T1 112009018 Full text
EXTERNAL FACTORS THAT DISCOURAGE STUDENTS
TO PRACTICE SPEAKING IN ENGLISH
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Ardiyarso Kurniawan
112009018
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
SALATIGA
2013
EXTERNAL FACTORS THAT DISCOURAGE STUDENTS
TO PRACTICE SPEAKING IN ENGLISH
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Ardiyarso Kurniawan
112009018
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
SALATIGA
2013
i
EXTERNAL FACTORS THAT DISCOURAGE STUDENTS
TO PRACTICE SPEAKING IN ENGLISH
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Ardiyarso Kurniawan
112009018
Approved by:
Christian Rudianto, S.Pd., M.AppLing.
Supervisor
ii
Rindang W., M. Hum.
Examiner
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT
This thesis contains no such material as has been submitted for examination in any
course or accepted for the fulfillment of any degree or diploma in any university. To
the best of my knowledge and my belief, this contains no material previously
published or written by any other person except where due reference is made in the
text.
Copyright@ 2013. Ardiyarso Kurniawan and Christian Rudianto, S.Pd., M.AppLing.
All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced by any means without
the permission of at least one of the copyright owners or the English Department,
Faculty of Language and Literature, Satya Wacana University, Salatiga.
Ardiyarso Kurniawan:
iii
PUBLICATION AGREEMENT DECLARATION
As a member of the (SWCU) Satya Wacana Christian University
academic community, I verify that:
Name
Student ID Number
Study Program
Faculty
Kind of Work
: Ardiyarso Kurniawan
: 112009018
: English
: Language and literature
: Undergraduate Thesis
In developing my knowledge, I agree to provide SWCU with a nonexclusive royalty free right for my intellectual property and the contents
therein entitled:
External Factors that Discouraged Students to Practice Speaking In
English
With this non-exclusive royalty free right, SWCU maintains the right to
copy, reproduce, print, publish, post, display, incorporate, store in or scan
into a retrieval system or database, transmit, broadcast, barter or sell my
intellectual property, in whole or in part without my express written
permission, as long as my name is still included as the writer.
This declaration is made according to the best of my knowledge.
Made in : Salatiga
Date
: 19 June, 2013
Verified by signee,
Ardiyarso Kurniawan
Approved by:
Christian Rudianto, S.Pd., M.AppLing.
Supervisor
iv
Rindang W., M.Hum.
Examiner
EXTERNAL FACTORS THAT DISCOURAGE STUDENTS
TO PRACTICE SPEAKING IN ENGLISH
Ardiyarso Kurniawan
English Department of Satya Wacana Christian University
ABSTRACT
In language learning, giving chances to practice the target language is needed.
Practicing for a period of time can lead the students to acquire higher achievement
and knowledge. However, there are internal and external factors affecting the
language learning and eagerness of practicing using the language. In my study
context, the students do not have any problem with internal factors, but they were
discouraged to practice speaking in English caused by external factors. Realizing that
it is necessary to find out the problem faced by the students, this study aims to find
out external factors that discourage the students to practice speaking in English. This
study uses Qualitative method because this study describes how external factors can
discourage students to practice speaking in English. The subjects of this study are 7
SMP Laboratorium students who were joining English Zone club. In this study,
stimulated-recall interview was used to collect the data which were gathered on 6 th –
19th February 2013. The questions were adapted from Brianne (2006) who conducted
a research on internal and external factors in language learning. The results of the
interview were analyzed using transcribing parts of a lesson and got the participants to
comment on what was happening at the time the activity under study took place
(Nunan, 1989) and categorizing data that provides a means to classify the data
(Lieblech, Tuval-Mashich and Zilber, 1998). It is indicated that the participants had
problems on three external factors in language learning: relationship between teacherstudents and students-students, Learning Environment and Learning styles. Also,
some recommendations were proposed to increase the students’ performances.
Keywords: Language learning, external factors
INTRODUCTION
English speaking practice can be a problem for some students in learning
English as foreign language. It may be caused by internal and external factors
(Brianne, 2006). Internal factors are those that the individual language learner brings
with him or her to the particular learning situation, such as motivation, attitude,
1
personal practice, and study habits. External factors refer to the institutional contexts
in which language learning takes place. Brianne (2006) states that external factors
(include learning environment, length of exposure, and learning style) happen to the
learner, not because of the learner.
This study is taken from my real experience while teaching English in a Junior
High School club activity called English zone. This activity is made for students who
are interested in learning English. All materials are delivered in English, that includes
explanation and instruction in teaching-learning process. The students could
understand the material and instruction given. For example, when I asked them to
write a simple story about their last holiday, then they made an outline of their story.
Not only that, they use the appropriate tenses (past tense). The examples above show
that they have a good basic English. They could differenciate when they should use
past and present tense, and also understand the instruction given. However, when they
have to present their works, they feel so shy. They prefer to point out other students to
do it. Although the students have a good basic English (grammar, tenses, etc.), they
faced a problem in English speaking practice. The students are discouraged to practice
speaking in English. What becomes the problem is the external factor outside of the
influence of the learner. In this paper, I will focus on external factors that discouraged
students to practice speak in English. Thus, I assume that there are external factors
which discouraged students to practice speak in English. This study focuses on the
contribution of finding out external factors that happen during teaching-learning
process by answering the research question “What are the external factors that
discouraged SMP Lab students to practice speaking in English?”
2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Many people are successful in learning a foreign language because they are
hardworking and willing to learn. Students have to be able to acquire not only theory,
but practically also. Hussin, Maarof, and D’Cruz (2001) mention that what occurs in
the language classrooms must be extended beyond the walls of the classroom so that a
link is created between what is learned in the classrooms with what occurs outside of
the classrooms. Languages cannot be learned merely in classrooms. Learning a
language requires communication in real life situations. Thus, students need to
acquire communication skills that they can use with various kinds of people. It is
essential that they learn not only how to communicate in the target language but also
the background, history, and culture that defines it. Practicing speaks in English
during the teaching and learning time is important because it is a chance to practice
English skills, in this case speaking, in the class. Nevertheless, there are factors that
can't always be controlled. Brianne (2006) divides factors affecting language learning
into two: internal and external factors. These divisions are not based on whether the
features are specific to an individual or to a variety of learners, but rather on what
level of control the learner has on each one. He stated that internal factors include
those which are determined by the individual learner such as motivation, attitude,
personal and study habits. According to this theory, each of these (internal factors) is
an individual component of the students’ ability to learn a foreign language. For
example, when motivation is low, then the study habits and attitudes are affected as
well. External factors are based only on circumstances outside of the influence of the
learner that include learning environment, length of exposure, and learning style.
3
Brianne (2006) states that learning environment is the place or space where
learning occurs, which contains Classroom size, size of the group, tools and devices
provided. According to Wilson (1995), students who are given generous access to
information resources-- books, print and video materials, etc.--and tools--wordprocessing programs, e-mail, search tools, etc.--are likely to learn.
The next external factor is length of exposure. It refers to the amount of time
they have been studying with the language. Length of exposure to a language may
also be an aspect in language learning, especially in learner’s achievement (Brianne,
p.37). Not only that, he adds : “it was the long and sustained exposure and opportunity
to use the language which gave younger group an advantage over the older ones, not
simply their being at a young age.” (p.40)
Another important external factor is about Learning styles, educational
conditions under which a student is most likely to learn (Stewart & Fellicetti, 1992).
Thus, learning styles are not really concerned what learners learn, but rather how they
prefer to learn.
Despite the English club students have good basic English, the students are
discouraged to practice speaking in English. He/she just points out the others to
answer or present their work to the class. I often witness and experience it in English
club. Discouragement cannot happen by itself. It is influenced by many factors
(internal and external) around it.
There are some theories about factors that discouraged the students to practice
speak in English. In this case, the students don’t have any problem internal factor.
4
This study wants to find out external factors that discouraged students to practice
speak in English.
Ellis (1985) uses the categories of “personal” (motivation, self-esteem,
attitudes, study habits, learning environment, and language aptitude) and “general”
(age, aptitude, cognitive style) factors. He claims that personal factors are highly
idiosyncratic features of each individual’s approach to learn a language (100) and
general one are variables that affect all learners (100). Each component affects every
learner in language learning, although perhaps in different ways. In my opinion it
doesn’t benefit this study to categorize them into personal and general way. Based on
Brianne theory about internal and external factors, the researcher has decided that age,
motivation, self- esteem, attitudes, study habits, cognitive style and aptitude as
internal factors and learning environment as external factors. From these two theories
(Brianne and Ellis), learning environment is categorized as one of the external factors.
Hussin, Maarof, and D’Cruz (2001) support that the relevance of conductive
environment that could contribute to the success of language learning.
Hussin, Maarof, and D’Cruz (2001) also added good teacher-learner
relationships as well as relationships between learners as external factors. In
classroom in which mutual respect is lacking, differing values can lead to conflicts
between student and teacher and between student and peer. Kabilan (2000) also
support that teachers should develop a mutual relationship with their learners. In my
opinion, once a relationship develops, the classroom will become comfortable and
enjoyable enough for students to learn positively from the teacher. Another external
factor that could affect language learning is the teacher. The way he or she teaches
5
could affect students’ willingness. In my opinion, classroom atmosphere while
teaching learning process could affect the students’ willingness to learn. If they feel
comfortable with the atmosphere that the teacher just create, they will have good
willing to learn, especially practicing speak in English.
From those theories and examples given above, it can be seen kinds of
external factors that discouraged students to practice speak English in classroom.
Therefore, by using Brianne (2006) and Hussin, Maarof and D’Cruz theory, it is
interesting to look for a research of the external factors as the additional references for
the development of EFL education.
