THE USE OF PROJECT-BASED LEARNING IN IMPROVING STUDENTS’ SPEAKING SKILL:A Classroom Action Research at One of Primary Schools in Bandung.

THE USE OF PROJECT-BASED LEARNING

IN IMPROVING STUDENTS’ SPEAKING SKILL

(A Classroom Action Research at One of Primary Schools in Bandung )

A Research Paper

Submitted to English Education Department of FPBS UPI as a partial fulfillment for the requirement of Sarjana Pendidikan degree

By

Darini Bilqis Maulany

0807315

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

THE USE OF PROJECT-BASED LEARNING

IN IMPROVING STUDENTS’ SPEAKING SKILL

Oleh

Darini Bilqis Maulany

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

© Darini Bilqis 2013 Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

Juni 2013

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

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

PAGE OF APPROVAL

THE USE OF PROJECT-BASED LEARNING IN IMPROVING STUDENTS’ SPEAKING SKILL (A Classroom Action Research at One of Elementary Schools in Bandung)

A Research Paper By

Darini Bilqis Maulany

0807315

Approved by:

Main Supervisor, Co-Supervisor,

Ika Lestari Damayanti, S.Pd., M.A. NIP 197709192001122001

Iyen Nurlaelawati, M.Pd. NIP 197709062009122002

Head of English Education Department Faculty of Language and Arts Education

Indonesia University of Education

ABSTRACT

The study entitled The Use of Project-Based Learning in Improving Students’ Speaking Skill is a two-cycles-action-research conducted at a Year 4 class at one primary school in Bandung. This study aims to find out whether Project-based learning can improve young learners’ speaking skill or not and what speaking aspects are improved through PBL. It also aims to investigate what speaking activities are used in PBL to improve their speaking skill. To collect the data, participatory observation was done for eight meetings and speaking assessment was conducted three times in the first, fifth, and eighth meetings (Pre-test, Post-test 1, Post-Post-test 2). Qualitative analysis was also used in this design of study. The findings show that PBL can improve the students’ speaking skill. It is indicated by the improvement of the students’ speaking aspects adapted from Harries (1984) and Brown (2004) which covers comprehension, vocabulary, grammar, fluency, and pronunciation. Of all the five aspects of speaking skill, comprehension and vocabulary are improved most significantly. As for the speaking activities used in PBL, this study used the ones proposed by Brown (2004) and Kayi (2006). Of 21 speaking activities, nine of them were used, namely drilling, storytelling, directed response, picture-cued, translation of limited stretches of discourse, question and answer, discussion, games, and role-play. Based on this study, it is suggested that Project-Based Learning is implemented in teaching speaking in primary schools.

Keywords: Speaking skill, speaking aspects, speaking activity, young learners, Project-Based Learning.

ABSTRAK

Penelitian berjudul The Use of Project-Based Learning in Improving Students’ Speaking Skill merupakan sebuah penelitian tindakan kelas yang dilakukan sebanyak dua siklus di kelas 4 di salah satu sekolah dasar di Bandung. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menemukan apakah Project-Based Learning bisa meningkatkan kemampuan berbicara Bahasa Inggris siswa SD dan untuk mengetahui aspek berbicara apa saja yang meningkat melalui metode ini. Penelitian ini juga bertujuan untuk meneliti apa saja aktivitas yang dilakukan dalam PBL untuk meningkatkan kemampuan berbahasa inggris siswa. Untuk mengumpulkan datanya, observasi dilakukan selama delapan kali pertemuan dan penilaian berbicara siswa dilaksanakan tiga kali, yaitu pada pertemuan pertama, kelima, dan kedelapan (Pre-test, Post-test 1, Post-test 2). Analisis secara kualitatif juga digunakan dalam penelitian ini. Penemuan penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa PBL bisa meningkatkan kemampuan bicara Bahasa Inggris siswa. Hal ini diindikasikan dengan meningkatnya aspek berbicara siswa yang diadaptasi dari Harries (1984) and Brown (2004), yaitu comprehension (pemahaman), vocabulary (kosa kata), grammar (tata bahasa), fluency (kelancaran), dan pronunciation (pelafalan). Dari kelima aspek tersebut, comprehension dan vocabulary merupakan aspek yang meningkat paling signifikan. Untuk kegiatan berbicara yang digunakan dalam PBL, penelitian ini menggunakan aktivitas yang dikemukakan oleh Brown (2004) dan Kayi (2006). Dari 21 aktivitas, 9 diantaranya digunakan dalam penelitian ini, yaitu drilling, storytelling, directed response, picture-cued, translation of limited stretches of discourse, question and answer, discussion, games, dan role-play. Berdasarkan penelitian ini, PBL disarankan untuk digunakan dalam mengajarkan Bahasa Inggris di sekolah dasar.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ... i

