The Effectiveness of Co-Op Jigsaw Team Projects to Teach Speaking Viewed from Students' Speaking Anxiety JOURNAL
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id
digilib.uns.ac.id
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-OP JIGSAW TEAM PROJECTS TO TEACH
SPEAKING VIEWED FROM STUDENTS' SPEAKING ANXIETY
Diaz Innova Citra Arum, Ngadiso, Sujoko
English Education Department of Graduate School
Sebelas Maret university
diaz.citraarum@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
This article reveals an experiment study to teach speaking in a senior high school
in East Java. It discusses about the effectiveness of Coop Jigsaw Team Projects to teach
speaking influenced by students’ speaking anxiety. It also shows whether there is
interaction or not between teaching method and students’ speaking anxiety in student’
speaking skill. The population of this research was the tenth grade students. The sample
of this research was 40 students of experimental group taught using Coop Jigsaw team
projects and 40 students of control group taught using Direct Instruction. The sampling
applied was cluster random sampling. To obtain the data of students’ speaking score, a
speaking test was conducted and a close questionnaire was used to obtain the data of
students’ speaking anxiety. Then, those data were analyzed through descriptive and
inferential analysis using ANOVA and Tukey test. The research findings are as follows:
(1) Coop jigsaw Team projects is more effective that Direct instruction method to teach
speaking for the tenth grade students; (2) both students with low and high speaking
anxiety have similar speaking skill; and (3) there is an interaction between teaching
methods and students’ speaking anxiety in teaching speaking for the tenth grade
students.
Keywords: speaking, Coop Jigsaw Team Projects, Direct instruction, Students’ speaking
anxiety, experimental study.
INTRODUCTION
An effective speaking activity involves
pronounce
active students to participate and create
speakgrammatically
a
ideal
many vocabularies so that their diction
condition of English speaking class
is good, speak fluently, and they should
involves the students’ effectiveness in
be able to understand everything they
participating
say.
life
communication.
teaching
The
and
learning
process. Besides that, they should be
able to master all aspects of speaking,
which
consist
grammatical
of
accuracy,
pronunciation,
vocabulary,
fluency, and content relevance.It means
that the students should be able to
all
utterances
correct,
clearly,
master
Practically, teachers must be aware
that students still face many problems
in learning speaking.There are a lot of
problems faced by Indonesian students
in
learning
English
especially
in
speaking skill. Some problems that are
commit to user
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id
digilib.uns.ac.id
faced by many students of tenth grade
also more complete, compels testers to
are they often get nervous to speak in
take a variety of factors into account,
front of many people when they are
and contains the analytic score that the
asked to present their work to their
performance
is
friends. It is a little bit easier when they
under
language
have
pronunciation,
to
present
it
by
their
own
the
language, but they will feel hard when
fluency,
they
scale.
have
to
speak
English.
Some
and
The
observed
separately
components:
grammar,
vocabulary,
comprehension
researcher
uses
in
1-5
content
students get anxious symptom when
instead of comprehension since she
they are asked to show their speaking
wants to score the students in one-way
skill.
speaking.
They
are
afraid
of
other’s
perception when they make mistakes
whether it is on purpose or not.
Based on the problem that most
students at tenth grade face, they need
Clark and Clark (1997: 223) states
some classroom activities which enable
that speaking is a process of uttering
them
words,
sentences,
participate in oral interactions.Besides
meaningfully using oral language in
using different methods from time to
order to give information and ideas. It is
time, teachers of English also try to find
clear that speaking is not just producing
out the most effective method to help
sound but there must be a meaning of
the students master English easily and
that sound production which is going to
effectively. The teacher cannot only
be
deliver
phrases,
delivered
and
by
the
speakers.
The
to
develop
the
lesson
their
skills
through
to
oral
aspects analyzed in oral competence
explanation and writing on the board,
stated by Weir (1998: 147-148) are
but alsobe as creative as possible in
appropriateness, vocabulary, grammar,
choosing method to help them deliver
pronunciation, fluency, and content. To
the material of English more effectively.
master speaking, students are claimed
to have all those aspects. Those aspects
are
also
used
to
score
students’
speaking skill so that teachers are able
to measure whether the students have
already been good enough or not yet. In
this
study,
analytical
the
scoring
researcher
by
Haris.
The researcher gets the idea firstly
from getting inspired by Spencer and
Kagan that create classic cooperative
learning. Cooperative learning can be
one of the alternatives to cope with the
students’ speaking difficulty.
adapts
Based on the problems above, the
Haris’
scoring rubric is used in this research
because the language is much more
understandable, this scoring rubric is
researcherconsiders
using
one
of
cooperative learning method that called
Coop Jigsaw Team Projects to solve the
commit to user
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id
digilib.uns.ac.id
problems. This method divides the
Besides all problem stated above,
students into some teammates. Each
language anxiety also has very big
teammate will get team topics and each
influence
student in it will have an expert topic to
process of speaking. Horwitz (cited in
be
discussion,
Talebinejad and Nekouei, 2013: 1) states
teammates will have a chance to present
that anxiety is the subjective feeling of
their last project in front of the class.
tension,
Based on the steps of Coop Jigsaw Team
and worry associated with an arousal of
Projects above, this kind of cooperative
the automatic nervous system. Mesri
learning is very suitable method to be
(2012: 1) states that Foreign language
applied to tenth grade students of
anxiety is widely used to describe the
Senior
feeling of tension and apprehension,
discussed.
High
curriculum
After
School
because
using
this
2013
method
is
students-centered and integrated skill.
Another method that is usually
used by teacher in teaching speaking is
Direct Instruction Method. This method
is teacher-centered that is dominated by
the teacher to take a part in teaching
and learning process. Students do not
have
many
chances
to
show
their
in
teaching
and
apprehension,
learning
nervousness,
which is specifically associated with
foreign
language
learning
contexts,
including listening, speaking, reading,
and writing. It can be concluded that
students’ language anxiety in speaking
is students’ feeling of tension and
apprehension,
associated
which
with
is
specifically
speaking
foreign
language.
speaking skill. According to Arends
Foreign Language anxiety is used
(2000: 264), Direct Instructional model
because it can represent an emotionally
is a teaching model that is aimed at
andphysically uncomfortable experience
helping students learn basic skills and
for some students in EFL classes. If the
knowledge that can be taught in a step-
students are very anxious in class,they
by-step fashion. From the definition
are probably not actively involved in
above it can be concluded that Direct
teaching learning process. It is because
Instruction takes learners through the
anxiety
steps of learning systematically, helping
problems for EFL students so that it can
them see both the purpose and the
interfere with the acquisition, retention,
result of each step. The teacher usually
and production of new language. To
spends some time lecturing, breaks the
reduce
problems down into some steps, and
teachers should be able to create a
gives students problems that should be
comfortable atmosphere in teaching and
accomplished on their own.
learning process. As stated by Johnson,
poses
students’
several
speaking
potential
anxiety,
Johnson,&Holubec (1990); Oxford (1997)
commit to user
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id
digilib.uns.ac.id
and Slavin (1991) in Duxbury and Ling-
In techniques of analyzing data,
ling Journal (2010), cooperative learning
the researcher used descriptive and
has been suggested as one possible
inferential analysis.Descriptive analysis
means
was used to know the mean, median,
of
reducing
anxiety
in
classrooms.
mode, and standard deviation of the
students’
RESEARCH METHOD
scores
in
speaking
test.