THE STUDY
Context of the Study
I had been a teaching-practicum student in a private school in Salatiga. During
the time, I had taught students and found that they have good Basic English. At the
same time, evidence was emerging that students were discouraged to practice speak in
English. For these reason I chose to investigate external factor that discouraged
students to practice speak in English.
This study focuses on a single school in small town, Salatiga. SMP
Laboratorium provides an English club activity for students who are interested in
studying English. The school was well known to me, as I had been a student there for
three years. I selected this school because I was known to some of the staff and I
6
already had some knowledge of the school. This would provide relative access and
observation process.
Participants
The participants were SMP Lab students who join English club. In this club
activity includes 7 students from different grades only because from two English Zone
classes, one class was closed by the SMP Lab teacher consideration. Most of them are
7th graders, but only one who is 8th graders. They were being interviewed related to
the topic. The research was conducted in Semester I/2012-2013. The data were
gathered from 29th January – 11th February 2013.
The table below is the information about the participants.
No.
Participant initial
Sex
Class
1.
DA
Female
7A
2.
JE
Female
7B
3.
GE
Female
7C
4.
JN
Male
7B
5.
OG
Female
7B
6.
SA
Female
7B
7.
NI
Female
8C
7
Method and Methodology
The research question of this study is “What are the external factors that
discouraged English Club Students in SMP Laboratorium to practice speaking in
English?” It was done by using Qualitative Research. Based on Maxwell (2005) it is
included in Qualitative research because the question is about the influence on
particular events and activities.
Interview method was chosen for this research since this study wanted to find
out the external factors that discouraged English Zone students in SMP Laboratorium
to practice speaking in English. According to Johnson (1985), oral interview has been
used by second language acquisition researcher seeking data on stages and processes
on acquisition. A stimulate-recalled interview was applied in this study. The
interviews’ findings were transcribed and categorized based on the literature review.
Based on the responses to these interviews, one can draw conclusion on the external
factors that discouraged SMP Lab students to practice speaking in English.
Data Instrument
A stimulate-recalled interview was applied in this study to collect the data
from the participants in order get access into students’ cognitive domains. There were
6 questions, 1 question was about the background in joining English Club, 4 questions
were about external factors which were adapted from Brianne (2006), Hussin, Maarof,
and D’Cruz (2001) and Ellis (1985) as the guidance (length of exposure in learning
English, relationship between teacher-students or students-students, Learning
environment: group size, classroom environment; classroom size, time, and facilities,
learning styles), and 1 question was about the video taken while teaching learning
8
process in English Zone class. The questions given were structured to find out the
external factors.
All the participants were interviewed one by one in order to get more
understanding of their opinions and responses. The individual interview was recorded
using a mobile phone. Each participant took about 10 minutes to answer all the
questions. All of the conversations were in Indonesian in order to get more
comfortable atmosphere and ease the participants in giving their answers.
Data Analysis
After the all data were successfully collected, then I made the transcription.
Elliot (2005) believes that the transcribing process is better understood as a
compromise. Using clean transcription would be better, because I only focus on the
content of the interview. Next, I read the data several times to get what the data says
exactly and also highlight important lines related to external factors mentioned by the
interviewee. Then the data findings were mentioned and explained. I had to decide on
categories that emerged from the data. Lieblech, Tuval-Mashich and Zilber (1998)
describes category as perspective that provides a means to classify the data. After all
the findings had been put and mentioned, I linked the theoretical framework with all
the research findings.
Procedure
Before starting the research, the interview questions were made. In order to
give me opportunity to find out if the questions are yielding the kind of data required
and to eliminate any questions which may be ambiguous or confusing to the
9
interviewee, I did piloting the interview question, included record and transcribe parts
of a lesson which aim at samples chosen. After piloting had finished, I started doing
interview. Before the interview began, I explained the purpose of the interview to the
interviewees and answer any questions they had. In the interview section, a more deep
elaboration toward the research question about external factors that discouraged them
to practice speaking in English. I also showed parts of recording and then asked the
participants to comment on what was happening at that time. After the data were
collected, the recorded conversations were transcribed for each participant. Then, the
information in the transcripts was categorized based on the question. It consists of 6
main parts: 1) reason for joining English Zone, 2) length of exposure in learning
English, 3) relationship between teacher-students or students-students, 4) learning
environment: group size, classroom environment; classroom size, time, and facilities,
5) learning styles, and 6) related to the video taken.
DISCUSSION
Before going through to the discussion about external factor in each category,
the background of the study is important to reveal. Most of the students have the same
reason for joining English Zone. They wanted to gain and develop their skills and
knowledge. Another reason, which is very common, is the exiting nature of the
activity in the program. The student thinks that English Zone is fun. One interesting
reason from a participant (GE) whose Father works as an English teacher. She thinks
her Father as a model/figure that could motivate her in learning English.
10
Length of Exposure
According to Brianne (2006), the question about length of exposure referred to
the amount of time they have been studying with the language. Length of exposure to
a language may also be an aspect in language learning, especially in learner’s
achievement (p.37). He adds that: “it was the long and sustained exposure and
opportunity to use the language which gave younger group an advantage over the
older ones, not simply their being at a young age.” (p.40)
The interviews with the participants specify that the majority of participants
began studying English in Kindergarten. They have studied English for 7 years in
average. Brianne claimed that the amount of time they have been studying English
affects their levels of proficiency. All the participants have a good Basic English.
When asked about the score in English subject DA said “Lumayan...80-90 (not too
bad… about 80-90)”. When she recalls what score she got in the test, she mentioned
that she always gets good scores for English Subject. This response was not only
stated by DA, but also the other participants.
From the responses given by the participants, it can be generalized that all of
the participants have a good basic of English for Junior High School level. However,
the participants still want to develop their English proficiency. In conclusion, the
length of exposure to English has given them good basic of English to perform in
English Zone.
Another factor affecting language learning is good relationship, to be specific
relationship between teacher-students and also students-students.
11
Good relationship between teacher- students and students-students
In this section, how the relationship between teacher and students and between
students and peers is discussed. The answers given are analyzed and classified
according the participants’ opinion.
Students – Students Relationship
Hussin, Maarof, and D’Cruz (2001) said that relationships between learners
are important. In classroom in which mutual respect is lacking, differing values can
lead to conflicts between student and peer. From here, the conflict between 7th and 8th
graders affected their relationship.
Most of the participants (7th graders) said that they prefer the class with the
same grade only. Like what OG said “Aku lebih suka yang sendiri, maksudnya kelas 1
sendiri kelas 2 sendiri (I prefer to the class that consists of 7th graders only)”. Firstly,
it was mentioned that they, 7th graders, don’t know 8th graders well. The excerpt from
the interview with JE was taken: “..Rasanya agak aneh. Soalnya biasanya kita
ngomong, bergaul sama kelas 7... (I feel a kind of strange that just because we (7 th
graders) interact and communicate with 7th graders only.)” Secondly, OG stated that
each grade has different materials. Perhaps, the 8 th graders already know and
understand the material earlier.
Conflicts in classroom may affect students’ performance. There was a
participant who stated her experience and how the relationship affected her
performance in the class. As taken from the interview, JN was asked related to the
video taken, JN mentioned:
12
“Biasanya kalau aku salah, diejek terus. Padahal aku
salahnya Cuma sedikit aja. Yang lain salahnya banyak tapi
gak diejek. itu sih seandainya kalau yang dateng kelas 7 aja,
aku berani. Tapi karena yang dateng juga ada kelas 8,
kadang gak meduliin lagi adik kelasnya (If I make a mistake
usually my friends make a fun of me even on a small
mistake. Sometimes, the others just make their mistakes, but
no one make a fun of them. If the members were 7 graders
only, perhaps I would do it. In fact, the members are 7 & 8
graders and sometimes they don‟t care about their younger
brother.)”
Uniquely, at first GE said that she just felt comfortable already with their
friends. Later, when she was asked related to the video taken, she said in the
following interview, “Apalagi disitu kan juga ada kakak kelas! Ya Suasananya tetep
aja beda kalau ada kakak kelas, takut diketawain kalau salah (Not only that, 8th
grader is there! Ya… The atmosphere may little bit different, I‟m afraid if they make a
fun of me.)“
The contradictory performance from what they stated about the presence of the older
grader happened not only to 7th grader. NI, 8th grade student, also stated the same idea.
”Sebenernya di suruh maju, tapi takut salah nanti
diketawain jadi ada perasaan takut gitu. takut diketawain
sama yang ikut ex skul. …murid-muridnya yang suka
ngetawain „ah salah‟ gitu… (Honestly I was asked to come
13
forward, but I was afraid if the members, to be specific the
students, laugh at me when I make a mistake.) “
In this section, the participants (7th & 8th graders) were blaming each other.
This result may seem contradictory with Hussin, Maarof, and D’Cruz (2001), who
states that mutual respect is needed in the classroom. What just happened in the class
is that mutual respect is lacking and leads to conflicts between student and peer. As a
conclusion, the relationship affected their performance, especially practicing speak in
English.
Teacher-students relationship
According to Kabilan (2000) another important point in good relationship is
that teacher-students relationship. He states that teachers should develop a mutual
relationship with their learners. In order to develop a mutual relationship with their
learners, teachers need to understand students who are from different backgrounds,
have different interests, future goals, aims for English learning, and most importantly,
different personalities. Once they understand them better, teachers are able to apply
specific teaching and communicating strategies tailored to each student, thereby
creating a trusting relationship between a teacher and student. Once a relationship
develops, the classroom will become comfortable and enjoyable enough for students
to learn positively from the teacher without any hesitation.