AKNOWLEDGEMENTS... ii

ABSTRACT ... v

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... vi

LIST OF TABLES ... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ... ix

LIST OF APPENDICES ... x

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1. Background ... 1

1.2. Research Questions ... 5

1.3. Purpose of the Research ... 6

1.4. Scope of the Research ... 6

1.5. Significance of the Research ... 6

1.6. Clarification of the Key Terms ... 7

1.8. Organization of the Paper ... 7

CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FOUNDATION ... 9

2.1. The Characteristics of Young Learner ... 9

2.2. Speaking Skill ... 10

2.2.1 Speaking Aspects ... 11

2.2.2 Speaking Activities ... 15

2.3. Teaching Speaking to Young Learners ... 28

2.4. Project-Based Learning ... 35

2.5. Teaching Speaking to Young Learners Using PBL ... 40

2.6. The previous Study of PBL ... 42

2.7. Concluding Remark ... 43

3.2 Research Site and Participants ... 48

3.3. Research Procedure ... 49

3.4. Data Collection... 50

3.4.1 Observation ... 50

3.4.2 Speaking Assessment ... 51

3.5. Data Analysis ... 55

3.5.1 Data Reduction ... 58

3.5.2 Data Display ... 58

3.5.3 Conclusion ... 59

3.6. Concluding Remark ... 59

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ... 60

4.1. The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Skill through PBL ... 60

4.2. The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Aspects through PBL .. 62

4.2.1 The Students’ Comprehension Aspect ... 62

4.2.2 The Students’ Vocabulary Aspect ... 69

4.2.3 The Students’ Grammar Aspect ... 75

4.2.4 The Students’ Fluency Aspect... 79

4.2.5 The Students’ Pronunciation Aspect ... 82

4.3. The Speaking Activities Used in PBL to Improve the Students’ Speaking Skill ... 86

4.4. Concluding Remark ... 118

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... 119

5.1. Conclusions ... 119

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Speaking Performance ... 27

Table 3.1 Reflective Cycle of the Research ... 46

Table 3.2 Research Topics in Cycles 1 and 2 ... 48

Table 3.3 Research Procedures ... 49

Table 3.4 The Criteria of Speaking Aspects ... 54

Table 3.5 Video Transcript Codes for Speaking Aspect... 56

Table 3.6 Video Transcript Codes for Speaking Activities ... 57

Table 4.1 The Increase of the Student Number in Speaking Aspect Criteria ... 61

Table 4.2 The Increase of The Student Number in Comprehension Aspect ... 63

Table 4.3 The Increase of The Student Number in Vocabulary Aspect ... 70

Table 4.4 The Increase of The Student Number in Grammar Aspect ... 76

Table 4.5 The Increase of The Student Number in Fluency Aspect ... 80

Table 4.6 The Increase of The Student Number in Pronunciation Aspect ... 83

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 The Stages of PBL Implementation ... 37 Figure 3.1 Cycle of Classroom Action Research adapted from Kemmis and

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses some aspects related to the background of the study.

It provides research questions, purpose of the research, scope of the research,

significance, clarification of key terms, and organization of the paper.

1.1. Background

In Indonesia, as the result of decentralization of education in 2001, English as a foreign language may be taught in elementary school. It means that every elementary school may include English to its curriculum depending on the schools’ needs.

According to the national standards in Indonesia (Permen Depdiknas,

2006), English lesson in elementary school is aimed to develop students’ oral communication competence, limitedly to accompany action in school context.

Oral communication competence, or specifically called as speaking skill, which becomes the goal of English learning in elementary school is considered as an

initial skill that leads learners to develop the other communication competences or

skills (reading and writing).

In line with this, Linse (2005:27) states that “children need to say a word before they can read it, and they need to read a word before they can write it.” It means that speaking is the first step that needs to be learned by young English

standards and Linse’s statement, teaching English in elementary school needs to focus on oral communication.