Inferential analysis was applied to test
This research was included as an
the hypothesis. Before that, it was
experimental research with quantitative
necessary to know data’s normality and
approach since the purpose of this
homogeneity.
research was investigating some cause-
tested the hypothesis by using ANOVA
and-effect interactions of a number of
and Tukey test. Anova was used to find
variables. It is supported by Fraenkel et.
out the difference between columns and
Al.,
rows. Tukey test was used to identify
(2009:
261)
that
experimental
The
research is type of research that directly
the
attempts
groups or cells.
to
influence
a
particular
significant
researcher,
difference
then,
between
variable, and when properly applied, it
is the best type for testing hypotheses
RESEARCH FINDINGS
After gathering the research data,
about cause and effect relationship.
the researcher required to test the
In this research, the population
was the tenth grade students. The
researcher took 2 classes consisting 40
students for each to be experimental
group and control group as the sample.
To achieve the research finding, the
researcher needed data to be analysed.
The
required
data
were
students’
data’s normality and homogeneity. The
data are in normal distribution if L o is
lower than Ltin the level of significance
α = 0.05. Based on table 1, it can be
identified that the data are in normal
distribution.
Table 1. Summary of Normality Test
No
Variables
Number
of Data
Lo
Lt
Description
speaking skill and speaking anxiety
1
2
3
A1
A2
B1
40
40
40
0.124
0.091
0.116
0.140
0.140
0.140
Normal
Normal
Normal
questionnaire to know the level of
4
B2
40
0.117
0.140
Normal
students’ speaking anxiety.To obtain the
5
A1B1
20
0.148
0.190
Normal
data, it was needed some instruments.
6
7
8
A1B2
A2B1
A2B2
20
20
20
0.102
0.109
0.139
0.190
0.190
0.190
Normal
Normal
Normal
The
data
speaking score to measure the students’
They were speaking test to obtain the
students’ speaking score and close-
are
considered
questionnaire to obtain the data of
homogeneous when χo2 (χobtain) is lower
students’ speaking anxiety.
than χt2 (χtable) at the level of significance
α = 0.05. Based on data calculation, it
commit to user
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id
digilib.uns.ac.id
can be identified that the data are
significance α = 0.05. It means the
homogeneous.
difference
Table 2. Summary of Homogeneity Test
between
columns
is
significant. Ho is rejected. It can be
Sample
Df
1/df
1
19
0.0526
26.57
1.42
27.06
2
19
0.0526
21.89
1.34
25.47
3
19
0.0526
26.73
1.43
27.11
than Direct Instruction method to
4
19
0.0526
45.25
1.66
31.46
teach speaking.
Σ
76
0.2105
log
df log
concluded that Coop Jigsaw team
111.10
projects method is more effective
2.
Fo between rows (1.12) is lower than
Ft(3.664) at the level significance α =
2.94
7.82
0.05.
After fulfilling the requirement of
It
means
the
difference
between rows is not significant. Ho
normality and homogeneity, the data
is accepted.
were analyzed by using Multifactor
that the difference of speaking skill
Analysis of Variance 2x2 (ANOVA). Ho is
between the students with low level
rejected if Fo is higher than Ft. It means
of
there is a significant effect of two
students with high level of speaking
independent
anxiety is not significant.
variable.
variables
After
to
knowing
dependent
that
Ho
is
3.
It can be concluded
speaking
anxiety
and
the
Fo interaction (7.23) is higher than
rejected, the analysis is continued by
Ft(3.664) at the level significance α =
performing the comparison between
0.05. It means there is interaction
cells using Tukey test to see where the
between the two variables: teaching
significant difference is.
techniques and self-concept. Ho is
Table 3. Summary of Multifactor Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) 2 x 2
Source of
variance
Between
columns
(A1-A2)
Between
rows
(B1-B2)
Column by
row
(interactio
n)
Between
group
Within
Group
Total
rejected.
SS
df
MS
Fo
Ft
(0.05)
Status
204.80
1
204.8
6.80
3.664
Ho is
rejected
33.80
217.80
1
1
33.8
217.8
456.40
3
152
2288.40
76
30.15
2744.80
79
Ho is
rejected
7.23
with
of teaching methods on students’
speaking performance depends on
the level of speaking anxiety.
Table 4. Summary of Tukey Test
No
Data
Sample
qo
qt
Status
1.
2.
A1 and A2
B1 and B2
80
80
3.69
1.50
2.86
2.86
Significant
Not Significant
3.
A1B1 and A2B1
40
5.30
2.95
Significant
4.
A1B2 and A2B2
40
0.08
2.95
Not Significant
From the analysis of Tukey test, it
Based on the table, it can be concluded
can be concluded as follows:
that:
1.
1.
the
result, it can be said that the effect
Ho is
accepte
d
1.12
Accordance
Because qo between columns A1-
Fo between columns (6.80) is higher
A2(3.69) is higher than qt (2.86) at
than
the level of significance α = 0.05, the
Ft(3.664)
in
the
level
of
commit to user
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id
difference
2.
digilib.uns.ac.id
between
columns
is
teaching
speaking
using
Coop
significant. Further, the mean score
Jigsaw Team Projects and Direct
of A1 (82.30) is higher than the
Instruction for students having high
mean score of A2(79.10). Hence, it
level of speaking anxiety is not
can be concluded that Coop Jigsaw
significant. It can be infered that the
Team Projects is more effective to
students with high speaking anxiety
teach
get similar speaking performance
speaking
than
Direct
Instruction.
when they are taught using Coop
Because qo between rows B1- B2
Jigsaw Team
(1.50) is lower than qt (2.86) at the
Instruction.
Projects or
Direct
level of significance α = 0.05, the
difference between columns is not
significant.
3.
be
The research reveals that Coop
concluded that the students having
Jigsaw team projects is more effective
los speaking anxiety have similar
than
speaking performance with those
speaking. Logically, Coop Jigsaw Team
having high speaking anxiety.
Project is an effective method applied in
Because qo between columns A1B1
teaching speaking of ESL instead of
and A2B1 (5.30) is higher than qt
Direct Instruction since CJTP claims the
(32.95) at the level of significance α
students to be more active in the class.
=
As
0.05,
teaching
4.
Hence,
the
it
can
DISCUSSION
difference
speaking
between
using
Coop
Direct
known,
speaking
Instruction
an
class
ideal
is
to
teach
condition
the
of
students’
Jigsaw Team Projects and Direct
effectiveness in participating teaching
Instruction for students with low
and learning process. Students should
speaking
actively
anxiety
is
significant.
participate
in
classroom
Further, the mean score of A1B1
activities since speaking is an activity
(84.60) is higher than the mean
that asks the students to get along in
score of A2B1(78.10). Hence, it can
class and talk a lot. As stated by Clark
be infered that Coop Jigsaw Team
and Clark (1997: 223), speaking is a
Projects
process of uttering words, phrases, and
is
more
effective
than
Direct Instruction to teach speaking
sentences,
for the students with low speaking
language in order to give information
anxiety.
and ideas. Students are claimed to utter
Because qo between columns for
words means that they should talk to
A1B2 and A2B2(0.08) is lower than qt
share ideas or information. If students
(2.95) at the level of significance α =
want
0.05,
the
difference
between
commit to user
to
meaningfully
get
using
successful
oral
speaking
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id
performance,
digilib.uns.ac.id
they
should
practice
talking many times.
chance to express their creative ideas
and share it to other members.