In this section, the majority of the participants say that the teachers fail to create lively
atmosphere, as SA said,
14
“Boseni… Gak seru! Gak murah senyum (Boring… It
wasn‟t challenging! They are unfriendly.)”
These results show the lack of mutual relationship between teachers and students
(Kabilan, 2000). According to the participants, as mentioned earlier, the teachers
couldn’t understand their students well. The excerpt below was quoted from the
interview with NI which supports SA statement.
“Cemberut-cemberut gak jelas.. Ya tadi pas aku masuk,
kelihatannya gimana gitu…(She showed unfriendly face..
When I was entering the classroom.. looked unfriendly..)”
In conclusion, the teacher couldn’t develop mutual relationship with their
students. It becomes a problem because the classroom is uncomfortable and not
enjoyable for the students. In addition Kabilan (2000) stated that teachers are required
to teach all the students the importance of having respect for one another in a
classroom so that each of the students can actively participate in lesson.
Learning Environment
Brianne (2006) stated that learning environment is the place or space where
learning occurs, which contains Classroom size, size of the group, tools and devices
provided. All these environments are discussed in the followings.
Group size:
According to The National Education Association (NEA, 2003) the optimal
classroom size is 15 students but for specialized programs such as those for students
15
with exceptional needs, the class should be smaller. Classroom size doesn’t refer to
the physical size of the classroom. Rather, it refers to the number of the students in the
classroom. According to Resnick and Zurowsky (2003), students in this optimal
classroom condition experience continuing pressure to participate in learning
activities and become better, more involved students. Attention to learning goes up
and disruptive and off task behavior goes down.
When the participants were being asked about the group size in English Zone,
they answered differently. Most of the students said that the group size is still small.
They expected to have more students in this class. They argue that more students
mean more chance for them to share their knowledge with others. As said by NI in the
following interview:
“Belum sih… Iya, jadinya biar untuk nambah-nambah
temen, biar saling sharing pengalaman dan belajar bahasa
Inggris gitu (It is important in order to get more friends
and also share our experiences in learning English.)”
OG adds that inviting more students from the same grade is better. As OG
states:
“Hmm.. kalau menurutku terlalu sedikit deh. Perlu
ditambah lagi. tapi lebih mending sama kelas 7nya (Hmm,
I think it is too small. We need to invite more students. But I
prefer to invite 7ners.)”
16
The two statements above indicate that the group size of English Zone is
small, 7 students. Referring to NEA about ideal group size and influence of group size
and pressure by Resnick and Zurowsky (2003), there is no problem with the group
size because the number of students doesn’t exceed the optimal group size limit.
Every individual has some limitations in his or her thinking, skill and ability. Size of
the group affects how individuals interact with each other as well as the overall
performance. What becomes the problem is the group size doesn’t reach the group
size limit. The participants want to invite other students, who are the same graders.
This statement is related with relationship between students and peers which
discussed previously. As mentioned earlier, the participants want to invite the other
students in order to share their experiences in learning English. Browder (2005) says
that learning requires active participation. One of the elements in active participation
is interacting with peers. The link between class participation and peers is further
supported by recent research conducted by Fantuzzo, Sekino, and Cohen (2004). They
found that students who participated in more interactive peer are more likely to
participate in classroom activities without prompting from the teacher. Consistent
with previous findings, result indicates that students also displayed higher academic
skills. Furthermore, higher levels of classroom participation, as well as higher levels
of interactive peers, have been linked to higher levels of their performance, to be
specific practicing English.
Classroom environment:
The classroom environment acts as a symbol to students and others regarding
what teachers’ value in behavior and learning (Savage, 1999). If a classroom is not
17
properly organized to support the type of schedule and activities a teacher has
planned, it can impede the functioning of the day as well as limit what and how
students learn. Hale (2002) found that students in classrooms with large windows,
natural lighting, and well-designed skylights performed 19 to 26% better than their
peers in classrooms without these features. Not only that, Hunter (2006) found that
the environmental conditions in schools, which included the inoperative heating
system, inadequate ventilation, and poor lighting, affected the health and learning as
well as the morale of students and the staff. English Zone is conducted in two
preferable rooms, PSB or Multimedia room. It depends of the availability of the room
schedule on that day.
Regarding the classroom environment, most of the students prefer PSB than
multimedia room which is cleaner. GE says:
“Kalau menurutku antar PSB sama Multimedia lebih enak
PSB Lebih bersih (In my opinion, I prefer PSB rather than
Multimedia room. PSB is cleaner.)”
Not only that, another participant says that PSB has a good ventilation circulation
which makes comfortable. As DA says from the following interview:
“Multimednya terlalu pengap. PSB Lebih nyaman, dan
kelihatannya ruangannya lebih baru (The multimedia
room is just really stuffy. PSB is more comfortable and
seems like new building.)”
18
This result shows that cleanliness and inadequate ventilation are the problem
when the English Zone is conducted in Multimedia room. It is in line with Hunter
(2006) who says that the environmental conditions will affect the health and learning
as well as the morale of students and the staff. As schools have been successful in
eradicating asbestos, arsenic in drinking water and lead in paint, mold and its effect on
indoor air quality have established a new challenge in maintaining a comfortable
environment in which students can learn (Colgan, 2003). Studies have shown that
schools with indoor air quality problems experience a higher rate of health problems
with students (Guarneiri, 2003). It then stands to reason that sick children will not be
as likely to succeed academically. Therefore Gertel, McCarty, and Schoff (2004) state
that it was important for school to provide an appropriate environment for learning. In
summary, all students should be provided an opportunity to learn in a quality
environment conducive to maximizing both the teaching learning process and their
performance in classroom.
Classroom size:
Abramson (1991) found higher achievement in schools with adequate space
that larger spaces are used for instructional purposes, the achievement is greater.
According to Tanner (2006) the major problem is not the size should the classroom
be, but the density. If smaller is better, then fewer students per existing classroom is
the answer. Even so, simply putting smaller classes in smaller spaces by dividing
spaces already have is not the answer. It will compound the density problem by
having more students in less space. A question about their opinions toward the
classroom size in English Zone was given. The participants think that the classroom
19
size (either PSB or Multimedia) is large enough. In the following interview NI says:
“sama saja. Ya kalau yang ikut cuma sedikit ya luas (Both are the same. The
members are only a few so the rooms are big.)”. The members of English Zone are 7
students only. Actually, the classroom size of PSB could accommodate 25 students
and multimedia could accommodate 15 students. Relating to Tanner (2000) about the
density, the contrast between the students’ number and the classroom size could be
seen here. Both, of PSB and Multimedia room have less density. Like what OG says,
“karena personil English Zone itu terlalu sedikit, jadi ruangnya sangat luas.(Only a
few number of English Zone members, so the room looks very big)”.
In line with Tanner (2006), the participants have ample space in the classroom
to interact with the others. In conclusion, they do not have any problem with the
physical size of the classroom.
Time:
In academic settings, the quality of the students’ learning time is considered to
be cognitive, an attribute that facilitates success in the learning process (Romero,
2010). Time of day is one of the indicators that have been used to define time quality.
Some researchers have analyzed the degree of alertness by monitoring physiological
indicators as they change during the day. According to Kramer and his colleagues
(2000), they figure out in their study that the highest alertness is at 11 a.m. and 3 p.m.
In addition, higher achieving students spend more time in structured learning
activities outside school. After school hours provides opportunities for additional
learning to take place (CCSSO, 2001).
20
English Zone is one of the club activities in SMP Lab. This club activity starts
right after teaching-learning process in the school finished, around 14.00. However,
the participants give interesting answers; mostly they have no problem with the time.
GE said “Ya, gak masalah aja (Ya.. no problem.)”, related with the time. Another
participant, JN, also supported that”Oh, sebelum English Zone, waktu istirahat kedua
kan sudah makan, jadi sudah isi energy. Pulangnya sore pun juga gak masalah,
karena pelajarannya menyenangkan. (Oh, I have my lunch at the 2nd time break
before English Zone so I‟m already fully charged of energy. It‟s okay for going home
late in the evening because English Zone is fun)”.
Therefore, expecting students to engage in learning time after their primary
activity in school, at a time of day when alertness is lower, both because of the time of
day and the fatigue caused by the primary activity. Refer back to alertness by Kramer
(2000), English Zone starts at 2 p.m., which means in between the highest alertness.
Interestingly, the participants already prepared for the time condition of this club
activity. It makes them ready for the English Zone. In other words, the participants
faced no problem with the learning time of English Zone.
Facilities:
According to Building Educational Success Together ([BEST], 2005), it was
the responsibility of educators in every state to ensure that every child has an access
to a quality of education in school facilities that provide an educational setting that
was suited for teaching and learning. Wilson (1995) supports that students who are
given generous access to information resources books, print and video materials, etc.
and tools--word-processing programs, e-mail, search tools, etc.--are likely to learn.
21
The data shows that most of the students are satisfied and comfortable enough
with the facilities provided by the school. As DA says in the following interview:
“Ya fasilitasnya sih udah lumayan. Udah ada ACnya.
Sejauh ini baik-baik saja (I think the facilities are pretty
good. AC is already installed in the room. So far so good.)”
Another participant, JN, also supports DA statement. He says that he the facilities are
good, and could enjoy it. “Bagus, dan bisa menikmati. (Good and I could enjoy it)”.
However, there are some students who have different opinion about the facilities
provided. As GE says,
“Multimedia itu LCD belum terlalu canggih, masih pakai
papan putih itu pak. Terus meja-mejanya juga belum
lengkap. Belum pas sama murid-muridnya gitu pak. Terus
kalau di PSB, LCDnya udah canggih, udah bisa langsung
nyala, kursi-kursinya juga udah lengkap gitu. Fasilitas di
PSB udah canggih-canggih. LCD di PSB langsung nyala,
tapi kalau di multimedia masih agak kurang, masih harus
masang-masang dulu. Jadi masih makan waktu gitu. (In
multimedia room, the LCD is not sophisticated enough; it
uses white board as the screen. We need to install and
prepare the LCD first before we use it from the
administration office. The tables provided are not equal
with the number of the students who come to English Zone.