However, it is assumed that developing speaking skill to young learners in

Indonesia is not easy because of the status of English as a foreign language. It

means “it is taught in schools, often widely, but it does not play an essential role in national or social life” (Broughton, 2003: 6). Thus, children learning English as a foreign language tend to consider English as a subject, not as a language for

communication. They also tend to find that speaking English is meaningless since,

as Bruner (1983 as cited in Bas and Beyhan, 2010: 365-366) said, “children

experienced it as very separate from their real lives.” Actually children can learn English as a foreign language for communication even though it is not used in

their real life. They can be set in arranged situations in which the situations force

them to communicate in English at least in the classroom.

An observation that I did in an elementary school in Northern Bandung,

exactly at a Year 4 class, proved that the difficulty of developing speaking skill in

that school. The school was developing English learning program to optimize the

use of English in verbal context. However, English was still considered merely as

a subject by the students so that the school needed to create situations in which

English was needed to be spoken by the students.

Based on the observation, it was found that the students’ initial speaking

skill in that school was still lack. Most of the students did not respond or answer

when the teacher greeted, asked, or instructed them in English. Whereas,

supposed to be able to answer or respond simple questions or instructions in

English from the teacher. They were also supposed to be able to introduce

themselves, do greeting, ask for help, etc. (see the basic competence standards in

Appendix B).

It was assumed that there were some possibilities why they did not respond

to the questions in English. First, the students perhaps were not familiar yet with

the vocabulary used by the teacher so that they did not understand what the

teacher said or asked. Second, they perhaps understood the questions or what the

teacher said but they did not know how to respond to them. Third, they might

understand and know how to respond, but they were not confident to say it.

Therefore, it can be said that the goal of learning English at the elementary

school had not been achieved satisfactorily yet. According to the English teachers

in the school, there are some obstacles encountered in teaching and learning

English, especially in developing speaking skill. First, the unbalance between the

time allotment and the learning goals of English lesson leads to the lack of

exposure to the language learned and unoptimal achievement of English learning

goal. Second, varieties of activities in teaching English tend to provide less

meaningful and contextual environment to practice speaking English.

In teaching English to young learners, time allotment and the varieties of

activities are important. As Pinter (2006) states that teaching language to young

learners needs a lengthy process in which the young learners can have lots of

exposures to the language learned. It is supported by Harmer (2002) stating that

language acquisition.” Teaching English to young learners also needs a special method that is appropriate to their characteristics. The method needs to provide

meaningful and contextual environment to practice speaking English. This is in

line with Pinter (2006) who states that learners need much practice to be able to

speak English fluently.

In the view of this, project based learning (PBL) is one of the methods

recommended to be used. PBL refers to a method that allows “students to design, plan, and carry out an extended project that produces a publicly exhibited output

such as a product, publication, or presentation” (Patton, 2012:13). PBL gives contextual and meaningful learning for the learners through the projects as their

learning environment. Through PBL, the learners are engaged in purposeful

communication to complete authentic activities (project-work), so that they have

the opportunity to use language in a relatively natural context (Haines, 1989, as

cited in Fragoulis, 2009) and participate in meaningful activities which require

authentic language use (Fragoulis, 2009).

PBL is also a method that can create optimal environment to practice

speaking English. It is basically an attempt to create new instructional practices

that reflect the environment in which children live and learn (Ozdemir, 2006, as

cited in Bas and Beyhan 2010), so that it can give optimal opportunity to improve

students’ language skill (Levine, 2004, as cited in Fragoulis, 2009).

A study of PBL by Gaer (1998) to a population of Southeast Asian Lao,

Hmong, Mien, and Lahu refugees who had been in their beginning-level ESOL

States in the early 1980s showed that learners had much more opportunity to

speak English in appropriate contexts. It is said that the refugees’ children seemed to lose their original culture (Asian culture) so that the project was preserving

their culture by telling it (in form of some Asian recipes and folktales) using

English to their children. The study showed that project led them to be able to

speak English with the benefit of clear context of learning which was telling some

Asian recipes and folktales in English to the students’ children.

Viewing the success of PBL implementation to Asian refugees in the

United States by Gaer, this study tries to apply PBL in Indonesian context.

Different from Gaer’s study which focused on adult learners, this study is focused

on young learners, specifically Year 4 of elementary school. The project given to

the students is to give presentation and to do conversation in English about some

tourism objects and public places in Bandung to some foreigners that are coming

to their school celebration. On the basis of the theories, this study entitled “The Use of Project-Based Learning in Improving Students’ Speaking Skill” is conducted to investigate the use of PBL in teaching speaking to elementary

students and its effect in improving their speaking skill.

