THE USE OF COMMUNICATIVE ACTIVITIES IN TEACHING SPEAKING TO THE SECOND SMESTER STUDENTS OF STIKES (HYGIENE COLLEGE) PANAKKUKANG MAKASSAR

  

THE USE OF COMMUNICATIVE ACTIVI TIES IN TEACHI NG SPEAKING TO

THE SECOND SMESTER STUDENTS OF STIKES ( HYGIENE COLLEGE)

PANAKKUKANG MAKASSAR

  

Muliaty Ibr ahim

  STKIP MEGA REZKY MAKASSAR Email:

  

ABSTRACT

  This r esear ch employed quasi exper imental design. The sample consisted of 69 students to the second semester students of nur ses’ students of STIKES panakkukang Makassar , in 2010/ 2011 academic year . Thi s r esearch used cluster r andom sampli ng.The r esear ch data w ere collected using inter view . The speaking test w as given in the for m of inter view by pre-test and post-test on speaking test and analyzed by using SPSS 17.0 ver sion to see the signifi cant di ffer ence betw een pr e-test and post-test and to know the students’ linguistic problems in speaking English. The r esul t of the data analysi s show ed that ther e w as signifi cant difference betw een the students’ scor e w ho w er e taught by usi ng communicative activities and w ithout communicative activities. It w as pr oved by the mean scor e of the exper i mental class w as higher than contr ol class in the posttest (72.500 > 65.885).Based on the result of analysis the r esearcher concluded that the use of communicative activities i s effecti ve in teaching speaking to the second semest er students of STIKES Panakkukang Makassar . Key wor ds: communicati ve, vocabular y, gr ammatical er r or , mother tongue and pronunci ation w or ds.

  Intr oduction

  Ther e ar e some acti vities to sti mulate l earner s, oral inter action in the classroom: lear ni ng by games, lear ning by doing, w atching televi sion, going on excursion, pictur es, film, video, l isten to the songs, r eading new spaper , conver sation, and contact with native speaker , talki ng about inter est and talking to fr iends. In communicative activities, the students of STIKES Makassar ar e not speechless, but they w ill find themselves ready to speak. That is because of mor e pr actices stimulate them. The students ar e engaged in l earning pr ocess and subsequently they wi ll do most of the w or d and put the r esponsibi lity or ganizing w hat i s to be l ear ned. Teaching speaki ng is not easy, mor eover if the students do not use English in their daily as w ell. The students w ill not have cour age to speak w ithout enough knowl edge and braver y. Besides, there ar e many aspect s that discour age the students to speak.In this case the r esear cher hopes that the students can i mpr ove thei r ability in master Engli sh, especi ally in speaking ski ll. The r esear cher w ants to find a solution to over come the problem thr ough an appropr iate method i n teaching speaking to the students i s r eally i mpor tant especi ally for nur sing students STIKES Panakkukang Makassar w hose speaking ski ll still belong to the nur ses’ students that, r esear cher t akes the use of communicative activities in teachi ng speaking.

  LITERATURE REVIEW The concept of speaking

  In Teaching speaking skil l, the teacher should know the teaching speaking pr inciples i n or der to teach English well. Westw ood, peter , and Oliver (1979) stated that the princi ples of oral l anguage ar e as follow s: 1.

  Cr eate an enjoyable enter taining, soci al lear ning situation, which gives pleasur e to the students. Teacher per sonali ty i s a vital factor

  2. Keep the small gr oup w or kup, nor mor e than fi ve or si x students; 3.

  Ar r ange for fr agment, intensi ve sections in two or thr ee shor t sessions daily; 4. Ensur e active par ticipation remember ing that is w hat a student pr actices sayi ng not w hat he hear s, that impr oves communicating abi lity;

  5. Have cl earl y defi ned, shor t term goals for each sessions: teaching a cer tai n

  adjective, adver b, or conjunction: ‘and’ and ‘but’; 6. Obser ve the slow lear ner s and give some degr ee of r epetition and our lear ning if necessar y;

  7. Use mater ial such as pr actices and games t o hold attention as the basis for

  language si mul ation; 8. Use pleasur e and pr aise as r einfor ces;

  Speaking i s making use w or ds in an ordinar y voice, utter ing w or ds, know ing and bei ng able to use language; expr essing one in wor ds; making speech. Whil e skil l is the abi lity to do something w el l. Ther efor e, w e can infer that speaking is the abili ty to make use of w or ds or a language to expr ess oneself in an or dinar y voi ce. In shor t, the speaki ng skill i s the abi lity to per for m the li nguistics know ledge in actual communication. The ability functions to expr ess our ideas, feeling, thoughts, and need or ally (Hor nby. 1995: 826). Speaking is al so one of the language ar t s that ar e most fr equently used by peopl e all over the w or ld. The ar t of speaking i s ver y complex. It r equi res the si multaneous use of the number of abiliti es w hich often develop at differ ent r ates. Accor ding to Syakur ther e ar e at l east fi ve components of speaki ng skill concerned with compr ehension, gr ammar , vocabular y, pr onunciation, and fluency (Syakur , 1987: 3).