22
In the other hand, facilities in PSB are sophisticated. LCD
already installed in the room, tables and chairs are
completely enough for the student.)”
There are two rooms that used for English Zone, PSB and Multimedia room. Both of
them have the same facilities. But, based on their opinion, those two classes are
different quality of facilities.
In conclusion, what may become the problem in here is the quality of the
facilities provided. Hale (2002) points out that Effective facilities management
contributed to the success of every student in every school. In here, it is not about the
buildings themselves, but what the school need these building for, the knowledge
creation and transfer or learning. Perkins (1996) draws the analogy of childhood
intimacy with local neighborhoods to learning environments. Growing up in
neighborhood, children "knew their way around"-- where to find things, who to ask,
what to expect, where to go. He suggests that students come to "know their way
around" more than just neighborhoods. Provide good facilities in order to supports to
"learn their way around." When the teacher asks the students to perform practice
English about certain topics, how the students could practice or perform if they don’t
know their way around. They don’t know where to find about the topic, what to
expect and so on.
Learning styles
Learning styles is educational conditions under which a student is most likely
to learn (Stewart & Fellicetti, 1992). Thus, learning styles are not really concerned
what learners learn, but rather how they prefer to learn.
23
In this section, most of the students are bored with the learning style in this
class, watching video related to the theory in the material given in that day, like what
JE said in the following interview.
“Ada yang mboseni, Nonton video tentang teori (There are
some boring activities, like watching the video about
theory.)”
Another support was given by DA.
“Harusnya kan bisa juga disamain sama pelajarannya
sama pelajaran di kelas… ya kliatannya gak nyambung
gitu… kurang asik gitu (I think, the material given should
be related with the material given in the classroom… It
seems contrast… Unchallenging enough.)”
In here, the material given and the topic of the video are not appropriate with
their proficiency level. So, they couldn’t understand the material, and as a result, they
felt bored with it.
Different opinion came from NI. She said that the material is good enough,
but the problem is from the teacher itself. To be specific, the way the teachers deliver
the material or instruction. Felder (1996) argues in similar direction that a learning
style is useful if balancing instruction meets the students’ needs of essentially all
students in a class.
The teacher should recognize the students as being different. Determination of
student learning styles could offer insight to the teacher to help facilitate a more
24
favorable learning for all students and potentially improve their performance in
learning English. In line with Lynn (2011), who stated that if the instructor can make
simple modifications in teaching approaches based on learning styles of the students
in the classroom, or offer alternative resources related to the course material, he or she
may be able to provide an environment that enhances the learning capabilities of their
students.
CONCLUSION
This study examines external factors that discouraged SMP Lab students to
practice speaking in English. The data analyzed indicates that considering from the
length of exposure, the seven participants have a good basic of English for Junior
High School level. Moreover, the participants still want to develop their English
proficiency. The length of exposure to English has given them good basic of English
to perform in English Zone.
However, the relationship between teacher- students and students-students are
not mutual. The participants are blaming each other. Mutual respect is lacking and
leads to conflicts between student and peers in English Zone. Moreover, Conflicts in
classroom affect students’ performance, especially when the teacher asks them to
practice speak in English. Not only, when the participants are interviewed related to
teacher-students relationship, but the majority of the participants say that the teachers
fail to create lively atmosphere. The data indicates that the teacher couldn’t develop
mutual relationship with their students. It becomes a problem because the classroom
25
is uncomfortable and not enjoyable for the students which lead the students for not
being actively participated in the classroom.
Another external factor is that learning environment which has some sub
points on it. Somehow, the number of students still in the normal group size limits.
However, size of the group affects how individuals interact with each other as well as
the overall performance. Furthermore, higher levels of classroom participation, as
well as higher levels of interactive peers, have been linked to higher levels of their
performance, specifically practicing English. Beside the number students in the club,
the classroom environment data indicates that cleanliness and inadequate ventilation
are the problem when the English Zone is conducted in Multimedia room. All
students should be provided an opportunity to learn in a quality environment
conducive to maximizing both the teaching learning process and their performance in
classroom. However, participants do not have any problem with the physical size of
the classroom. Regarding that both, of PSB and Multimedia room have less density.
In conclusion, the participants have ample space in the classroom to interact with the
others. Another aspect in learning environment is time. Somehow, English Zone starts
at 2 p.m., which means in between the highest alertness. Interestingly, the participants
already prepared for the time condition of this club activity. In other words, the
participants face no problem with the learning time of English Zone. In the last
external factor, facilities, what may become the problem is the quality of the facilities
provided. PSB was preferred by students, because it has better quality of the facilities
provided than multimedia. Good facilities should be provided in order to supports to
"learn their way around."
26
The last external factor, learning style, indicates two problems in English
Zone. First, the participants think that the material and the topic of the video are not
appropriate with their proficiency level. So, they cannot understand the material, and
as a result, they felt bored with it. Second, the way the teachers deliver the material or
instruction is not appealing for students. The teacher should recognize the students as
being different. Determination of student learning styles could offer insight to the
teacher to help facilitate a more favorable learning for all students and potentially
improve their performance in learning English.
Since this study only investigates external factors, there are still a lot of things
that need to be improved. The results cannot be generalized for other regular
classrooms since English Zone has its own objectives and characteristic. Further
research needs to be done is to find out the internal and external factors which can be
used for the regular classroom teaching learning process. This finding of the study
could be used as preparation and anticipation for the future teaching practicum
students and the teacher in order to give better teaching learning process for English
Zone Club.
27
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This thesis would not have been finished without the support of many
people. I would like to praise Jesus Christ who has given me the life and always gives
me blessings. I wish to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Bapak Christian
Rudianto, who were abundantly helpful and patient in guiding me to finish this thesis
in a limited time. Deepest gratitude also goes to Ibu Rindang W., as my thesis
examiner. Without her knowledge and assistance this study would not have been
completed. I would like to thank to students of English Department who were willing
to share their thought, experiences and knowledge for this thesis. I also wish to
express my love and gratitude to my beloved parents who always supported me.
Special thanks also go to my special one, Christiani Dewi, who always helps me in
conducting
this
28
thesis.
REFERENCES
Abramson, P. (1991). Making the Grade. Architectural Review. 29 (4) 91-93.
BEST (Building Educational Success Together).2005. BEST overview and policy
agenda.
Retrieved
07/03.05
from
http://21csf.org/csf-
home/Documents/BEST/BEST_Policy.pdf
Brianne, J. J. (2006).Foreign Language Learning: An Exploratory Study on The
External and Internal Influences Affecting Success. Baylor University. May
2006.
Browder, M. Dianne. (2005). Aligning IFP to Academic Standards. Verona, WI:
Attainment Company.
Colgan, C. (2003). Is the mold the new asbestos? American School Board Journal,
190(6), 26-29.
Council of Chief State School Officers. Students Continually Learning: A report
Presentations, Student Voices and State Actions. Washington, D.C. Author,
April 2001. 113 pages. ED 455008.
Elliott, J. (2005). Using narrative in social research: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches. London: Sage.
Ellis, Rod. (1985). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford UP.
1985.
Felder, R. M. (1996). Matters of Styles. ASEE Prism, 6(4), 18-23.
Gertel, S., McCarty, P., & Schoff, L. (2004). High performance schools equals high
performing students. Educational Facility Planner, 39, 20-24.
Guarneiri, M.A (2003). Indoor air quality in schools: Clean air is good business.
School Business Affairs, 69(6), 26-30.
Hale, O. (2002). Improving performance. American School and University, 75, 32-35.
26
Hunter, M. A. (2006) Public school facilities: Providing environments that sustain
learning. Teachers College Columbia University. New York; NY: National
Access Network.
Hussin, S., Maarof, N., & D’Cruz, J. (2001). Sustaining an interest in learning English
and increasing the motivation to learn English: an enrichment program. The
Internet
TESL
Journal,7
(5).
Retrieved
from
http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Hussin-Motivation.html
Kabilan, M. K. (2000). Creative and critical thinking in language classrooms. The
Internet
TESL
Journal,
6
(6).
Retrieved
from
http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Kabilan-CriticalThinking.html
Kramer, A.F., Hahn, S., Irwin, D. E., & Theeuwes, J. (2000). Age differences in the
control of looking behavior. Do you know where your eyes have been?
Psychological Science, 11, 210-217.
Lieblich, A., Tuval-Mashiach, R., &Zilbert, T. (1998). Narrative research: Reading,
analysis and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
McKay, S. L. (2006). Researching second language classrooms. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
National Education Association. (2003) Class Size: Priorities for Changing NCLB: A
federal class size reduction program is an NEA priority in rewriting NCLB.
Retrieved from
http://nea.org/home/13120/htm
Nunan, D. (1989). Understanding language classroom. London: Prentice Hall.
Perkins, D. N. (1996). Preface: Minds in the 'Hood. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.),
Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design.
Englewood Cliffs NJ: Educational Technology Publication.
27
Romero, M. (2010). Self-regulated Learning in Technology Enhanced Learning
Environments: Problems and Promises. Group awareness in time-on-task
regulation in CSCL. Universitat de Barcelona. October 2010
Savage, T. V. (1999). Teaching self-control through management and discipline.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Stewart, K. L., & Felicetti, L. A. (1992). Learning styles of marketing majors.