Coop Jigsaw Team Projects is
On
the
contrary,
Direct
the combination of Co-op Co-op and
Instruction method is done under the
Jigsaw
is
teacher’s
strict
direction
included in cooperative approach that
students
must
follow
divides
structure with specific steps to guide
elements.
the
This
method
students
into
some
and
a
the
definite
teammates. Slavin (1990: 3) states that
them
cooperative approach shares the idea
outcomes. As stated by Carnine in Miller
that students work together to learn
(2001: 3), Direct Instruction is a method
and responsible for their teammates’
of skill-oriented and teacher-directed. It
learning as well as their own. Therefore,
emphasizes the use of small group, face
it persuades all the students to work
to face instruction by teachers and aides
together to solve the problems given. It
using carefully articulated lessons in
also encourages them to be able to
which cognitive skills are broken down
understand and master the task. This
into small units, sequenced deliberately,
method gives a chance for them that
and
need time to think individually before
emphasizes in the teaching direction on
going to discuss it in a group.
classroom activities. Students totally
toward
taught
achieving
explicitly.
learning
This
method
many
take a concern on teacher’s explanation.
English,
In this case, teacher has an important
especially speaking. Many factors will
role in the implementation of Direct
influence their ability, for example;
Instruction method. She takes control of
students’ anxiety, students’ self-esteem,
the class condition. It is also supported
students’ basic knowledge, etc. CJTP has
by Harmer (2001: 94) that there is
a chronological steps allowing students
nothing wrong with teachers getting
to think individually, share it to the
involved, of course, provided they do
group and present it to the larger one
not start to dominate. It means that it
that ease the students having difference
does not matter if teacher has control in
characteristics to learn speaking much
the class activities as long as students
better. As stated by Kagan and Kagan
still able to get chance to show their
(2009: 17.14), CJTP has the advantage of
oral ability.
Students
characteristics
producing
have
in
learning
expression
and
allowing
Teaching learning procedures in
comprehensive coverage of a topic while
Direct
allowing
creative
providing objectives of the lesson. Then,
allowing
application-level
expression
and
thinking.
Hence, all members have the same
teacher
Instruction
presents
are
step
started
by
by
step
information or material to the class.
commit to user
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id
digilib.uns.ac.id
Next, teacher gives tasks for guiding
control in the class, students do not
practice to the students. At last, teacher
have many chances to practice or show
checks the students’ understanding of
their ability.
the lesson and give feedback. The
So, from the discussion and the
teacher’s domination in the teaching
result
and
concluded
learning
process
makes
the
of
this
research,
that
Coop
it
can
Jigsaw
be
Team
students passive so that they cannot
Projects is more effective than Direct
practice ESL for often. So, it makes the
Instruction in teaching speaking for
ideal condition of speaking class is hard
tenth grade students.
to be achieved since the students do not
The second result of this study
actively talk and share their ideas in the
shows
class.
difference in
that
there
is
no significant
speaking between
the
In relation with the discussion
students having low level of speaking
above, it can be concluded that there are
anxiety and those having high level of
some differences between Coop Jigsaw
speaking anxiety. In a learning process,
team projects and Direct Instruction
the students with low level of anxiety
method. In the implementation of CJTP,
tend to be able to come up with a high
students are claimed to be more active
confidence in speaking rather than the
than the teacher. They are asked to
students with high level of anxiety. As a
practice
when
result, students having low speaking
Direct Instruction is applied in the class.
anxiety will express his ideas and speak
Students are given chance to think
more confident in front of others.
individually, then share it to their group
Students who have low speaking anxiety
and presents it to the whole students. It
seem to be more active in class because
trains
low
they do not have any problem in
confidence and high level of anxiety to
producing new language. They are not
present it to the small group before
afraid of making mistakes. They are
going to the larger one. The role of the
willing to take a risk in every word they
teacher in the implementation of CJTP
say.
is only as a learning facilitator.
speaking anxiety tend to be more silent.
more
the
speaking
students
who
than
have
However,
students
with
high
On the other hand, the activities
They are afraid of producing wrong new
stated before do not happen in the
language. They avoid getting comment
implementation of Direct Instruction. In
from their friends or teacher that will
this method, teachers have bigger role
make them down. However, comment
than the students. They tend to more
from other friends will establish their
dominated in controlling the activities
speaking skill.
in the class. Since teachers take more
commit to user
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id
digilib.uns.ac.id
After conducting this research,
influence students’ performance, the
it is found that the students having high
students should be able to manage their
level of speaking anxiety have almost
anxiety so that they are not getting
similar result with those who have low
burdened with it. It is linked with the
level of speaking anxiety on speaking
first factor that causes anxiety that is
performance. The logical reason behind
students’
this result is that students’ speaking
influence their speaking performance.
anxiety is uncertain aspect that is able
Horwitz (2001: 128) states that anxiety
to
performance
can lead the students to make error
whether will give a better performance
even for the bright students. It means
or not depending on any conditions.
that students with high level of English
Williams (2008: 1) claims that although
proficiency do not always have good
there are some kind of anxiety which
English performance if they have a high
give
students
level of anxiety and they can not control
learning, there can be a good kind of
it. As stated by Griffin and Tyrrell
anxiety that is facilitating anxiety which
(2007:5) that the students will reach
can give positive effect on students
optimal performance if they can control
learning. It means that students having
their
low language anxiety will not always
instead of being controlled by it.
influence
bad
students’
contribution
to
characteristics.
anxiety
into
It
positive
can
feeling
have better speaking performance than
The example of how to manage
students having high level of speaking
students’ anxiety into positive feeling is
anxiety depending on how they manage
when they are lack of preparation. The
their speaking anxiety.
study conducted by Marwan (2007: 48)
The
there
reveled that lack of preparation was the
were some factors causing speaking
primary causes of students’ anxiety. The
anxiety in some researches. It is also
purpose of the preparation is to make
supported by Liu (2007: 128) that there
the quality of the subsequent speaking
were
reach a higher level than it would
two
researcher
main
found
factors
that
cause
speaking anxiety. The first is learners’
without
characteristics
&Newton,
such
as
low
English
the
preparation
2009:
155).
(Nation
Therefore,
proficiency, lack of preparation, lack of
preparation is seem to be important
practice, fear of making mistakes and
when going to give a presentation orally
being laughed at, and personality. The
especially for the anxious students. The
second factor is classroom procedures
preparation itself is different from one
including teaching method.
student
Since
uncertain
speaking
aspect
that
anxiety
is
able
to
another.
Some
students
is
study hard, train themselves to perform
to
their speaking in front of mirror or their
commit to user
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id
digilib.uns.ac.id
close friends, and many others. A good
there are many things that have to be
preparation will lead to a good speaking
taken into consideration. One of those
performance.
things is students’ speaking anxiety.