  Communicative Activities

  Ri char ds (2006) states that communicative activities in l anguage teaching r efer s to activities w her e pr acti ce i n using l anguage w ithin a r eal communicative context is the focus, w here pr actice in suing language w ithin a r eal communicative context is the focus, w her e r eal i nfor mation is exchanged, and w her e the language used is not totally predi ctable. In communication activities, the students ar e expected to use the language that they have l earned. The students ar e able to talk thei r ow n lives and interest, to expr ess opinions, to i magine themselves in differ ent situation. So thi s st age is the most i mpor tant one in l anguage classroom for the students. The students should gi ve feedback and can do their best to use the language. Har mer (1991:50) points out that ar e somehow involved in activities that give them both the desi r e to communicate and a pur pose w hich involves them a vari ed of language. So, a str essed poi nt in this sense about the use of the students’ own language duri ng pr actice and communicati ve activities.

a. The Pur pose of Communi cative Act ivit i es

  Accor ding to Littlewood(1988:31), ther e ar e four main pur poses of communicative activities, those ar e: 1) They provide “w hole-task pr actice”

  2) They Impr ove Motivation as Wel l as Interest 3) They Allow Natur al Lear ni ng 4) They Can Cr eate a Context w hich Supports l ear ning

b. Type of Or al Communicat ive Act ivit ies

  Har mer (1991:122) designs communicative activi ti es to provoke or al communicati on or speaking ar e di scussion, pair w or k, communication games, si mul ation and r ole-play. 1) Di scussion Many teacher s can hear complai ning that their students ‘have nothing to say have’: they complai n, for example, that they have no opini ons and ar e not pr epar ed to discuss anythi ng. 2) Pair Wor k In pair acti vities, the teacher divi des the w hole class i nto pair that the students ar e to w or k i n tw o’s together . Every student wor k w ith his/ her par tner , and al l the pair s w or k at the same ti me. 3) Communication Games Language lear ning is har d w or k. Effor t i s r equir ed at ever y moment and must be maintained over a long peri od of ti me. 4) Simulation and Role-play Between four activi ties above, this r esear ch only concern w ith the teaching techni ques is used by the teacher, especially the use of communicative activiti es of si mul ation and r ole-play to impr ove the students’ speaking skill.

  METHODOLOGY This r esear chuses quasi exper i ment al method w hi ch involves tw o gr oups (Gay, 2006:258).

  They ar e exper iment al and contr ol gr oups. Both of gr oups have taught by usi ng Communicative activities in impr oving the students’ speaking skill at the fi rst nur ses’ students of STIKES Panakkukang Makassar. The design i s r epr esented as fol low s:

  E O

  1 O

  1 X

  2 C O

  X O

  1

  2

  2 Figur e 2. Desi gn of the r esear ch

  Wher e: E = The Exper imental gr oup C = The contr ol gr oups O = Pr e-test

  1 O = Post-test

  2 X1 = The tr eatment by Communicative Activities

  X2 = The tr eatment w ithout Communicative Activities

  Population and Sample 1 . Population

  The population of this r esearch consi sted of the second semester students of STIKES Panakkukang Makassar in 2010/ 2011 academic year . It consi sts of four classes, each consists of 35 students. So the total number of population is 140 students.

  2 . Sample

  The popul ation w as absolutely big in number, then not all of them can be involved as the subject of this study. In this case a cluster r andom sampling technique w as used. The gr oup of samples was selected r andomly.

  Instr ument of the Resear ch

  The instr uments used to collect data consisted of tw o kinds of instr ument. They are as follows: speaking test and interview.

  Pr ocedure of Collecting Data

  1. Pr etest

  2. Tr eat ment

  3. Posttest

  FINDING AND DISCUSSION Findings

  This section deals w ith the pr esentati on of the effectiveness of the use communicative activities in teaching speaking.