Educational Research Quarterly, 15(2), 15-23.
Tanner, C. K.
TO PRACTICE SPEAKING IN ENGLISH
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Ardiyarso Kurniawan
112009018
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
SALATIGA
2013
EXTERNAL FACTORS THAT DISCOURAGE STUDENTS
TO PRACTICE SPEAKING IN ENGLISH
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Ardiyarso Kurniawan
112009018
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
SALATIGA
2013
i
EXTERNAL FACTORS THAT DISCOURAGE STUDENTS
TO PRACTICE SPEAKING IN ENGLISH
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Ardiyarso Kurniawan
112009018
Approved by:
Christian Rudianto, S.Pd., M.AppLing.
Supervisor
ii
Rindang W., M. Hum.
Examiner
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT
This thesis contains no such material as has been submitted for examination in any
course or accepted for the fulfillment of any degree or diploma in any university. To
the best of my knowledge and my belief, this contains no material previously
published or written by any other person except where due reference is made in the
text.
Copyright@ 2013. Ardiyarso Kurniawan and Christian Rudianto, S.Pd., M.AppLing.
All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced by any means without
the permission of at least one of the copyright owners or the English Department,
Faculty of Language and Literature, Satya Wacana University, Salatiga.
Ardiyarso Kurniawan:
iii
PUBLICATION AGREEMENT DECLARATION
As a member of the (SWCU) Satya Wacana Christian University
academic community, I verify that:
Name
Student ID Number
Study Program
Faculty
Kind of Work
: Ardiyarso Kurniawan
: 112009018
: English
: Language and literature
: Undergraduate Thesis
In developing my knowledge, I agree to provide SWCU with a nonexclusive royalty free right for my intellectual property and the contents
therein entitled:
External Factors that Discouraged Students to Practice Speaking In
English
With this non-exclusive royalty free right, SWCU maintains the right to
copy, reproduce, print, publish, post, display, incorporate, store in or scan
into a retrieval system or database, transmit, broadcast, barter or sell my
intellectual property, in whole or in part without my express written
permission, as long as my name is still included as the writer.
This declaration is made according to the best of my knowledge.
Made in : Salatiga
Date
: 19 June, 2013
Verified by signee,
Ardiyarso Kurniawan
Approved by:
Christian Rudianto, S.Pd., M.AppLing.
Supervisor
iv
Rindang W., M.Hum.
Examiner
EXTERNAL FACTORS THAT DISCOURAGE STUDENTS
TO PRACTICE SPEAKING IN ENGLISH
Ardiyarso Kurniawan
English Department of Satya Wacana Christian University
ABSTRACT
In language learning, giving chances to practice the target language is needed.
Practicing for a period of time can lead the students to acquire higher achievement
and knowledge. However, there are internal and external factors affecting the
language learning and eagerness of practicing using the language. In my study
context, the students do not have any problem with internal factors, but they were
discouraged to practice speaking in English caused by external factors. Realizing that
it is necessary to find out the problem faced by the students, this study aims to find
out external factors that discourage the students to practice speaking in English. This
study uses Qualitative method because this study describes how external factors can
discourage students to practice speaking in English. The subjects of this study are 7
SMP Laboratorium students who were joining English Zone club. In this study,
stimulated-recall interview was used to collect the data which were gathered on 6 th –
19th February 2013. The questions were adapted from Brianne (2006) who conducted
a research on internal and external factors in language learning. The results of the
interview were analyzed using transcribing parts of a lesson and got the participants to
comment on what was happening at the time the activity under study took place
(Nunan, 1989) and categorizing data that provides a means to classify the data
(Lieblech, Tuval-Mashich and Zilber, 1998). It is indicated that the participants had
problems on three external factors in language learning: relationship between teacherstudents and students-students, Learning Environment and Learning styles. Also,
some recommendations were proposed to increase the students’ performances.
Keywords: Language learning, external factors
INTRODUCTION
English speaking practice can be a problem for some students in learning
English as foreign language. It may be caused by internal and external factors
(Brianne, 2006). Internal factors are those that the individual language learner brings
with him or her to the particular learning situation, such as motivation, attitude,
1
personal practice, and study habits. External factors refer to the institutional contexts
in which language learning takes place. Brianne (2006) states that external factors
(include learning environment, length of exposure, and learning style) happen to the
learner, not because of the learner.
This study is taken from my real experience while teaching English in a Junior
High School club activity called English zone. This activity is made for students who
are interested in learning English. All materials are delivered in English, that includes
explanation and instruction in teaching-learning process. The students could
understand the material and instruction given. For example, when I asked them to
write a simple story about their last holiday, then they made an outline of their story.
Not only that, they use the appropriate tenses (past tense). The examples above show
that they have a good basic English. They could differenciate when they should use
past and present tense, and also understand the instruction given. However, when they
have to present their works, they feel so shy. They prefer to point out other students to
do it. Although the students have a good basic English (grammar, tenses, etc.), they
faced a problem in English speaking practice. The students are discouraged to practice
speaking in English. What becomes the problem is the external factor outside of the
influence of the learner. In this paper, I will focus on external factors that discouraged
students to practice speak in English. Thus, I assume that there are external factors
which discouraged students to practice speak in English. This study focuses on the
contribution of finding out external factors that happen during teaching-learning
process by answering the research question “What are the external factors that
discouraged SMP Lab students to practice speaking in English?”
2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Many people are successful in learning a foreign language because they are
hardworking and willing to learn. Students have to be able to acquire not only theory,
but practically also. Hussin, Maarof, and D’Cruz (2001) mention that what occurs in
the language classrooms must be extended beyond the walls of the classroom so that a
link is created between what is learned in the classrooms with what occurs outside of
the classrooms. Languages cannot be learned merely in classrooms. Learning a
language requires communication in real life situations. Thus, students need to
acquire communication skills that they can use with various kinds of people. It is
essential that they learn not only how to communicate in the target language but also
the background, history, and culture that defines it. Practicing speaks in English
during the teaching and learning time is important because it is a chance to practice
English skills, in this case speaking, in the class. Nevertheless, there are factors that
can't always be controlled. Brianne (2006) divides factors affecting language learning
into two: internal and external factors. These divisions are not based on whether the
features are specific to an individual or to a variety of learners, but rather on what
level of control the learner has on each one. He stated that internal factors include
those which are determined by the individual learner such as motivation, attitude,
personal and study habits. According to this theory, each of these (internal factors) is
an individual component of the students’ ability to learn a foreign language. For
example, when motivation is low, then the study habits and attitudes are affected as
well. External factors are based only on circumstances outside of the influence of the
learner that include learning environment, length of exposure, and learning style.
3
Brianne (2006) states that learning environment is the place or space where
learning occurs, which contains Classroom size, size of the group, tools and devices
provided. According to Wilson (1995), students who are given generous access to
information resources-- books, print and video materials, etc.--and tools--wordprocessing programs, e-mail, search tools, etc.--are likely to learn.
The next external factor is length of exposure. It refers to the amount of time
they have been studying with the language. Length of exposure to a language may
also be an aspect in language learning, especially in learner’s achievement (Brianne,
p.37). Not only that, he adds : “it was the long and sustained exposure and opportunity
to use the language which gave younger group an advantage over the older ones, not
simply their being at a young age.” (p.40)
Another important external factor is about Learning styles, educational
conditions under which a student is most likely to learn (Stewart & Fellicetti, 1992).
Thus, learning styles are not really concerned what learners learn, but rather how they
prefer to learn.
Despite the English club students have good basic English, the students are
discouraged to practice speaking in English. He/she just points out the others to
answer or present their work to the class. I often witness and experience it in English
club. Discouragement cannot happen by itself. It is influenced by many factors
(internal and external) around it.
There are some theories about factors that discouraged the students to practice
speak in English. In this case, the students don’t have any problem internal factor.
4
This study wants to find out external factors that discouraged students to practice
speak in English.
Ellis (1985) uses the categories of “personal” (motivation, self-esteem,
attitudes, study habits, learning environment, and language aptitude) and “general”
(age, aptitude, cognitive style) factors. He claims that personal factors are highly
idiosyncratic features of each individual’s approach to learn a language (100) and
general one are variables that affect all learners (100). Each component affects every
learner in language learning, although perhaps in different ways. In my opinion it
doesn’t benefit this study to categorize them into personal and general way. Based on
Brianne theory about internal and external factors, the researcher has decided that age,
motivation, self- esteem, attitudes, study habits, cognitive style and aptitude as
internal factors and learning environment as external factors. From these two theories
(Brianne and Ellis), learning environment is categorized as one of the external factors.
Hussin, Maarof, and D’Cruz (2001) support that the relevance of conductive
environment that could contribute to the success of language learning.
Hussin, Maarof, and D’Cruz (2001) also added good teacher-learner
relationships as well as relationships between learners as external factors. In
classroom in which mutual respect is lacking, differing values can lead to conflicts
between student and teacher and between student and peer. Kabilan (2000) also
support that teachers should develop a mutual relationship with their learners. In my
opinion, once a relationship develops, the classroom will become comfortable and
enjoyable enough for students to learn positively from the teacher. Another external
factor that could affect language learning is the teacher. The way he or she teaches
5
could affect students’ willingness. In my opinion, classroom atmosphere while
teaching learning process could affect the students’ willingness to learn. If they feel
comfortable with the atmosphere that the teacher just create, they will have good
willing to learn, especially practicing speak in English.
From those theories and examples given above, it can be seen kinds of
external factors that discouraged students to practice speak English in classroom.
Therefore, by using Brianne (2006) and Hussin, Maarof and D’Cruz theory, it is
interesting to look for a research of the external factors as the additional references for
the development of EFL education.