Related to the discussion above,
it
reveals
that
speaking anxiety
is
Speaking anxiety can influence
students’
speaking
performance.
uncertain in any conditions. All of the
Students with low level of anxiety will
students can manage their Speaking
be
anxiety
implementation
to
improve
their
speaking
very
suitable
of
with
CJTP
in
the
the
ability. Therefore, teachers have a great
classroom
role in helping them. In conclusion, not
characteristics that are confident and
all the students having low level of
more active. As stated by Horwitz, cited
speaking anxiety have better speaking
in Tallon, (2011), if the students are
skills. From the result, it can be stated
very anxious in class, they are probably
that the difference in speaking between
not
the
learning
students
having
low
level
of
by
actively
considering
involved
process.
their
in
teaching
Foreign
language
speaking anxiety and those having high
anxiety
level of speaking anxiety for the tenth
potential negative effects on academic
grade students.
achievement, cognitive processes, the
has
been
found
to
have
The third result of this study
social context, and the reaction for the
reveals that there is interaction between
language learner. It means students with
teaching methods and speaking anxiety
low level of anxiety tend to be more
in
Appropriate
active and often get involved in the
teaching methods can give a significant
class. They will practice speaking with
effect
speaking
no doubt. It indicates that the students
appropriate
with low speaking anxiety are more
teaching methods is Coop Jigsaw Team
appropriate to be taught by using Coop
projects. This method is cooperative
Jigsaw Team Projects.
teaching
on
performance.
speaking.
the
students’
One
of
method that can increase students’
Students with high level of
confidence to speak in front of many
anxiety tend to be less confident and
people. It is supported by Barkley et al.
stay silent in the class rather than those
(2005: 156) that this teaching method
having low anxiety. They are afraid of
trains the students to work in small
making mistakes, getting feedback from
groups
about
the teacher or their friends, and also
given topic and formulating effective
scared of procuring negative evaluation.
ways of teaching it to others. This is
All those fears guide them into passive
able to increase students’ speaking
performance. As stated by Zeidners
performance. Besides teaching methods,
(1998: 293), people with high levels of
developing
knowledge
commit to user
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id
digilib.uns.ac.id
trait anxiety are often quite easily
Therefore, both student-centered and
stressed and anxious. Students in this
teacher-centered methods give the same
case will talk less and give the control to
effect to the students with high level of
the teacher. These characteristics is
speaking anxiety. Those methods can
suitable with the implementation of
increase
Direct Instruction in the teaching and
performance. It is also supported by
learning process since DI is teacher-
findings of this research that the result
centered method that does not claim
of Tukey Test of students with high
the students to be more active in the
level of speaking anxiety who were
class since teacher takes control of the
taught by using Coop Jigsaw Team
whole class activites. However, Williams
Projects and Direct Instruction is not
(2008: 1) claims that although there are
significant that means they have similar
some kind of anxiety which give bad
speaking performance.
students
speaking
contribution to students learning, there
can be a good kind of anxiety, that is
facilitating
anxiety
which
can
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION
give
As the research result and the
positive effect on students learning.
discussion
Thus, the teachers’ real job would be to
findings are follows: (1) Coop Jigsaw
help students keep adequate anxiety,
Team Projects is more effective than
neither too high nor too low, because a
Direct Instruction to teach speaking at
proper level of anxiety plays a positive
the tenth grade students; (2) There is no
role and can motivate students to
significant difference in speaking skill
maintain their efforts in learning.
between the students having low level
Logically,
the
of speaking anxiety and those who have
better
high level of speaking anxiety of the
speaking performance than students
tenth grade students; (3) There is an
having high speaking anxiety. However,
interaction between teaching methods
it is not totally right. When students are
and
able to control their anxiety, their
teaching speaking at the tenth grade
speaking
students.
of
anxiety
will
performance
influenced.
To
with
above,
low
level
students
elaborated
have
will
manage
not
be
students’
students’
Dealing
speaking
with
anxiety
the
in
research
speaking anxiety, the implementation of
findings,Coop Jigsaw Team Projects can
teaching method will be very helpful.
give effect to students’ speaking skills.
Based on the characteristics of CJTP and
The result of the research has proven
DI,
the
that the students who are taught using
students having high level of speaking
Coop Jigsaw Team Projects have better
both
anxiety
to
methods
get
will
better
guide
performance.
commit to user
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id
digilib.uns.ac.id
speaking skills than those who are
Foreign Language Anxiety: A
taught using Direct Instruction.
Comparative
The activities of Coop Jigsaw team
Study
Taiwanese
and
of
American
Projects push the students to be more
Universities.
active
Journal of Instruction, Vol.3.
and
cooperative
in
learning
speaking since CJTP is a cooperative
teaching
approach
that
claims
International
Fraenkel J. R., and Wallen N. E. (2009).
the
How to Design and Evaluate
students to be more active in speaking
Research in Education: Seventh
and sharing their ideas.The students are
Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill
giventime to work with the topic given
Companies, Inc.
individually before they come to the
Griffin, J., and Tyrrell, I. (2007).How to
group (small group). CJTP pushes the
Master
students to work together with their
Handbook). United kingdom: HG
friends in their team. The students get
Publishing,
good opportunity to gain and explore
human Givens Publishing Ltd.
Anxiety
(A
an
Practical
imprint
of
their ideas in their team. All students in
Harmer, J. (2001).How to Teach English
a team have the same opportunity to
(An Introduction to the Practice
share
of English Language Teaching).
and
gain
knowledge
and
to
practice their speaking before come in
front of the class (larger group).
Malaysia: VVP.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J.
A.
(1986).
Foreign
Language
REFERENCES
Classroom Anxiety. The Modern
Arends, Richard I. (2000). Learning to
Language Journal, Vol. 70.
Teach
Fifth
Edition.Boston:
Kagan, S., and Kagan, M. (2009).Kagan
McGraw Hill.
Cooperative
Barkley, E. F., Cross K. P., and Major C.
H.
(2005).
Learning
Collaborative
Techniques.
Learning.
San
Clemente: Kagan Publishing.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1975).
United
Learning Together and Alone.
States of America: John Wiley &
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Sons, Inc.
Hall.
Clark, H. Herbert & Clark, V. Eve.(1997).
Psychology
and
Hartcourt:
Liu, Meihua. (2007). Anxiety in Oral
Language.
English
HartcourtBracec
Study
Jovanich, Inc.
The
Cooperative
in
China.
A
Case
Indonesian
Journal of English Language
Doxbury, John G., and Ling-ling T.
(2010).
Classrooms:
Effect
of
Learning
on
Teaching.Volume 3.
Marwan
commit to user
A.
(2007).
Students’
Investigating
Foreign
Language
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id
digilib.uns.ac.id
Anxiety. Malaysian Journal of
Weir,
ELT research, Vol. 3.
Mesri,
F.
(2012).The
Relationship
Foreign
Classroom
Miller,
Prentice Hall.
Williams, K.E. (2008). Is “Facilitating
Anxiety” All in Your Head?
(FLCA).
Sophia Junior College Faculty
Journal
of
Journal. Vol. 28.
Academic Research in Business
Zeidner, M. (1998).Test Anxiety (The
and Social Sciences June 2012,
State of the Art). New York,
Vol. 2.
Boston,
James
H.
(2001).
Direct
Instruction and the Teaching of
Early Reading. Winconsin Policy
Research
Institute
Report.
Volume 14.
Nation,I.S.P.
&Newthon,
Teaching
J.
ESL/EFL
(2009).
Listening/
Speaking. New York: Routledge.
Slavin,
(1998).Communicative
Language
Anxiety
International
J.
Language Testing. New York:
between Gender and Iranian EFL
Learners’
Cyril
R.
E.
(1990).
Cooperative
Learning: Theory, Research, and
Practice. New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
Talebinejad, M. R. And Razieh N. (2013).
The
Relationship
between
Foreign Language Anxiety and
Belief
toward
Children
EFL
FLL
among
Learners.Basic
research Journal of Education
Research and Review, Vol.2.
Tallon, M. (2008).A Culture of Caring:
Reducing
Anxiety
and
Increasing Engagement in FirstYear
Foreign
Courses.University
Language
of
the
Incarnate Word.
commit to user
Moscow:
Dordrencht,
Kluwer
Plenum Publisher.