  1 . The Effectiveness of the Use of Communicative Activities in Teaching Speaking

  a. Scoring Classifi cation of Students’ pr etest In this section, the r esear cher pr esents fr equency and per centage of the students’ scor e on speaking. The students’ scor e on speaking test wer e analyzed in getting the fr equency and per cent age of the students’ achievement in speaki ng as can be seen in the follow ing:

Table 4.1. The Fr equency and Per centage of the Students’ Achievement on Pretest

  Exper imental Gr oup Control Gr oup Cl assification Scor e

  F % F % Excellent 96 – 100 Ver y Good 86 – 95 Good 76 – 85

  2

  5.7 Fair ly Good 66 – 75

  10

  28.6

  6

  17.2 Fair 56 – 65

  10

  28.6

  12

  34.4 Poor 36 – 55

  4

  11.5

  11

  31.7 Ver y Poor 00 – 35

  8

  22.9

  6

  17.1 Total 34 100 35 100 Tabl e 4.1 above shows that the classi fications of students’ scor e in pr e-test to r esult for exper i ment al gr oup most of them w er e in fair l y good and fair categor y, 2 (5.7%) students good, 10 (28.6%) students got fai rl y good, 10 (28.6%) students got fair , 4 (11.5%) students got poor, and 8 (22.9%) students got ver y poor . On contr ol gr oup, the findings indi cated that the students’ speaking class, ther e w er e 12 (34.4%) students got fair , 11 (31.7%) students got poor, 6 (17.1%) students got very poor , and 6 (17.1%) students got fairl y good. It means that the classes w er e almost the same. Both of them w er e classified in poor and ver y poor category. After giving pr e-test to the exper imental gr oup and contr ol gr oup, the r esearcher gave them tr eatment. The exper imental gr oup w as taught using communicative activities method and control gr oup w as taught by conventional method. The tr eatment w as hel d for six meetings. At the last meeting, the r esear cher gave them post-test to know w hether ther e would be the students’ scor e impr ovement to both gr oup fr om pr e-test to post-test. The cl assification of students’ scor e i n post-test is show n in the follow ing tabl e.

Table 4.2. The Fr equency and Per centage of the Students’ Achievement on posttest for Exper iment al and Control gr oup

  Exper imental Gr oup Contr ol Gr oup Classification Score

  F % F % Excellent 96 – 100 Ver y Good 86 – 95

  3

  8.6 Good 76 – 85

  10

  25.7

  3

  8.6 Fair ly Good 66 – 75

  11

  31.5

  11

  31.6 Fair 56 – 65

  11

  31.5

  21

  60 Poor 36 – 55 Ver y Poor 00 – 35 Total 34 100 35 100

  Tabl e 4.2 above shows that the cl assifications of students’ scor e in post-test to both gr oups ar e differ ent. In exper imental gr oup w as impr oved, 3 (8.6%) students got ver y good, 10 (25.7%) students got good, 11 (31.5%) students got fai r ly good, 11 (31.5%) students got fair , and none of them was classified as poor and very poor . On the other hand, i n contr ol class, only 3 (8.6%) students w er e able to get good, 11 (31.6%) students w er e able to get fai rly good, 21 (60%) students w ere able to get fair , and none of them w as classi fied as ver y poor .

  b. The Mean Scor e and St andard Deviation of Students’ pr etest After calculating the results of the students’ pre-test show ed that the contr ol gr oup w as higher than the exper imental gr oup. It is show ed i n the table below:

Table 4.3 The Mean Scor e and St andar d Devi ation of Sstudents’ Pretest

  Gr oup Mean Scor e Standar d Deviati on Exper iment 54.529 16.732

  Contr ol 52.829 13.650 Tabl e 4.3. showed that the mean score of students’ pr e-test of exper imental gr oup, 54.529 i s categor ized as poor cl assification and contr ol gr oup, 52.829 is also categori zed as poor classifi cation. Based on the table above, the r esear cher concl uded that the students’ mean scor e of experi mental gr oup i s the same w ith contr ol group. In other w or ds, means scor e of the students betw een exper i mental and control gr oup w as r elati vely the same, it i s i ndicated that they have the same productivity befor e they ar e given tr eatments. Gay (2006: 124) states, w hen var iables have equal inter val, it i s assumed that the difference betw een a scor e of 30 and a scor e of 40 is essentiall y the same. To know the students’ mean scor e of post-test is differ ence, w e should decide w hether or not it is stati stically significant. In or der to answ er such question, the r esear cher appl ies. Independent sampl e t-test anal yses by using SPSS 17.0 (Appendix 10).