THE STUDY
Context of the Study
I had been a teaching-practicum student in a private school in Salatiga. During
the time, I had taught students and found that they have good Basic English. At the
same time, evidence was emerging that students were discouraged to practice speak in
English. For these reason I chose to investigate external factor that discouraged
students to practice speak in English.
This study focuses on a single school in small town, Salatiga. SMP
Laboratorium provides an English club activity for students who are interested in
studying English. The school was well known to me, as I had been a student there for
three years. I selected this school because I was known to some of the staff and I
6
already had some knowledge of the school. This would provide relative access and
observation process.
Participants
The participants were SMP Lab students who join English club. In this club
activity includes 7 students from different grades only because from two English Zone
classes, one class was closed by the SMP Lab teacher consideration. Most of them are
7th graders, but only one who is 8th graders. They were being interviewed related to
the topic. The research was conducted in Semester I/2012-2013. The data were
gathered from 29th January – 11th February 2013.
The table below is the information about the participants.
No.
Participant initial
Sex
Class
1.
DA
Female
7A
2.
JE
Female
7B
3.
GE
Female
7C
4.
JN
Male
7B
5.
OG
Female
7B
6.
SA
Female
7B
7.
NI
Female
8C
7
Method and Methodology
The research question of this study is “What are the external factors that
discouraged English Club Students in SMP Laboratorium to practice speaking in
English?” It was done by using Qualitative Research. Based on Maxwell (2005) it is
included in Qualitative research because the question is about the influence on
particular events and activities.
Interview method was chosen for this research since this study wanted to find
out the external factors that discouraged English Zone students in SMP Laboratorium
to practice speaking in English. According to Johnson (1985), oral interview has been
used by second language acquisition researcher seeking data on stages and processes
on acquisition. A stimulate-recalled interview was applied in this study. The
interviews’ findings were transcribed and categorized based on the literature review.
Based on the responses to these interviews, one can draw conclusion on the external
factors that discouraged SMP Lab students to practice speaking in English.
Data Instrument
A stimulate-recalled interview was applied in this study to collect the data
from the participants in order get access into students’ cognitive domains. There were
6 questions, 1 question was about the background in joining English Club, 4 questions
were about external factors which were adapted from Brianne (2006), Hussin, Maarof,
and D’Cruz (2001) and Ellis (1985) as the guidance (length of exposure in learning
English, relationship between teacher-students or students-students, Learning
environment: group size, classroom environment; classroom size, time, and facilities,
learning styles), and 1 question was about the video taken while teaching learning
8
process in English Zone class. The questions given were structured to find out the
external factors.
All the participants were interviewed one by one in order to get more
understanding of their opinions and responses. The individual interview was recorded
using a mobile phone. Each participant took about 10 minutes to answer all the
questions. All of the conversations were in Indonesian in order to get more
comfortable atmosphere and ease the participants in giving their answers.
Data Analysis
After the all data were successfully collected, then I made the transcription.
Elliot (2005) believes that the transcribing process is better understood as a
compromise. Using clean transcription would be better, because I only focus on the
content of the interview. Next, I read the data several times to get what the data says
exactly and also highlight important lines related to external factors mentioned by the
interviewee. Then the data findings were mentioned and explained. I had to decide on
categories that emerged from the data. Lieblech, Tuval-Mashich and Zilber (1998)
describes category as perspective that provides a means to classify the data. After all
the findings had been put and mentioned, I linked the theoretical framework with all
the research findings.
Procedure
Before starting the research, the interview questions were made. In order to
give me opportunity to find out if the questions are yielding the kind of data required
and to eliminate any questions which may be ambiguous or confusing to the
9
interviewee, I did piloting the interview question, included record and transcribe parts
of a lesson which aim at samples chosen. After piloting had finished, I started doing
interview. Before the interview began, I explained the purpose of the interview to the
interviewees and answer any questions they had. In the interview section, a more deep
elaboration toward the research question about external factors that discouraged them
to practice speaking in English. I also showed parts of recording and then asked the
participants to comment on what was happening at that time. After the data were
collected, the recorded conversations were transcribed for each participant. Then, the
information in the transcripts was categorized based on the question. It consists of 6
main parts: 1) reason for joining English Zone, 2) length of exposure in learning
English, 3) relationship between teacher-students or students-students, 4) learning
environment: group size, classroom environment; classroom size, time, and facilities,
5) learning styles, and 6) related to the video taken.
DISCUSSION
Before going through to the discussion about external factor in each category,
the background of the study is important to reveal. Most of the students have the same
reason for joining English Zone. They wanted to gain and develop their skills and
knowledge. Another reason, which is very common, is the exiting nature of the
activity in the program. The student thinks that English Zone is fun. One interesting
reason from a participant (GE) whose Father works as an English teacher. She thinks
her Father as a model/figure that could motivate her in learning English.
10
Length of Exposure
According to Brianne (2006), the question about length of exposure referred to
the amount of time they have been studying with the language. Length of exposure to
a language may also be an aspect in language learning, especially in learner’s
achievement (p.37). He adds that: “it was the long and sustained exposure and
opportunity to use the language which gave younger group an advantage over the
older ones, not simply their being at a young age.” (p.40)
The interviews with the participants specify that the majority of participants
began studying English in Kindergarten. They have studied English for 7 years in
average. Brianne claimed that the amount of time they have been studying English
affects their levels of proficiency. All the participants have a good Basic English.
When asked about the score in English subject DA said “Lumayan...80-90 (not too
bad… about 80-90)”. When she recalls what score she got in the test, she mentioned
that she always gets good scores for English Subject. This response was not only
stated by DA, but also the other participants.
From the responses given by the participants, it can be generalized that all of
the participants have a good basic of English for Junior High School level. However,
the participants still want to develop their English proficiency. In conclusion, the
length of exposure to English has given them good basic of English to perform in
English Zone.
Another factor affecting language learning is good relationship, to be specific
relationship between teacher-students and also students-students.
11
Good relationship between teacher- students and students-students
In this section, how the relationship between teacher and students and between
students and peers is discussed. The answers given are analyzed and classified
according the participants’ opinion.
Students – Students Relationship
Hussin, Maarof, and D’Cruz (2001) said that relationships between learners
are important. In classroom in which mutual respect is lacking, differing values can
lead to conflicts between student and peer. From here, the conflict between 7th and 8th
graders affected their relationship.
Most of the participants (7th graders) said that they prefer the class with the
same grade only. Like what OG said “Aku lebih suka yang sendiri, maksudnya kelas 1
sendiri kelas 2 sendiri (I prefer to the class that consists of 7th graders only)”. Firstly,
it was mentioned that they, 7th graders, don’t know 8th graders well. The excerpt from
the interview with JE was taken: “..Rasanya agak aneh. Soalnya biasanya kita
ngomong, bergaul sama kelas 7... (I feel a kind of strange that just because we (7 th
graders) interact and communicate with 7th graders only.)” Secondly, OG stated that
each grade has different materials. Perhaps, the 8 th graders already know and
understand the material earlier.
Conflicts in classroom may affect students’ performance. There was a
participant who stated her experience and how the relationship affected her
performance in the class. As taken from the interview, JN was asked related to the
video taken, JN mentioned:
12
“Biasanya kalau aku salah, diejek terus. Padahal aku
salahnya Cuma sedikit aja. Yang lain salahnya banyak tapi
gak diejek. itu sih seandainya kalau yang dateng kelas 7 aja,
aku berani. Tapi karena yang dateng juga ada kelas 8,
kadang gak meduliin lagi adik kelasnya (If I make a mistake
usually my friends make a fun of me even on a small
mistake. Sometimes, the others just make their mistakes, but
no one make a fun of them. If the members were 7 graders
only, perhaps I would do it. In fact, the members are 7 & 8
graders and sometimes they don‟t care about their younger
brother.)”
Uniquely, at first GE said that she just felt comfortable already with their
friends. Later, when she was asked related to the video taken, she said in the
following interview, “Apalagi disitu kan juga ada kakak kelas! Ya Suasananya tetep
aja beda kalau ada kakak kelas, takut diketawain kalau salah (Not only that, 8th
grader is there! Ya… The atmosphere may little bit different, I‟m afraid if they make a
fun of me.)“
The contradictory performance from what they stated about the presence of the older
grader happened not only to 7th grader. NI, 8th grade student, also stated the same idea.
”Sebenernya di suruh maju, tapi takut salah nanti
diketawain jadi ada perasaan takut gitu. takut diketawain
sama yang ikut ex skul. …murid-muridnya yang suka
ngetawain „ah salah‟ gitu… (Honestly I was asked to come
13
forward, but I was afraid if the members, to be specific the
students, laugh at me when I make a mistake.) “
In this section, the participants (7th & 8th graders) were blaming each other.
This result may seem contradictory with Hussin, Maarof, and D’Cruz (2001), who
states that mutual respect is needed in the classroom. What just happened in the class
is that mutual respect is lacking and leads to conflicts between student and peer. As a
conclusion, the relationship affected their performance, especially practicing speak in
English.
Teacher-students relationship
According to Kabilan (2000) another important point in good relationship is
that teacher-students relationship. He states that teachers should develop a mutual
relationship with their learners. In order to develop a mutual relationship with their
learners, teachers need to understand students who are from different backgrounds,
have different interests, future goals, aims for English learning, and most importantly,
different personalities. Once they understand them better, teachers are able to apply
specific teaching and communicating strategies tailored to each student, thereby
creating a trusting relationship between a teacher and student. Once a relationship
develops, the classroom will become comfortable and enjoyable enough for students
to learn positively from the teacher without any hesitation.
In this section, the majority of the participants say that the teachers fail to create lively
atmosphere, as SA said,
14
“Boseni… Gak seru! Gak murah senyum (Boring… It
wasn‟t challenging! They are unfriendly.)”