London,
Academic/
digilib.uns.ac.id
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-OP JIGSAW TEAM PROJECTS TO TEACH
SPEAKING VIEWED FROM STUDENTS' SPEAKING ANXIETY
Diaz Innova Citra Arum, Ngadiso, Sujoko
English Education Department of Graduate School
Sebelas Maret university
diaz.citraarum@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
This article reveals an experiment study to teach speaking in a senior high school
in East Java. It discusses about the effectiveness of Coop Jigsaw Team Projects to teach
speaking influenced by students’ speaking anxiety. It also shows whether there is
interaction or not between teaching method and students’ speaking anxiety in student’
speaking skill. The population of this research was the tenth grade students. The sample
of this research was 40 students of experimental group taught using Coop Jigsaw team
projects and 40 students of control group taught using Direct Instruction. The sampling
applied was cluster random sampling. To obtain the data of students’ speaking score, a
speaking test was conducted and a close questionnaire was used to obtain the data of
students’ speaking anxiety. Then, those data were analyzed through descriptive and
inferential analysis using ANOVA and Tukey test. The research findings are as follows:
(1) Coop jigsaw Team projects is more effective that Direct instruction method to teach
speaking for the tenth grade students; (2) both students with low and high speaking
anxiety have similar speaking skill; and (3) there is an interaction between teaching
methods and students’ speaking anxiety in teaching speaking for the tenth grade
students.
Keywords: speaking, Coop Jigsaw Team Projects, Direct instruction, Students’ speaking
anxiety, experimental study.
INTRODUCTION
An effective speaking activity involves
pronounce
active students to participate and create
speakgrammatically
a
ideal
many vocabularies so that their diction
condition of English speaking class
is good, speak fluently, and they should
involves the students’ effectiveness in
be able to understand everything they
participating
say.
life
communication.
teaching
The
and
learning
process. Besides that, they should be
able to master all aspects of speaking,
which
consist
grammatical
of
accuracy,
pronunciation,
vocabulary,
fluency, and content relevance.It means
that the students should be able to
all
utterances
correct,
clearly,
master
Practically, teachers must be aware
that students still face many problems
in learning speaking.There are a lot of
problems faced by Indonesian students
in
learning
English
especially
in
speaking skill. Some problems that are
commit to user
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id
digilib.uns.ac.id
faced by many students of tenth grade
also more complete, compels testers to
are they often get nervous to speak in
take a variety of factors into account,
front of many people when they are
and contains the analytic score that the
asked to present their work to their
performance
is
friends. It is a little bit easier when they
under
language
have
pronunciation,
to
present
it
by
their
own
the
language, but they will feel hard when
fluency,
they
scale.
have
to
speak
English.
Some
and
The
observed
separately
components:
grammar,
vocabulary,
comprehension
researcher
uses
in
1-5
content
students get anxious symptom when
instead of comprehension since she
they are asked to show their speaking
wants to score the students in one-way
skill.
speaking.
They
are
afraid
of
other’s
perception when they make mistakes
whether it is on purpose or not.
Based on the problem that most
students at tenth grade face, they need
Clark and Clark (1997: 223) states
some classroom activities which enable
that speaking is a process of uttering
them
words,
sentences,
participate in oral interactions.Besides
meaningfully using oral language in
using different methods from time to
order to give information and ideas. It is
time, teachers of English also try to find
clear that speaking is not just producing
out the most effective method to help
sound but there must be a meaning of
the students master English easily and
that sound production which is going to
effectively. The teacher cannot only
be
deliver
phrases,
delivered
and
by
the
speakers.
The
to
develop
the
lesson
their
skills
through
to
oral
aspects analyzed in oral competence
explanation and writing on the board,
stated by Weir (1998: 147-148) are
but alsobe as creative as possible in
appropriateness, vocabulary, grammar,
choosing method to help them deliver
pronunciation, fluency, and content. To
the material of English more effectively.
master speaking, students are claimed
to have all those aspects. Those aspects
are
also
used
to
score
students’
speaking skill so that teachers are able
to measure whether the students have
already been good enough or not yet. In
this
study,
analytical
the
scoring
researcher
by
Haris.
The researcher gets the idea firstly
from getting inspired by Spencer and
Kagan that create classic cooperative
learning. Cooperative learning can be
one of the alternatives to cope with the
students’ speaking difficulty.
adapts
Based on the problems above, the
Haris’
scoring rubric is used in this research
because the language is much more
understandable, this scoring rubric is
researcherconsiders
using
one
of
cooperative learning method that called
Coop Jigsaw Team Projects to solve the
commit to user
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id
digilib.uns.ac.id
problems. This method divides the
Besides all problem stated above,
students into some teammates. Each
language anxiety also has very big
teammate will get team topics and each
influence
student in it will have an expert topic to
process of speaking. Horwitz (cited in
be
discussion,
Talebinejad and Nekouei, 2013: 1) states
teammates will have a chance to present
that anxiety is the subjective feeling of
their last project in front of the class.
tension,
Based on the steps of Coop Jigsaw Team
and worry associated with an arousal of
Projects above, this kind of cooperative
the automatic nervous system. Mesri
learning is very suitable method to be
(2012: 1) states that Foreign language
applied to tenth grade students of
anxiety is widely used to describe the
Senior
feeling of tension and apprehension,
discussed.
High
curriculum
After
School
because
using
this
2013
method
is
students-centered and integrated skill.
Another method that is usually
used by teacher in teaching speaking is
Direct Instruction Method. This method
is teacher-centered that is dominated by
the teacher to take a part in teaching
and learning process. Students do not
have
many
chances
to
show
their
in
teaching
and
apprehension,
learning
nervousness,
which is specifically associated with
foreign
language
learning
contexts,
including listening, speaking, reading,
and writing. It can be concluded that
students’ language anxiety in speaking
is students’ feeling of tension and
apprehension,
associated
which
with
is
specifically
speaking
foreign
language.
speaking skill. According to Arends
Foreign Language anxiety is used
(2000: 264), Direct Instructional model
because it can represent an emotionally
is a teaching model that is aimed at
andphysically uncomfortable experience
helping students learn basic skills and
for some students in EFL classes. If the
knowledge that can be taught in a step-
students are very anxious in class,they
by-step fashion. From the definition
are probably not actively involved in
above it can be concluded that Direct
teaching learning process. It is because
Instruction takes learners through the
anxiety
steps of learning systematically, helping
problems for EFL students so that it can
them see both the purpose and the
interfere with the acquisition, retention,
result of each step. The teacher usually
and production of new language. To
spends some time lecturing, breaks the
reduce
problems down into some steps, and
teachers should be able to create a
gives students problems that should be
comfortable atmosphere in teaching and
accomplished on their own.
learning process. As stated by Johnson,
poses
students’
several
speaking
potential
anxiety,
Johnson,&Holubec (1990); Oxford (1997)
commit to user
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id
digilib.uns.ac.id
and Slavin (1991) in Duxbury and Ling-
In techniques of analyzing data,
ling Journal (2010), cooperative learning
the researcher used descriptive and
has been suggested as one possible
inferential analysis.Descriptive analysis
means
was used to know the mean, median,
of
reducing
anxiety
in
classrooms.
mode, and standard deviation of the
students’
RESEARCH METHOD
scores
in
speaking
test.