Table 4.4 The Independent Sample T-test of the Students’ Pr etest

  Var i able Pr obability Val ue

  α

  Pr e-test .05 .645 Tabl e 4.4 above indicated that the st atistical hypothesis is based on st atistics test in asymptote. Sig (2-tailed), i n r el ation to the finding of pr e-test, .645 w as gr eater than .05. This means that H i s acceptable or H i s r ejected

  1 in significant level of α .05. Those

  exper i ment al and contr ol gr oup have the same or relatively the same abi lity i n speaki ng befor e tr eat ment. In other w or ds, ther e w as not si gnificant different bet w een pr e-test of both gr oup. Since the based level of students pr e-test was at the same level, the tr eatment w as then conducted to both gr oups. The experi mental gr oup w as taught by usi ng Communicative Acti vities and contr ol gr oup w as taught by using conventional method. c. The Mean Scor e and St andard Deviation of Students’ posttest In this par t, the discussion deals with the ar gument of the differ ence of the students’ speaking abili ty after tr eatment or post-test. Since the means scor e of t w o gr oups (exper imental and contr ol gr oup) was at the same level, both gr oups wer e available to be tr eat ed. The exper imental gr oup w as taught Engl ish by using Communicati ve Activiti es and contr ol gr oup w as taught Engli sh by using conventional method w ith emphasizes on speaking ability. After the tr eatment, the students in both gr oups w er e given post-test to fi nd out their speaking ability at the same level or not by usi ng Independent sampl e t-test analyzed w ith SPSS 17.0. The findi ngs of post-test ar e pr esented in table 4.5.

  Tabl e 4.5. The Mean Scor e and Standar d Deviation of Students’ Posttest Gr oup Mean Scor e Standar d Deviation Exper iment 72.500 8.869 Contr ol 65.885 5.672

  Tabl e 4.5 showed that the mean scor es of posttest of both groups ar e differ ent after the tr eat ment. The mean scor e of exper imental gr oup, 72.500, w hich i s categor i zed as fai r categor y and contr ol gr oup, 65.885, which is categori zed as poor categor y (72.500>65.885), the standard deviati on of exper i ment group w as 8.869 and standar d deviati on of contr ol w as 5.672. To know the students’ mean scor e of post-test i s difference, I should deci de whether or not i t is st atistically signifi cant. In or der to answer such question, the r esear cher applies Independent sampl e t-test anal yses by using ver sion 17.0 (Appendix 11).

  Tabl e 4.6. The Independent Sample T-test of the Students’ Posttest Var i able Pr obability Val ue

  α

  Post-test .05 .000 The table above indicated that the statistical hypothesis is based on st atistics t est in asymptote. Sig (2-tai led), I concluded that the probability is smaller than .05 or .000 < .05.

  This means that H i s acceptable and, of cour se, the statistical hypothesis of H is r ej ected, it

  1

  means that the use of Communicative Activities w as able to give significantly gr eater contr ibution than conventional method. It could be stated that the use of Communicative Activities impr ove the students’ ability in speaking better . This implies that the use of Communicative Activi ties should be taken for gr ant ed as one of the techniques that i mpr ove students’ abil ity in speaking skill in Engl ish to the second students of STIKES Panakkukang Makassar.

