theory–practice dichotomy: Prospective teachers' evaluations about teaching English to young learners.

Sakhaweti, F. A. H. (2004). The use of TPR as a classroom management strategy. Retrieved June 1, 2012 from http://marifa.hct.ac.ae/files/2011/06/The-use-of-Total-Physical-Response-as-a-Classroom-Management-Strategy.pdf Samudra, M., Kuswardono, A. A., & Idayanie, L. N. (1999). Bukan pelajaran

hafalan. TEMPO online. Retrieved May 30, 2012 from

http://majalah.tempointeraktif.com/id/arsip/1999/02/23/PDK/mbm.199902 23.PDK93658.i.html.

Sano, M. (1982). How to incorporate Total Physical Response into the English programme. ELT Journal Volume 40/4 p. 270-278 October 1986 © Oxford University Press 1986.

Savenye, W. C., & Robinson, R. S. (2003). Qualitative research issues and methods: an introduction for educational technologists. In (ed.) Jonessen, D. Handbook for Research in Educational Communications and Technology, 2nd. Edition. New York: Erlbaum Pub. and Bloomington, IN: AECT.

Schindler, A. (2006, p. 2). Channeling children’s energy through vocabulary activities. English Teaching Forum, 44 (2), 8-12.

Schmitt, N. (2008). Teaching vocabulary. Pearson Education. Retrieved Mei 3, 2012 from http://longmanhomeusa.com/content/FINAL-HIGH%20RES-Schmitt-Vocabulary%20Monograph%20.pdf.

Scott, W. A., & Lisbeth H. Y. (1993). Teaching English to children. London: Longman, Inc.

Scott, W. A., & Ytreberg, L. H. (1990, p. 1- 2). Teaching English to children. New York: Longman.

Sedita, J. (2005, p.33). Effective vocabulary instruction. Published in “Insights on Learning Disabilities” 2(1) 33-45.

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2001). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston:: Houghton Mifflin.

Shearon, B. (2005, p. 3). James Asher'sTotal Physical Response -A short introduction- Retrieved Mei 18, 2012 from http://www.c-english.com/files/tpr.pdf.

Shin, J. K. (2006). Ten helpful ideas for teaching English to young learners. English Teaching Forum, 44 (2), 2-13.

Shin, J. K. (2009). Teaching English to young learners. Retrieved June 7, 2012 from

http://202.29.33.54/portal/data_resource/NEWS/2009/INSIDE/FILE/1232 942687_087864500.pdf

Silver, M., Adelman, B., & Price, E. (2003). Total physical response: A curriculum for adults. Retrieved Mei 16, 2012 from http://www.springinstitute.org/Files/tpr4.pdf

Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data. Great Britain: Sage Publication.

Slattery, M. (2004, p. 72). Vocabulary activities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Snow, C. E., & Hoefnagel-Hohle, M. (1978, p.117). The critical period for language acquisition: Evidence from second language learning source. Child Development, Vol. 49, No. 4 (Dec., 1978), pp. 1114-1128. Stable URL.

Sophaktra, U. (2009). Total Physical Response (TPR). Retrieved February 8, 2012, from http:// www.scribd.com/doc/23194878/Total-physical-Response-TPR.

Sukamerta, I. M. (2011). Implementasi kebijakan pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris pada sekolah dasar di kota Denpasar (Disertasi, Universitas Udayana,

2011). Retrieved Mei 3, 2012 from

http://pps.unud.ac.id/disertasi/pdf_thesis/unud-27-191558789-bab%201-3.pdf.

Suyanto, K. E. (2004). Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris di sekolah dasar: kebijakan, implementasi, dan kenyataan. Retrieved May 27, 2012 from http://118.97.219.90/images/stories/pidatogurubesar/Pidato%20Guru%20B esar%20Prof.%20Kasihani%20E.%20Suyanto,%20M.A.,%20Ph.pdf

Thalheimer, W., & Cook, S. (2002). How to calculate effect sizes from published research articles: A simplified methodology. A Work-Learning Research Publication. Retrieved August 18, from www.work-learning.com/effect_sizes.htm.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language. (2000). Houghton

Mifflin Company. Retrieved Mei 18, 2012 from

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/vocabulary

Thirumalai, M. S. (2002). Some language teaching methods. TESOL Teaching English to Speakers of other Languages 2.

Tsai, K. (2010). The effects of Total Physical Response on English words learning for moderately mentally challenged students in elementary school. Retieved May 19, 2012 from ethesys.yuntech.edu.tw/ETD.../getfile?...

Webster (n. d., n. p.). Retrieved Mei 18, 2012 from http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Widodo, H. P. (2005). Teaching children using a Total Physical Response (TPR) method: Rethinking. BAHASA DAN SENI, 33 (2), pp 235-238.

Woodley, A. (2004). Getting and analysing quantitative data. Columbia: Commonwealth of Learning.

Wolfe, D. E., & Jones, D. (1982). Integrating Total Physical Response strategy in a level I Spanish class. Foreign Language Annals, 14(4), p. 273 - 279.

Yauri, A. M. (2007). Problematika pengajaran Bahasa Inggris pada madrasah ibtidaiyah di Watampone Sulawesi Selatan. Jurnal Ichsan Gorontalo, 2 ( 3), pp 1133.

Yount, W. R. (2006). Research Design and Statistical Analysis for Christian Ministry (4th ed.). Texas: W. R. Yount.

Yulianto, A. (2009, p. 3). A comparative study on teaching vocabulary using GTM and TPR method to the fifth year students in SD N I Ngadirojo

retrieved Mei 11, 2012 from

http://etd.eprints.ums.ac.id/3491/1/A320010239.pdf

Zimmerman, C. B. (1997). Historical trends in second language vocabulary instruction. In Coady, J., & Huckin, T. (1997). Second language vovabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.