These results show the lack of mutual relationship between teachers and students
(Kabilan, 2000). According to the participants, as mentioned earlier, the teachers
couldn’t understand their students well. The excerpt below was quoted from the
interview with NI which supports SA statement.
“Cemberut-cemberut gak jelas.. Ya tadi pas aku masuk,
kelihatannya gimana gitu…(She showed unfriendly face..
When I was entering the classroom.. looked unfriendly..)”
In conclusion, the teacher couldn’t develop mutual relationship with their
students. It becomes a problem because the classroom is uncomfortable and not
enjoyable for the students. In addition Kabilan (2000) stated that teachers are required
to teach all the students the importance of having respect for one another in a
classroom so that each of the students can actively participate in lesson.
Learning Environment
Brianne (2006) stated that learning environment is the place or space where
learning occurs, which contains Classroom size, size of the group, tools and devices
provided. All these environments are discussed in the followings.
Group size:
According to The National Education Association (NEA, 2003) the optimal
classroom size is 15 students but for specialized programs such as those for students
15
with exceptional needs, the class should be smaller. Classroom size doesn’t refer to
the physical size of the classroom. Rather, it refers to the number of the students in the
classroom. According to Resnick and Zurowsky (2003), students in this optimal
classroom condition experience continuing pressure to participate in learning
activities and become better, more involved students. Attention to learning goes up
and disruptive and off task behavior goes down.
When the participants were being asked about the group size in English Zone,
they answered differently. Most of the students said that the group size is still small.
They expected to have more students in this class. They argue that more students
mean more chance for them to share their knowledge with others. As said by NI in the
following interview:
“Belum sih… Iya, jadinya biar untuk nambah-nambah
temen, biar saling sharing pengalaman dan belajar bahasa
Inggris gitu (It is important in order to get more friends
and also share our experiences in learning English.)”
OG adds that inviting more students from the same grade is better. As OG
states:
“Hmm.. kalau menurutku terlalu sedikit deh. Perlu
ditambah lagi. tapi lebih mending sama kelas 7nya (Hmm,
I think it is too small. We need to invite more students. But I
prefer to invite 7ners.)”
16
The two statements above indicate that the group size of English Zone is
small, 7 students. Referring to NEA about ideal group size and influence of group size
and pressure by Resnick and Zurowsky (2003), there is no problem with the group
size because the number of students doesn’t exceed the optimal group size limit.
Every individual has some limitations in his or her thinking, skill and ability. Size of
the group affects how individuals interact with each other as well as the overall
performance. What becomes the problem is the group size doesn’t reach the group
size limit. The participants want to invite other students, who are the same graders.
This statement is related with relationship between students and peers which
discussed previously. As mentioned earlier, the participants want to invite the other
students in order to share their experiences in learning English. Browder (2005) says
that learning requires active participation. One of the elements in active participation
is interacting with peers. The link between class participation and peers is further
supported by recent research conducted by Fantuzzo, Sekino, and Cohen (2004). They
found that students who participated in more interactive peer are more likely to
participate in classroom activities without prompting from the teacher. Consistent
with previous findings, result indicates that students also displayed higher academic
skills. Furthermore, higher levels of classroom participation, as well as higher levels
of interactive peers, have been linked to higher levels of their performance, to be
specific practicing English.
Classroom environment:
The classroom environment acts as a symbol to students and others regarding
what teachers’ value in behavior and learning (Savage, 1999). If a classroom is not
17
properly organized to support the type of schedule and activities a teacher has
planned, it can impede the functioning of the day as well as limit what and how
students learn. Hale (2002) found that students in classrooms with large windows,
natural lighting, and well-designed skylights performed 19 to 26% better than their
peers in classrooms without these features. Not only that, Hunter (2006) found that
the environmental conditions in schools, which included the inoperative heating
system, inadequate ventilation, and poor lighting, affected the health and learning as
well as the morale of students and the staff. English Zone is conducted in two
preferable rooms, PSB or Multimedia room. It depends of the availability of the room
schedule on that day.
Regarding the classroom environment, most of the students prefer PSB than
multimedia room which is cleaner. GE says:
“Kalau menurutku antar PSB sama Multimedia lebih enak
PSB Lebih bersih (In my opinion, I prefer PSB rather than
Multimedia room. PSB is cleaner.)”
Not only that, another participant says that PSB has a good ventilation circulation
which makes comfortable. As DA says from the following interview:
“Multimednya terlalu pengap. PSB Lebih nyaman, dan
kelihatannya ruangannya lebih baru (The multimedia
room is just really stuffy. PSB is more comfortable and
seems like new building.)”
18
This result shows that cleanliness and inadequate ventilation are the problem
when the English Zone is conducted in Multimedia room. It is in line with Hunter
(2006) who says that the environmental conditions will affect the health and learning
as well as the morale of students and the staff. As schools have been successful in
eradicating asbestos, arsenic in drinking water and lead in paint, mold and its effect on
indoor air quality have established a new challenge in maintaining a comfortable
environment in which students can learn (Colgan, 2003). Studies have shown that
schools with indoor air quality problems experience a higher rate of health problems
with students (Guarneiri, 2003). It then stands to reason that sick children will not be
as likely to succeed academically. Therefore Gertel, McCarty, and Schoff (2004) state
that it was important for school to provide an appropriate environment for learning. In
summary, all students should be provided an opportunity to learn in a quality
environment conducive to maximizing both the teaching learning process and their
performance in classroom.
Classroom size:
Abramson (1991) found higher achievement in schools with adequate space
that larger spaces are used for instructional purposes, the achievement is greater.
According to Tanner (2006) the major problem is not the size should the classroom
be, but the density. If smaller is better, then fewer students per existing classroom is
the answer. Even so, simply putting smaller classes in smaller spaces by dividing
spaces already have is not the answer. It will compound the density problem by
having more students in less space. A question about their opinions toward the
classroom size in English Zone was given. The participants think that the classroom
19
size (either PSB or Multimedia) is large enough. In the following interview NI says:
“sama saja. Ya kalau yang ikut cuma sedikit ya luas (Both are the same. The
members are only a few so the rooms are big.)”. The members of English Zone are 7
students only. Actually, the classroom size of PSB could accommodate 25 students
and multimedia could accommodate 15 students. Relating to Tanner (2000) about the
density, the contrast between the students’ number and the classroom size could be
seen here. Both, of PSB and Multimedia room have less density. Like what OG says,
“karena personil English Zone itu terlalu sedikit, jadi ruangnya sangat luas.(Only a
few number of English Zone members, so the room looks very big)”.
In line with Tanner (2006), the participants have ample space in the classroom
to interact with the others. In conclusion, they do not have any problem with the
physical size of the classroom.
Time:
In academic settings, the quality of the students’ learning time is considered to
be cognitive, an attribute that facilitates success in the learning process (Romero,
2010). Time of day is one of the indicators that have been used to define time quality.
Some researchers have analyzed the degree of alertness by monitoring physiological
indicators as they change during the day. According to Kramer and his colleagues
(2000), they figure out in their study that the highest alertness is at 11 a.m. and 3 p.m.
In addition, higher achieving students spend more time in structured learning
activities outside school. After school hours provides opportunities for additional
learning to take place (CCSSO, 2001).
20
English Zone is one of the club activities in SMP Lab. This club activity starts
right after teaching-learning process in the school finished, around 14.00. However,
the participants give interesting answers; mostly they have no problem with the time.
GE said “Ya, gak masalah aja (Ya.. no problem.)”, related with the time. Another
participant, JN, also supported that”Oh, sebelum English Zone, waktu istirahat kedua
kan sudah makan, jadi sudah isi energy. Pulangnya sore pun juga gak masalah,
karena pelajarannya menyenangkan. (Oh, I have my lunch at the 2nd time break
before English Zone so I‟m already fully charged of energy. It‟s okay for going home
late in the evening because English Zone is fun)”.
Therefore, expecting students to engage in learning time after their primary
activity in school, at a time of day when alertness is lower, both because of the time of
day and the fatigue caused by the primary activity. Refer back to alertness by Kramer
(2000), English Zone starts at 2 p.m., which means in between the highest alertness.
Interestingly, the participants already prepared for the time condition of this club
activity. It makes them ready for the English Zone. In other words, the participants
faced no problem with the learning time of English Zone.
Facilities:
According to Building Educational Success Together ([BEST], 2005), it was
the responsibility of educators in every state to ensure that every child has an access
to a quality of education in school facilities that provide an educational setting that
was suited for teaching and learning. Wilson (1995) supports that students who are
given generous access to information resources books, print and video materials, etc.
and tools--word-processing programs, e-mail, search tools, etc.--are likely to learn.
21
The data shows that most of the students are satisfied and comfortable enough
with the facilities provided by the school. As DA says in the following interview:
“Ya fasilitasnya sih udah lumayan. Udah ada ACnya.
Sejauh ini baik-baik saja (I think the facilities are pretty
good. AC is already installed in the room. So far so good.)”
Another participant, JN, also supports DA statement. He says that he the facilities are
good, and could enjoy it. “Bagus, dan bisa menikmati. (Good and I could enjoy it)”.
However, there are some students who have different opinion about the facilities
provided. As GE says,
“Multimedia itu LCD belum terlalu canggih, masih pakai
papan putih itu pak. Terus meja-mejanya juga belum
lengkap. Belum pas sama murid-muridnya gitu pak. Terus
kalau di PSB, LCDnya udah canggih, udah bisa langsung
nyala, kursi-kursinya juga udah lengkap gitu. Fasilitas di
PSB udah canggih-canggih. LCD di PSB langsung nyala,
tapi kalau di multimedia masih agak kurang, masih harus
masang-masang dulu. Jadi masih makan waktu gitu. (In
multimedia room, the LCD is not sophisticated enough; it
uses white board as the screen. We need to install and
prepare the LCD first before we use it from the
administration office. The tables provided are not equal
with the number of the students who come to English Zone.