1.2. Research Questions

This study investigates the following questions:

1. Can Project-Based Learning improve the students’ speaking skill? 2. What speaking aspects can be improved through PBL?

3. What speaking activities are used in PBL to improve the students’ speaking skill?

1.3. Purpose of the Research

Based on the research questions, the purposes of the study are as the

following:

1. To investigate whether PBL improves the students’ speaking skill or not. 2. To investigate what aspects of speaking are improved through PBL.

3. To explain speaking activities used in PBL to improve the students’ speaking skill.

1.4. Scope of the Research

This study was conducted at a Year 4 class in one of the elementary

schools in Northern Bandung. The concern of this study is the improvement of speaking skill that was indicated by the improvement of its five aspects

(pronunciation, grammar, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension) through

speaking activities that are used in PBL.

1.5. Significance of the Research

This study is expected to give significance to the development of teaching

and learning EFL in Indonesia. Hopefully this study can also enrich the literature

on teaching speaking to young learners and be a reference for those who want to

English teachers to provide some appropriate strategies to improve students’ speaking skill.

1.6. Clarification of Key Terms

1. Project-Based Learning: a learning method in which in the end of the lesson

students have specific goal or product based on authentic problem in form of

a show, presentation, etc. It is the chosen method to stimulate students to

speak English.

2. Elementary students: Students from 7-12 years old (Slattery and Willis,

2001) who are learning in elementary school and chosen as participants of

this study. The focus of the study is the fourth grader (8-10 years old) at an

elementary school in Bandung.

3. Speaking skill: young learners’ ability to speak English involving comprehension, vocabulary, grammar, fluency, and pronunciation. It is the

skill that becomes concern of this study.

4. Speaking Activity: activities conducted in the classroom to teach speaking.

The activities are aimed to give the students model of speaking and to give

them chances to practice their speaking.

1.7. Organization of the Paper

Chapter I: Introduction

This chapter presents general description of the paper entitled The Use of

Project-Based Learning in Improving Students’ Speaking Skill, consisting of the background of the research, research questions, research purpose, research scope,

research significance, clarification of key terms, and the organization of the paper.

Chapter II: Theoretical Foundation

This chapter presents theoretical foundations about young learner’s characteristics, speaking skill, speaking activities, teaching speaking to young

learner, Project–Based Learning, and teaching speaking using PBL. Chapter III: Research Methodology

This chapter describes research methodology that is applied investigating the

study. It consists of research design, research site and participant, research

procedure, data collection and data analysis.

Chapter IV: Findings and Discussion

This chapter provides and discusses the result of the research findings about the

use PBL in improving students’ speaking skill. It also presents the writer’s

interpretation towards the findings of the study.

Chapter V: Conclusions and Suggestions

This chapter draws conclusion from the findings and offers some suggestions

regarding the use of Project-based learning in improving students’ speaking skill for the students, teachers, and further research.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter tells about research method that is applied to find out the

research questions which are (1) does PBL improve the students’ speaking skill, (2) what speaking aspects are improved through PBL, and (3) What speaking

activities are used in PBL to improve the students’ speaking skill. The chapter consists of research design, research site and participants, research procedures,

data collection, and data analysis.

1.1 Research Design

The method that is employed in this research is action research. Action

research designs are systematic procedures conducted by teachers or other

individuals in educational setting to gather information about and subsequently

improve the ways their particular setting operates, their teaching and their student

learning (Mills, 2000 cited in Cresswel 1994). Ebutt (1985, cited in Hopkins

2008: 48) states that “CAR is the effort to improve the teaching learning process by a series of practical actions and to reflect towards the results of actions.” This design is used when teachers have specific educational problems to solve in

particular scope in educational setting such as classroom. According to Mettetal

(2003), Classroom Action Research (CAR) is a way for instructors to discover

teachers and students to improve their performance. Thus, by using this method, it

was expected that this study could investigate, analyze, and explain students’

speaking improvement using PBL.

According to Kemmis and McTaggart (1990), there are four basic steps in

action research. The first step is planning referring to the starting up of action

research in which teachers plan what action to do in the classroom (Burns, 2010).

This step might be based on previous observation or investigation done to get the

picture of respondents’ condition. The second step is action in which the teachers put the plan into actions in order to collect information or data during teaching

and learning process. The third step is observing the result of the plan. The fourth

step is reflecting the previous actions or treatments for the next cycle. Those four

processes are considered as one cycle.