Inferential analysis was applied to test
This research was included as an
the hypothesis. Before that, it was
experimental research with quantitative
necessary to know data’s normality and
approach since the purpose of this
homogeneity.
research was investigating some cause-
tested the hypothesis by using ANOVA
and-effect interactions of a number of
and Tukey test. Anova was used to find
variables. It is supported by Fraenkel et.
out the difference between columns and
Al.,
rows. Tukey test was used to identify
(2009:
261)
that
experimental
The
research is type of research that directly
the
attempts
groups or cells.
to
influence
a
particular
significant
researcher,
difference
then,
between
variable, and when properly applied, it
is the best type for testing hypotheses
RESEARCH FINDINGS
After gathering the research data,
about cause and effect relationship.
the researcher required to test the
In this research, the population
was the tenth grade students. The
researcher took 2 classes consisting 40
students for each to be experimental
group and control group as the sample.
To achieve the research finding, the
researcher needed data to be analysed.
The
required
data
were
students’
data’s normality and homogeneity. The
data are in normal distribution if L o is
lower than Ltin the level of significance
α = 0.05. Based on table 1, it can be
identified that the data are in normal
distribution.
Table 1. Summary of Normality Test
No
Variables
Number
of Data
Lo
Lt
Description
speaking skill and speaking anxiety
1
2
3
A1
A2
B1
40
40
40
0.124
0.091
0.116
0.140
0.140
0.140
Normal
Normal
Normal
questionnaire to know the level of
4
B2
40
0.117
0.140
Normal
students’ speaking anxiety.To obtain the
5
A1B1
20
0.148
0.190
Normal
data, it was needed some instruments.
6
7
8
A1B2
A2B1
A2B2
20
20
20
0.102
0.109
0.139
0.190
0.190
0.190
Normal
Normal
Normal
The
data
speaking score to measure the students’
They were speaking test to obtain the
students’ speaking score and close-
are
considered
questionnaire to obtain the data of
homogeneous when χo2 (χobtain) is lower
students’ speaking anxiety.
than χt2 (χtable) at the level of significance
α = 0.05. Based on data calculation, it
commit to user
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id
digilib.uns.ac.id
can be identified that the data are
significance α = 0.05. It means the
homogeneous.
difference
Table 2. Summary of Homogeneity Test
between
columns
is
significant. Ho is rejected. It can be
Sample
Df
1/df
1
19
0.0526
26.57
1.42
27.06
2
19
0.0526
21.89
1.34
25.47
3
19
0.0526
26.73
1.43
27.11
than Direct Instruction method to
4
19
0.0526
45.25
1.66
31.46
teach speaking.
Σ
76
0.2105
log
df log
concluded that Coop Jigsaw team
111.10
projects method is more effective
2.
Fo between rows (1.12) is lower than
Ft(3.664) at the level significance α =
2.94
7.82
0.05.
After fulfilling the requirement of
It
means
the
difference
between rows is not significant. Ho
normality and homogeneity, the data
is accepted.
were analyzed by using Multifactor
that the difference of speaking skill
Analysis of Variance 2x2 (ANOVA). Ho is
between the students with low level
rejected if Fo is higher than Ft. It means
of
there is a significant effect of two
students with high level of speaking
independent
anxiety is not significant.
variable.
variables
After
to
knowing
dependent
that
Ho
is
3.
It can be concluded
speaking
anxiety
and
the
Fo interaction (7.23) is higher than
rejected, the analysis is continued by
Ft(3.664) at the level significance α =
performing the comparison between
0.05. It means there is interaction
cells using Tukey test to see where the
between the two variables: teaching
significant difference is.
techniques and self-concept. Ho is
Table 3. Summary of Multifactor Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) 2 x 2
Source of
variance
Between
columns
(A1-A2)
Between
rows
(B1-B2)
Column by
row
(interactio
n)
Between
group
Within
Group
Total
rejected.
SS
df
MS
Fo
Ft
(0.05)
Status
204.80
1
204.8
6.80
3.664
Ho is
rejected
33.80
217.80
1
1
33.8
217.8
456.40
3
152
2288.40
76
30.15
2744.80
79
Ho is
rejected
7.23
with
of teaching methods on students’
speaking performance depends on
the level of speaking anxiety.
Table 4. Summary of Tukey Test
No
Data
Sample
qo
qt
Status
1.
2.
A1 and A2
B1 and B2
80
80
3.69
1.50
2.86
2.86
Significant
Not Significant
3.
A1B1 and A2B1
40
5.30
2.95
Significant
4.
A1B2 and A2B2
40
0.08
2.95
Not Significant
From the analysis of Tukey test, it
Based on the table, it can be concluded
can be concluded as follows:
that:
1.
1.
the
result, it can be said that the effect
Ho is
accepte
d
1.12
Accordance
Because qo between columns A1-
Fo between columns (6.80) is higher
A2(3.69) is higher than qt (2.86) at
than
the level of significance α = 0.05, the
Ft(3.664)
in
the
level
of
commit to user
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id
difference
2.
digilib.uns.ac.id
between
columns
is
teaching
speaking
using
Coop
significant. Further, the mean score
Jigsaw Team Projects and Direct
of A1 (82.30) is higher than the
Instruction for students having high
mean score of A2(79.10). Hence, it
level of speaking anxiety is not
can be concluded that Coop Jigsaw
significant. It can be infered that the
Team Projects is more effective to
students with high speaking anxiety
teach
get similar speaking performance
speaking
than
Direct
Instruction.
when they are taught using Coop
Because qo between rows B1- B2
Jigsaw Team
(1.50) is lower than qt (2.86) at the
Instruction.
Projects or
Direct
level of significance α = 0.05, the
difference between columns is not
significant.
3.
be
The research reveals that Coop
concluded that the students having
Jigsaw team projects is more effective
los speaking anxiety have similar
than
speaking performance with those
speaking. Logically, Coop Jigsaw Team
having high speaking anxiety.
Project is an effective method applied in
Because qo between columns A1B1
teaching speaking of ESL instead of
and A2B1 (5.30) is higher than qt
Direct Instruction since CJTP claims the
(32.95) at the level of significance α
students to be more active in the class.
=
As
0.05,
teaching
4.
Hence,
the
it
can
DISCUSSION
difference
speaking
between
using
Coop
Direct
known,
speaking
Instruction
an
class
ideal
is
to
teach
condition
the
of
students’
Jigsaw Team Projects and Direct
effectiveness in participating teaching
Instruction for students with low
and learning process. Students should
speaking
actively
anxiety
is
significant.
participate
in
classroom
Further, the mean score of A1B1
activities since speaking is an activity
(84.60) is higher than the mean
that asks the students to get along in
score of A2B1(78.10). Hence, it can
class and talk a lot. As stated by Clark
be infered that Coop Jigsaw Team
and Clark (1997: 223), speaking is a
Projects
process of uttering words, phrases, and
is
more
effective
than
Direct Instruction to teach speaking
sentences,
for the students with low speaking
language in order to give information
anxiety.
and ideas. Students are claimed to utter
Because qo between columns for
words means that they should talk to
A1B2 and A2B2(0.08) is lower than qt
share ideas or information. If students
(2.95) at the level of significance α =
want
0.05,
the
difference
between
commit to user
to
meaningfully
get
using
successful
oral
speaking
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id
performance,
digilib.uns.ac.id
they
should
practice
talking many times.
chance to express their creative ideas
and share it to other members.