  Discussion

  The Students’ Speaking skill The descr iption of the dat a col lected thr ough t he test as explained in the pr evious section show s that the students’ abi lity in speaking impr oves significantly. It is suppor ted by the mean scor e of the students’ pr e-test and pos-test of exper i ment al group. The mean scor e of pretest and posttest of exper i mental gr oup wer e 54.529 and 52.829. Communicative activities used as the teaching technique in impr oving the students’ speaking skill of the second semester students of nur ses at STIKES Panankkukang Makassar w hich cover s accuracy, fluency and compr ehensibili ty. The finding show s the application of communicative activiti es techni que signi ficant ly improve the students’ speaking skill. It w as pr oven by the mean scor e of post-test of the exper i mental gr oup and the contr ol group i s si gnificantly differ ent (Table 4.5). The mean scor e of experi ment al , 72.500 w as higher than contr ol gr oup, 65.885. Based on the standar d devi ation of both group the exper imental gr oup and the contr ol gr oup, the standar d deviation of the experi mental gr oup w as hi gher than contr ol gr oup of pretest. The standard deviation of the exper imental gr oup w as 16.732, while of the contr ol gr oup w as 13.650. At the post-test, the standar d deviati on of the exper imental group was 8.869, w hil e the contr ol gr oup w as 5.672. The smaller the st andar d deviation w as the closer the scor e to the mean. So, the exper i mental gr oup scores w er e closer than contr ol gr oup w as at the post-test. The mean scor e of the exper i mental and contr ol gr oup i mpr ove after they w er e given tr eat ment s. The experi mental group lear nt t o speak Engl ish by using communicative activities w hile the contr ol gr oup learnt to speak English by using the conventional method. The impr ovement of students’ speaking skil l, w hi ch is mar ked by the r esults of the post-test occur ri ng in the both exper imental and contr ol gr oup. How ever , the i mpr ovement r at e of the exper iment al gr oup was higher than contr ol gr oup. The compar ison of the improvement of speaking ski ll of both gr oups can be pr oved by analyzing posttest r esult. After giving tr eatments at the exper i ment al gr oup, the findings i ndicated that 3 (8.6%) students got ver y good classi fication, it means that ther e w er e almost al l the students enough capable to speak English. 11 (31.5%) students got fair and no one of them w as classified as poor and very poor. In other w ords, so none needed r emedial teachi ng. While, the contr ol gr oup of post-test onl y r eached 3 (8.6%) students w ere able to get good classifi cation, 11 (31.6%) students w ere in the fair ly good classification, 21 (60%) students w ere in the fai r ,and no one of them w as classified in poor and ver y poor . In other w or ds, usi ng communicative activi ties significantly impr ove the speaking skill of parti cipants or give bigger contr ibution than conventional one in teaching w ith emphasize on speaki ng ski ll. The students of exper imental gr oup w er e fr ee to constr uct their ideas, opi nion and i nfor mation based on the given mater ial or acti vity. It is in l ine w ith theory of Rosenber ger and Sl oan (1979) states that a dial ogue i s a r eal communication of ideas fr om one per son to others that can be formed in questi on or in statement. The students par ticipate and active i n the gr oup to gi ve their opinion. In selecting teaching technique for speaking, the English teacher s have to consider the pri nciple of teaching speaking as Br ow n (2001:275) dr aw n i n the pr inci ples for desi gni ng speaking techni ques as follow s (1) use techniques that cover the spectr um of lear ner needs; (2) pr ovide intr insi cally moti vating technique; (3) encour age the use of authentic l anguage i n meani ngful context; (4) provide appr opri at e feedback and cor r ection; (5) capitalize on natur al link betw een speaki ng and listening; (6) give students oppor tunities to initiate oral communication and (7) encour age the development of speaking st r at egi es. Using communicative activiti es insists the teacher or instr uctor to be pr ofessional one in teachi ng speaking pr ocess. The instr uctor must under stand and have abili ty to impr ove speaking skill ability of the students by using some topic for di scussion and di alogue w ith sever al mater ial s and to make the students fun and enjoy. In theor y of language lear ni ng based on the devel opment of communicative competence. It means that the i nstructor must have a good plan to car r y out the teaching. In other wor ds, the students could improve their ability i n speaki ng because in applyi ng the use of communicative activities, the students w er e inter est ed, fun enj oy unti l they tri ed

and pr acticed, par ticipated and active in each group activity. The students w er e not shame to pr acti ce how to pr onounce, to talk or to gi ve opinion. Of cour se, those skills above ar e needed by the STIKES’ students for being skillful in their r espective fi elds as r equir ed by the gover nment’s pr ogr am w ho are r eady for w or k wher e the STIKES gr aduates have to be pr ovi ded w or king skills and capabilities in their r espective fi elds; smart wher e the STIKES gr aduates ar e not only in intellectual, but also in spi ri tual , emotional, social, and kinesthetic ter ms; Competiti ve w her e the STIKES gr aduates being competitive in spir it, a desi re to be an agent of chance, so they can wi n the ti ght competition both local and global oppor tunities r ight now (Dikmenjur , 2007:4).

  CONCLUSION

  Fr om the r esult of the analysis of the r esearch, i t is pr oven that the students’ scor e of speaking taught by using communicative activities is effective. The mean score of exper i ment al gr oup 72.500 and the contr ol gr oup 65.885 w hich is the mean scor e of the students’ posttest in exper i mental group is higher than Conventional Technique.

  

BIBLIOGRAPHY

  Applebaum, Br uce. 2007. Communicat ive Language Teaching: Theory, Pr acti ce, and Per sonalExper ience. (Onl ine) ( ) Retri eved on October 1, 2008.