This study took two reflective cycles consisting of the four processes

proposed by Kemmis and McTaggart (1990).

Table 3.1 Reflective Cycle of the Research

Cycle Steps Description

Cycle 1

Planning Preparing pre-test assessment tools, conducting the pre-test to see

students’ speaking skill before given the treatments, making syllabus (see Appendix C), lesson plans (see Appendix D), media (see Appendix E), post-test assessment tools (see Page 54) to be used in the classroom during PBL implementation.

Action Implementing what had been planned in which the students were given necessary English materials related to their project (presenting Bandung tourism objects to audiences), such as related vocabularies, pronunciation, grammar, etc.

In this study, the materials and the actions of Cycle 1 can be seen in Table 3.2 and Appendix C and D.

Observation Observing the students during learning process to investigate their speaking skill improvement. The students were grouped, and each group was given a picture of a tourism object in Bandung. They were asked to discuss in the group about the following questions:

1) What is this place?

2) What can you see in this place? 3) What can you do in this place?

The students were also asked to make a dialogue about Bandung tourism objects they got that contained those questions (the dialogue was based on the dialogue that had been modeled by the teacher). After that, they were asked to come forward and perform their

dialogue. The students’ speaking proficiency was assessed by using students’ speaking skill assessment criteria adapted from Harries (1984) and Brown (2004) (See Page 54).

The teacher also videotaped all of the teaching and learning processes to be replayed, transcribed, and analyzed later.

Reflection Reflecting and evaluating the result to determine the next actions in the cycle 2.

Based on the result of Cycle 1, some actions were remained and some were changed. The actions that were remained were for example speaking activities such as storytelling, question and answer, etc. This was because it was believed that those activities

helped the students’ to improve their speaking skill in Cycle 1 and

could still be used in Cycle 2.

the assessment in Cycle 1 took much time, while the time in Cycle 2 was very limited.

Cycle 2

Planning Making lesson plans for new topic (Bandung public places) with some concerns based on the previous cycle.

Action/ Treatment

Implementing what had been planned in which the students were given necessary English materials related to the project (presenting Bandung public places to audiences), such as related vocabularies, pronunciation, grammar, etc.

The materials and actions of Cycle 2 can also be seen Table 3.2 and Appendix C and D.

Observation/ Assessment

Observing the students during learning process to investigate their speaking skill improvement. In Cycle 2, the students were introduced to some public places in Bandung and vocabularies related to the places. They were also grouped and each group was given a picture of Bandung public places and some pictures of things and activities that could be done in some public places. The students were asked to match the pictures.

In the end of the meeting, they were asked directly by the teachers:

1) What is this place?

2) What can you see in this place? 3) What can you do in this place?

In this cycle, the teacher also videotaped all of the teaching and learning processes to be replayed, transcribed, and analyzed later. Reflection Reflecting and evaluating the result.

Cycle 1 consisted of five meetings: one meeting for pre-test aimed to know

the students’ prior speaking skill, three meetings for treatments aimed to give the

students related and necessary materials, and one meeting for post-test aimed to

see their speaking skill improvement after PBL was implemented. While Cycle 2

consisted of three meetings: two for treatments and one for post-test.

The different number of the treatments in the two cycles was based on

some considerations. First, the given time by the school was only eight meetings.

Second, it was assumed that in Cycle 1 the students needed more time to be

introduced to the project and to the materials, while in Cycle 2 they did not need it

Table 3.2 Research Topics in Cycles 1 and 2

Cycle Meetings Topic Learning Objectives

1

Pre-test (May, 1st 2012)

Tourism Objects In Bandung

Describing some Bandung

tourism objects using

demonstrative article “this”, modal “can”, appropriate vocabulary about things that can be seen and done in the tourism object.

Treatment (May, 2nd 2012)

Treatment (May, 15th 2012)

Treatment 1 (May, 16th 2012)

Post-test (May, 22nd 2012)

2

Treatment (May, 23rd 2012)

Public Places in Bandung

Describing some Bandung

public places using

demonstrative article “this”, modal “can”, appropriate vocabulary about things that can be seen and done in the public places

Treatment (May, 29th 2012)

Post-test (May, 30th 2012)

1.2 Research Site and Participants

This study was conducted at an elementary school in Northern Bandung.

There are some reasons to make this school as the research site. First, English has

been introduced since the first grade. Second, the school was developing English

program to optimize students’ speaking skill. Third, the school’s facilities were

sophisticated enough since teachers could use projector, laptop, and other

facilities as teaching and learning media.