Coop Jigsaw Team Projects is
On
the
contrary,
Direct
the combination of Co-op Co-op and
Instruction method is done under the
Jigsaw
is
teacher’s
strict
direction
included in cooperative approach that
students
must
follow
divides
structure with specific steps to guide
elements.
the
This
method
students
into
some
and
a
the
definite
teammates. Slavin (1990: 3) states that
them
cooperative approach shares the idea
outcomes. As stated by Carnine in Miller
that students work together to learn
(2001: 3), Direct Instruction is a method
and responsible for their teammates’
of skill-oriented and teacher-directed. It
learning as well as their own. Therefore,
emphasizes the use of small group, face
it persuades all the students to work
to face instruction by teachers and aides
together to solve the problems given. It
using carefully articulated lessons in
also encourages them to be able to
which cognitive skills are broken down
understand and master the task. This
into small units, sequenced deliberately,
method gives a chance for them that
and
need time to think individually before
emphasizes in the teaching direction on
going to discuss it in a group.
classroom activities. Students totally
toward
taught
achieving
explicitly.
learning
This
method
many
take a concern on teacher’s explanation.
English,
In this case, teacher has an important
especially speaking. Many factors will
role in the implementation of Direct
influence their ability, for example;
Instruction method. She takes control of
students’ anxiety, students’ self-esteem,
the class condition. It is also supported
students’ basic knowledge, etc. CJTP has
by Harmer (2001: 94) that there is
a chronological steps allowing students
nothing wrong with teachers getting
to think individually, share it to the
involved, of course, provided they do
group and present it to the larger one
not start to dominate. It means that it
that ease the students having difference
does not matter if teacher has control in
characteristics to learn speaking much
the class activities as long as students
better. As stated by Kagan and Kagan
still able to get chance to show their
(2009: 17.14), CJTP has the advantage of
oral ability.
Students
characteristics
producing
have
in
learning
expression
and
allowing
Teaching learning procedures in
comprehensive coverage of a topic while
Direct
allowing
creative
providing objectives of the lesson. Then,
allowing
application-level
expression
and
thinking.
Hence, all members have the same
teacher
Instruction
presents
are
step
started
by
by
step
information or material to the class.
commit to user
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id
digilib.uns.ac.id
Next, teacher gives tasks for guiding
control in the class, students do not
practice to the students. At last, teacher
have many chances to practice or show
checks the students’ understanding of
their ability.
the lesson and give feedback. The
So, from the discussion and the
teacher’s domination in the teaching
result
and
concluded
learning
process
makes
the
of
this
research,
that
Coop
it
can
Jigsaw
be
Team
students passive so that they cannot
Projects is more effective than Direct
practice ESL for often. So, it makes the
Instruction in teaching speaking for
ideal condition of speaking class is hard
tenth grade students.
to be achieved since the students do not
The second result of this study
actively talk and share their ideas in the
shows
class.
difference in
that
there
is
no significant
speaking between
the
In relation with the discussion
students having low level of speaking
above, it can be concluded that there are
anxiety and those having high level of
some differences between Coop Jigsaw
speaking anxiety. In a learning process,
team projects and Direct Instruction
the students with low level of anxiety
method. In the implementation of CJTP,
tend to be able to come up with a high
students are claimed to be more active
confidence in speaking rather than the
than the teacher. They are asked to
students with high level of anxiety. As a
practice
when
result, students having low speaking
Direct Instruction is applied in the class.
anxiety will express his ideas and speak
Students are given chance to think
more confident in front of others.
individually, then share it to their group
Students who have low speaking anxiety
and presents it to the whole students. It
seem to be more active in class because
trains
low
they do not have any problem in
confidence and high level of anxiety to
producing new language. They are not
present it to the small group before
afraid of making mistakes. They are
going to the larger one. The role of the
willing to take a risk in every word they
teacher in the implementation of CJTP
say.
is only as a learning facilitator.
speaking anxiety tend to be more silent.
more
the
speaking
students
who
than
have
However,
students
with
high
On the other hand, the activities
They are afraid of producing wrong new
stated before do not happen in the
language. They avoid getting comment
implementation of Direct Instruction. In
from their friends or teacher that will
this method, teachers have bigger role
make them down. However, comment
than the students. They tend to more
from other friends will establish their
dominated in controlling the activities
speaking skill.
in the class. Since teachers take more
commit to user
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id
digilib.uns.ac.id
After conducting this research,
influence students’ performance, the
it is found that the students having high
students should be able to manage their
level of speaking anxiety have almost
anxiety so that they are not getting
similar result with those who have low
burdened with it. It is linked with the
level of speaking anxiety on speaking
first factor that causes anxiety that is
performance. The logical reason behind
students’
this result is that students’ speaking
influence their speaking performance.
anxiety is uncertain aspect that is able
Horwitz (2001: 128) states that anxiety
to
performance
can lead the students to make error
whether will give a better performance
even for the bright students. It means
or not depending on any conditions.
that students with high level of English
Williams (2008: 1) claims that although
proficiency do not always have good
there are some kind of anxiety which
English performance if they have a high
give
students
level of anxiety and they can not control
learning, there can be a good kind of
it. As stated by Griffin and Tyrrell
anxiety that is facilitating anxiety which
(2007:5) that the students will reach
can give positive effect on students
optimal performance if they can control
learning. It means that students having
their
low language anxiety will not always
instead of being controlled by it.
influence
bad
students’
contribution
to
characteristics.
anxiety
into
It
positive
can
feeling
have better speaking performance than
The example of how to manage
students having high level of speaking
students’ anxiety into positive feeling is
anxiety depending on how they manage
when they are lack of preparation. The
their speaking anxiety.
study conducted by Marwan (2007: 48)
The
there
reveled that lack of preparation was the
were some factors causing speaking
primary causes of students’ anxiety. The
anxiety in some researches. It is also
purpose of the preparation is to make
supported by Liu (2007: 128) that there
the quality of the subsequent speaking
were
reach a higher level than it would
two
researcher
main
found
factors
that
cause
speaking anxiety. The first is learners’
without
characteristics
&Newton,
such
as
low
English
the
preparation
2009:
155).
(Nation
Therefore,
proficiency, lack of preparation, lack of
preparation is seem to be important
practice, fear of making mistakes and
when going to give a presentation orally
being laughed at, and personality. The
especially for the anxious students. The
second factor is classroom procedures
preparation itself is different from one
including teaching method.
student
Since
uncertain
speaking
aspect
that
anxiety
is
able
to
another.
Some
students
is
study hard, train themselves to perform
to
their speaking in front of mirror or their
commit to user
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id
digilib.uns.ac.id
close friends, and many others. A good
there are many things that have to be
preparation will lead to a good speaking
taken into consideration. One of those
performance.
things is students’ speaking anxiety.