22
In the other hand, facilities in PSB are sophisticated. LCD
already installed in the room, tables and chairs are
completely enough for the student.)”
There are two rooms that used for English Zone, PSB and Multimedia room. Both of
them have the same facilities. But, based on their opinion, those two classes are
different quality of facilities.
In conclusion, what may become the problem in here is the quality of the
facilities provided. Hale (2002) points out that Effective facilities management
contributed to the success of every student in every school. In here, it is not about the
buildings themselves, but what the school need these building for, the knowledge
creation and transfer or learning. Perkins (1996) draws the analogy of childhood
intimacy with local neighborhoods to learning environments. Growing up in
neighborhood, children "knew their way around"-- where to find things, who to ask,
what to expect, where to go. He suggests that students come to "know their way
around" more than just neighborhoods. Provide good facilities in order to supports to
"learn their way around." When the teacher asks the students to perform practice
English about certain topics, how the students could practice or perform if they don’t
know their way around. They don’t know where to find about the topic, what to
expect and so on.
Learning styles
Learning styles is educational conditions under which a student is most likely
to learn (Stewart & Fellicetti, 1992). Thus, learning styles are not really concerned
what learners learn, but rather how they prefer to learn.
23
In this section, most of the students are bored with the learning style in this
class, watching video related to the theory in the material given in that day, like what
JE said in the following interview.
“Ada yang mboseni, Nonton video tentang teori (There are
some boring activities, like watching the video about
theory.)”
Another support was given by DA.
“Harusnya kan bisa juga disamain sama pelajarannya
sama pelajaran di kelas… ya kliatannya gak nyambung
gitu… kurang asik gitu (I think, the material given should
be related with the material given in the classroom… It
seems contrast… Unchallenging enough.)”
In here, the material given and the topic of the video are not appropriate with
their proficiency level. So, they couldn’t understand the material, and as a result, they
felt bored with it.
Different opinion came from NI. She said that the material is good enough,
but the problem is from the teacher itself. To be specific, the way the teachers deliver
the material or instruction. Felder (1996) argues in similar direction that a learning
style is useful if balancing instruction meets the students’ needs of essentially all
students in a class.
The teacher should recognize the students as being different. Determination of
student learning styles could offer insight to the teacher to help facilitate a more
24
favorable learning for all students and potentially improve their performance in
learning English. In line with Lynn (2011), who stated that if the instructor can make
simple modifications in teaching approaches based on learning styles of the students
in the classroom, or offer alternative resources related to the course material, he or she
may be able to provide an environment that enhances the learning capabilities of their
students.
CONCLUSION
This study examines external factors that discouraged SMP Lab students to
practice speaking in English. The data analyzed indicates that considering from the
length of exposure, the seven participants have a good basic of English for Junior
High School level. Moreover, the participants still want to develop their English
proficiency. The length of exposure to English has given them good basic of English
to perform in English Zone.
However, the relationship between teacher- students and students-students are
not mutual. The participants are blaming each other. Mutual respect is lacking and
leads to conflicts between student and peers in English Zone. Moreover, Conflicts in
classroom affect students’ performance, especially when the teacher asks them to
practice speak in English. Not only, when the participants are interviewed related to
teacher-students relationship, but the majority of the participants say that the teachers
fail to create lively atmosphere. The data indicates that the teacher couldn’t develop
mutual relationship with their students. It becomes a problem because the classroom
25
is uncomfortable and not enjoyable for the students which lead the students for not
being actively participated in the classroom.
Another external factor is that learning environment which has some sub
points on it. Somehow, the number of students still in the normal group size limits.
However, size of the group affects how individuals interact with each other as well as
the overall performance. Furthermore, higher levels of classroom participation, as
well as higher levels of interactive peers, have been linked to higher levels of their
performance, specifically practicing English. Beside the number students in the club,
the classroom environment data indicates that cleanliness and inadequate ventilation
are the problem when the English Zone is conducted in Multimedia room. All
students should be provided an opportunity to learn in a quality environment
conducive to maximizing both the teaching learning process and their performance in
classroom. However, participants do not have any problem with the physical size of
the classroom. Regarding that both, of PSB and Multimedia room have less density.
In conclusion, the participants have ample space in the classroom to interact with the
others. Another aspect in learning environment is time. Somehow, English Zone starts
at 2 p.m., which means in between the highest alertness. Interestingly, the participants
already prepared for the time condition of this club activity. In other words, the
participants face no problem with the learning time of English Zone. In the last
external factor, facilities, what may become the problem is the quality of the facilities
provided. PSB was preferred by students, because it has better quality of the facilities
provided than multimedia. Good facilities should be provided in order to supports to
"learn their way around."
26
The last external factor, learning style, indicates two problems in English
Zone. First, the participants think that the material and the topic of the video are not
appropriate with their proficiency level. So, they cannot understand the material, and
as a result, they felt bored with it. Second, the way the teachers deliver the material or
instruction is not appealing for students. The teacher should recognize the students as
being different. Determination of student learning styles could offer insight to the
teacher to help facilitate a more favorable learning for all students and potentially
improve their performance in learning English.
Since this study only investigates external factors, there are still a lot of things
that need to be improved. The results cannot be generalized for other regular
classrooms since English Zone has its own objectives and characteristic. Further
research needs to be done is to find out the internal and external factors which can be
used for the regular classroom teaching learning process. This finding of the study
could be used as preparation and anticipation for the future teaching practicum
students and the teacher in order to give better teaching learning process for English
Zone Club.
27
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This thesis would not have been finished without the support of many
people. I would like to praise Jesus Christ who has given me the life and always gives
me blessings. I wish to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Bapak Christian
Rudianto, who were abundantly helpful and patient in guiding me to finish this thesis
in a limited time. Deepest gratitude also goes to Ibu Rindang W., as my thesis
examiner. Without her knowledge and assistance this study would not have been
completed. I would like to thank to students of English Department who were willing
to share their thought, experiences and knowledge for this thesis. I also wish to
express my love and gratitude to my beloved parents who always supported me.
Special thanks also go to my special one, Christiani Dewi, who always helps me in
conducting
this
28
thesis.
REFERENCES
Abramson, P. (1991). Making the Grade. Architectural Review. 29 (4) 91-93.
BEST (Building Educational Success Together).2005. BEST overview and policy
agenda.
Retrieved
07/03.05
from
http://21csf.org/csf-
home/Documents/BEST/BEST_Policy.pdf
Brianne, J. J. (2006).Foreign Language Learning: An Exploratory Study on The
External and Internal Influences Affecting Success. Baylor University. May
2006.
Browder, M. Dianne. (2005). Aligning IFP to Academic Standards. Verona, WI:
Attainment Company.
Colgan, C. (2003). Is the mold the new asbestos? American School Board Journal,
190(6), 26-29.
Council of Chief State School Officers. Students Continually Learning: A report
Presentations, Student Voices and State Actions. Washington, D.C. Author,
April 2001. 113 pages. ED 455008.
Elliott, J. (2005). Using narrative in social research: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches. London: Sage.
Ellis, Rod. (1985). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford UP.
1985.
Felder, R. M. (1996). Matters of Styles. ASEE Prism, 6(4), 18-23.
Gertel, S., McCarty, P., & Schoff, L. (2004). High performance schools equals high
performing students. Educational Facility Planner, 39, 20-24.
Guarneiri, M.A (2003). Indoor air quality in schools: Clean air is good business.
School Business Affairs, 69(6), 26-30.
Hale, O. (2002). Improving performance. American School and University, 75, 32-35.
26
Hunter, M. A. (2006) Public school facilities: Providing environments that sustain
learning. Teachers College Columbia University. New York; NY: National
Access Network.
Hussin, S., Maarof, N., & D’Cruz, J. (2001). Sustaining an interest in learning English
and increasing the motivation to learn English: an enrichment program. The
Internet
TESL
Journal,7
(5).
Retrieved
from
http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Hussin-Motivation.html
Kabilan, M. K. (2000). Creative and critical thinking in language classrooms. The
Internet
TESL
Journal,
6
(6).
Retrieved
from
http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Kabilan-CriticalThinking.html
Kramer, A.F., Hahn, S., Irwin, D. E., & Theeuwes, J. (2000). Age differences in the
control of looking behavior. Do you know where your eyes have been?
Psychological Science, 11, 210-217.
Lieblich, A., Tuval-Mashiach, R., &Zilbert, T. (1998). Narrative research: Reading,
analysis and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
McKay, S. L. (2006). Researching second language classrooms. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
National Education Association. (2003) Class Size: Priorities for Changing NCLB: A
federal class size reduction program is an NEA priority in rewriting NCLB.
Retrieved from
http://nea.org/home/13120/htm
Nunan, D. (1989). Understanding language classroom. London: Prentice Hall.
Perkins, D. N. (1996). Preface: Minds in the 'Hood. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.),
Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design.
Englewood Cliffs NJ: Educational Technology Publication.
27
Romero, M. (2010). Self-regulated Learning in Technology Enhanced Learning
Environments: Problems and Promises. Group awareness in time-on-task
regulation in CSCL. Universitat de Barcelona. October 2010
Savage, T. V. (1999). Teaching self-control through management and discipline.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Stewart, K. L., & Felicetti, L. A. (1992). Learning styles of marketing majors.
Educational Research Quarterly, 15(2), 15-23.
Tanner, C. K.