  Ar ikunto, Suhar simi. 1995. Management Penel it ian. Jakar ta: Rineka Cipta. Bailey, Kathleen M. 2005. Parct ical English Language Teaching: Speaking. New Yor k: The McGr aw-Hil l Companies.

  Bar tle, Kathl een M. and Savage, L. 1994. New Ways in Teaching Speaking Cambr idge: Cambri dge Univer si ty Press. Br own. H. Doughlas.2001. Teaching By Pr incipl e: an Int er act i ve approach t o Language Pedagogy . New York: Longman. Clar k, Her ber t H. and Clar k, Eve V. 1997. Psychology and Language: An Intr oduct ion t o Psycholi nguist ics . USA: Har cour t Br ace Javanovich. Inc. Depdikbud, 1994. Pet unjuk Teknis Pengajar an Bahasa Inggr is. Jakarta: Depdikbud. Di kemenjur . 2007. SMK: Siap Ker ja, Cerdas, dn Kompet it if. Jakar ta: Dir ektorat Pembinaan Sekolah Menengah Kejur uan. Doff, A. 1990. Teach English: A Traini ng Cour se for Teacher s, Cambr idge: Cambr idge Univer sity Pr ess. Fulcher , Glenn. 2003. Test ing Second Language Speaking. Hong Kong: Pear son Education Limited. Gay, R.L. 2006. Educat ional Resear ch: Compet encies for Analysis and Applicat ion, Ohio: Char les E. Mer r il Publishing Co. Gr and Naville. 1989. Making the Most of Your Text book. New Yor k: Longman Good, Car ter. 1959. Dict ionar y of Educat i on. New Yor k: McGr aw Hill Book Company. Gr ove and Mer r i em. 1996. Webst er Thi rd New Int er nat ional Dict ionar y of t he English Language. Massachusset s: G and C Merr i em Company Publisher . Har mer, Jer emy. 1991. The Pr act ice of English Language Teaching. New Yor k: Longman. Har mer, J. (2003) Popular Cul t ur e, Met hods, and Ccont ext ELT J 2003 57: 288-294 Hattum, Ton van (2006), The Communicat ive Appr oach Ret hought ,

   r etr ieved 2010-10-03

  Retr ieved fr om " Communicat ive_Language_Teaching " Heaton, J.B. 1991. Wr it ing English Language Test . USA: Longman Inc. Johnson, Keith. 1997. Language Teaching and Skill Lear ni ng. USA: Blackw ell Publisher .

  Kayi, Hayr iye. 2006. Teaching Speaking: Act ivit ies t o Pr omot e Speaking in a Second

  Language. USA: Univer sity of Nevada. Online (http: / / tesl.org/ Arti cles/ Kayi- TeachingSpeakin.html.) Retri eved on August 10, 2008.

  Littlewood. 1998. Communicat ive Language Teachi ng. USA: Cambr idge Univer sity Pr ess. Manda, Mar tin L. 2004. “Dict ogloss: It s Effect s on t he Lear ner ’s Achievement in EFL”. State

  Univer sity of Makassar : Perfor mance Jour nal of English Education and Liter atur e Vol . 02 No.01. Mor a, Minda.2010. Teaching Speaking i n A Cl assroom. Published Thesi s. Medan. Post Gr aduated Pr ogr am St ate Univer sity of Medan. Pathak and Cavall ar o, 2006. Teaching Confl ict Resolut ion: A St udy of Two Int er act ive

  Met hods. ( Online) ( – esp –j our nal. Com/ November _2006ap&fc.php.) Retri eved on Febr uar y 5, 2009.

  Paul stone, Christina Br att. 1976. Teaching English as a Second Language Techniques and Pr ocedures. USA: Br own and Company Limit ed. Ri char d, Jack; John Platt, and Heidi Weber . 1985. Longman Dict ionar y of Applied Linguist ics.

  London: Longman Gr oup UK Ltd. Ri char ds, J,C. 2006.

  Communicative Language Teaching Today

  . Onli ne (

  

ching=today=v2.pdf .) Retri eved on October 5, 2008.

  Savage, Tom V. 1996. Effect ive Teaching i n Element ar y Social St udies. USA: Pr entice-Hall, Inc. Savigon, S. J. 1991. Communicative Language Teachi ng: The st at e of t he Ar t . TESOL Quar tely. Sw an, Michael (1985) in the Engl ish Language Teaching Jour nal 39(1):2-12, and 1985 39(2):76-87. Tri yuli ana, Agnes H. 2007. Pengolahan Dat a St at ist ik dengn SPSS 17.0. Semar ang: Wahana Komputer .