Related to the discussion above,
it
reveals
that
speaking anxiety
is
Speaking anxiety can influence
students’
speaking
performance.
uncertain in any conditions. All of the
Students with low level of anxiety will
students can manage their Speaking
be
anxiety
implementation
to
improve
their
speaking
very
suitable
of
with
CJTP
in
the
the
ability. Therefore, teachers have a great
classroom
role in helping them. In conclusion, not
characteristics that are confident and
all the students having low level of
more active. As stated by Horwitz, cited
speaking anxiety have better speaking
in Tallon, (2011), if the students are
skills. From the result, it can be stated
very anxious in class, they are probably
that the difference in speaking between
not
the
learning
students
having
low
level
of
by
actively
considering
involved
process.
their
in
teaching
Foreign
language
speaking anxiety and those having high
anxiety
level of speaking anxiety for the tenth
potential negative effects on academic
grade students.
achievement, cognitive processes, the
has
been
found
to
have
The third result of this study
social context, and the reaction for the
reveals that there is interaction between
language learner. It means students with
teaching methods and speaking anxiety
low level of anxiety tend to be more
in
Appropriate
active and often get involved in the
teaching methods can give a significant
class. They will practice speaking with
effect
speaking
no doubt. It indicates that the students
appropriate
with low speaking anxiety are more
teaching methods is Coop Jigsaw Team
appropriate to be taught by using Coop
projects. This method is cooperative
Jigsaw Team Projects.
teaching
on
performance.
speaking.
the
students’
One
of
method that can increase students’
Students with high level of
confidence to speak in front of many
anxiety tend to be less confident and
people. It is supported by Barkley et al.
stay silent in the class rather than those
(2005: 156) that this teaching method
having low anxiety. They are afraid of
trains the students to work in small
making mistakes, getting feedback from
groups
about
the teacher or their friends, and also
given topic and formulating effective
scared of procuring negative evaluation.
ways of teaching it to others. This is
All those fears guide them into passive
able to increase students’ speaking
performance. As stated by Zeidners
performance. Besides teaching methods,
(1998: 293), people with high levels of
developing
knowledge
commit to user
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id
digilib.uns.ac.id
trait anxiety are often quite easily
Therefore, both student-centered and
stressed and anxious. Students in this
teacher-centered methods give the same
case will talk less and give the control to
effect to the students with high level of
the teacher. These characteristics is
speaking anxiety. Those methods can
suitable with the implementation of
increase
Direct Instruction in the teaching and
performance. It is also supported by
learning process since DI is teacher-
findings of this research that the result
centered method that does not claim
of Tukey Test of students with high
the students to be more active in the
level of speaking anxiety who were
class since teacher takes control of the
taught by using Coop Jigsaw Team
whole class activites. However, Williams
Projects and Direct Instruction is not
(2008: 1) claims that although there are
significant that means they have similar
some kind of anxiety which give bad
speaking performance.
students
speaking
contribution to students learning, there
can be a good kind of anxiety, that is
facilitating
anxiety
which
can
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION
give
As the research result and the
positive effect on students learning.
discussion
Thus, the teachers’ real job would be to
findings are follows: (1) Coop Jigsaw
help students keep adequate anxiety,
Team Projects is more effective than
neither too high nor too low, because a
Direct Instruction to teach speaking at
proper level of anxiety plays a positive
the tenth grade students; (2) There is no
role and can motivate students to
significant difference in speaking skill
maintain their efforts in learning.
between the students having low level
Logically,
the
of speaking anxiety and those who have
better
high level of speaking anxiety of the
speaking performance than students
tenth grade students; (3) There is an
having high speaking anxiety. However,
interaction between teaching methods
it is not totally right. When students are
and
able to control their anxiety, their
teaching speaking at the tenth grade
speaking
students.
of
anxiety
will
performance
influenced.
To
with
above,
low
level
students
elaborated
have
will
manage
not
be
students’
students’
Dealing
speaking
with
anxiety
the
in
research
speaking anxiety, the implementation of
findings,Coop Jigsaw Team Projects can
teaching method will be very helpful.
give effect to students’ speaking skills.
Based on the characteristics of CJTP and
The result of the research has proven
DI,
the
that the students who are taught using
students having high level of speaking
Coop Jigsaw Team Projects have better
both
anxiety
to
methods
get
will
better
guide
performance.
commit to user
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id
digilib.uns.ac.id
speaking skills than those who are
Foreign Language Anxiety: A
taught using Direct Instruction.
Comparative
The activities of Coop Jigsaw team
Study
Taiwanese
and
of
American
Projects push the students to be more
Universities.
active
Journal of Instruction, Vol.3.
and
cooperative
in
learning
speaking since CJTP is a cooperative
teaching
approach
that
claims
International
Fraenkel J. R., and Wallen N. E. (2009).
the
How to Design and Evaluate
students to be more active in speaking
Research in Education: Seventh
and sharing their ideas.The students are
Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill
giventime to work with the topic given
Companies, Inc.
individually before they come to the
Griffin, J., and Tyrrell, I. (2007).How to
group (small group). CJTP pushes the
Master
students to work together with their
Handbook). United kingdom: HG
friends in their team. The students get
Publishing,
good opportunity to gain and explore
human Givens Publishing Ltd.
Anxiety
(A
an
Practical
imprint
of
their ideas in their team. All students in
Harmer, J. (2001).How to Teach English
a team have the same opportunity to
(An Introduction to the Practice
share
of English Language Teaching).
and
gain
knowledge
and
to
practice their speaking before come in
front of the class (larger group).
Malaysia: VVP.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J.
A.
(1986).
Foreign
Language
REFERENCES
Classroom Anxiety. The Modern
Arends, Richard I. (2000). Learning to
Language Journal, Vol. 70.
Teach
Fifth
Edition.Boston:
Kagan, S., and Kagan, M. (2009).Kagan
McGraw Hill.
Cooperative
Barkley, E. F., Cross K. P., and Major C.
H.
(2005).
Learning
Collaborative
Techniques.
Learning.
San
Clemente: Kagan Publishing.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1975).
United
Learning Together and Alone.
States of America: John Wiley &
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Sons, Inc.
Hall.
Clark, H. Herbert & Clark, V. Eve.(1997).
Psychology
and
Hartcourt:
Liu, Meihua. (2007). Anxiety in Oral
Language.
English
HartcourtBracec
Study
Jovanich, Inc.
The
Cooperative
in
China.
A
Case
Indonesian
Journal of English Language
Doxbury, John G., and Ling-ling T.
(2010).
Classrooms:
Effect
of
Learning
on
Teaching.Volume 3.
Marwan
commit to user
A.
(2007).
Students’
Investigating
Foreign
Language
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id
digilib.uns.ac.id
Anxiety. Malaysian Journal of
Weir,
ELT research, Vol. 3.
Mesri,
F.
(2012).The
Relationship
Foreign
Classroom
Miller,
Prentice Hall.
Williams, K.E. (2008). Is “Facilitating
Anxiety” All in Your Head?
(FLCA).
Sophia Junior College Faculty
Journal
of
Journal. Vol. 28.
Academic Research in Business
Zeidner, M. (1998).Test Anxiety (The
and Social Sciences June 2012,
State of the Art). New York,
Vol. 2.
Boston,
James
H.
(2001).
Direct
Instruction and the Teaching of
Early Reading. Winconsin Policy
Research
Institute
Report.
Volume 14.
Nation,I.S.P.
&Newthon,
Teaching
J.
ESL/EFL
(2009).
Listening/
Speaking. New York: Routledge.
Slavin,
(1998).Communicative
Language
Anxiety
International
J.
Language Testing. New York:
between Gender and Iranian EFL
Learners’
Cyril
R.
E.
(1990).
Cooperative
Learning: Theory, Research, and
Practice. New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
Talebinejad, M. R. And Razieh N. (2013).
The
Relationship
between
Foreign Language Anxiety and
Belief
toward
Children
EFL
FLL
among
Learners.Basic
research Journal of Education
Research and Review, Vol.2.
Tallon, M. (2008).A Culture of Caring:
Reducing
Anxiety
and
Increasing Engagement in FirstYear
Foreign
Courses.University
Language
of
the
Incarnate Word.
commit to user
Moscow:
Dordrencht,
Kluwer
Plenum Publisher.
London,
Academic/