The participants of this study were Year 4 B consisting of 29 students. Of

the total number of the students, only 18 students were included as participant.

This was because of some considerations related to students’ absence and their

To picture the students’ condition and to decide appropriate project for

them, preliminary observation was done before conducting Cycle 1 and Cycle 2

treatments. Based on the observation, the students’ speaking proficiency varied. It was categorized into three main groups. The first one was for the students that

could maintain simple conversations in English with the teacher even though

sometimes they mixed it with Indonesian or Sundanese Language. The second one

was for them who spoke mostly in Indonesian language but sometimes tried to

speak English even though with some long pauses and hesitancy, and most of the

students seemed to be in this second category. The last one was for them who

could not respond teacher’s talk in English at all.

1.3 Research Procedures

The procedure of this study is described in the following table:

Table 3.3 Research Procedures

No Steps Time Description

1 Conducting preliminary observation to define the problem of the students and having interview with the classroom teacher.

Week 1-2 (February, 14th-21th)

The problem is that most of the students could not respond or speak English in the classroom.

2 Designing project Week 3-6 (February, 28th- March, 20th)

At first, the project was “42 Days around

Bandung” (see Appendix A) because it was expected that the project would be conducted in a month and a half. However, after consulting with the school party, the project was changed to “30 Days Around

Bandung” because the given time by the

school was only 30 days so that. Thus, some topics and materials in the project were reduced. However, principally, the project was similar. It required the

parents, teachers, and invited foreigners from Singapore at the end semester school celebration (school party). The purpose of this project is to get the students explore their own city (Bandung) and introduce it to others, especially to foreigners.

3 Designing instrument, syllabus, etc.

Week 7-9 (March, 27th-April, 15th)

In this step, syllabus (see Appendix C), lesson plans (see Appendix D), media (See Appendix E), and the instrument used to assess students speaking skill were made. The instrument used was speaking assessment sheet adapted from Harries (1984) and Brown (2004) (See Page 53) 4 Observing and

videotaping learning processes in cycle 1 and 2.

Week 10-14 (May, 1st-31st)

The observing and videotaping were done in a month consisting of 8 meetings. It is because the school authority gave limited time and there was demand from school authority that the products should be displayed in the school celebration of end semester.

5 Transcribing video and coding the transcriptions.

Week 15-31 (June 1st- September 30th)

After transcribing the video, the transcriptions were coded (see Appendix F)

6 Comparing pre-test and post-tests in cycle 1 and cycle 2

Week 32-36 (October 1st-31st)

Students’ aspects of speaking in cycle 1

and 2 were categorized using the criteria scaled from 1-5 adapted from Harries (1984) and Brown (2004).

7 Analyzing data Week 37-41 (November 1st-30th)

The data obtained were analyzed to see

whether PBL improve students’ speaking

skill, what activities are used in PBL to

improve the students’ speaking skill, and

what aspect of speaking skill are improved through PBL.

8 Presenting the result of the study.

Week 42-44 (December, 1st-16th)

The result of the study is presented in chapter 4.

1.4 Data Collection

Tomal (2003) says that some methods that are commonly used in action

research are observation, interview, survey, and assessing. To collect the data, this

study employed two of them, namely observation and assessing through pre-test

1.4.1 Observation

Observation is a process of collecting data by seeing the object of study

directly or indirectly to gain information needed. This study employed

participatory observation in which the researcher interacted with the subjects

while doing observation. Tomal (2003) states that by doing this kind of direct

observation, researchers can obtain actual firsthand information regarding the

subjects because the researchers picture directly what are observed in the real life

situation.

During the observation, the researcher videotaped the teaching and

learning process. Videotaping was employed to collect the data of the study. It

was process of collecting data by recording what happened in the classroom

during the implementation of PBL. There are some benefits of using videotaping.

First, videotape that is considered as audiovisual material can preserve the data

that will be analyzed by the researcher of the study or other researchers to gather

information needed (Cresswell, 1994). Second, videotaping could be replayed for

several times in order to check and assure the data (Fraenkel and Wallen, 1990).

Third, the videotape can be shown to other researchers that might be used in the

next relevant research (Fraenkel and Wallen, 1990).

In this study, videotaping was conducted to record students’ oral communication during the teaching-learning process, especially during speaking

assessment so that the researcher can evaluate students speaking skill more

Moreover, in this study the researcher also wrote some journals (see

Appendix G) and field notes (see Appendix H). Journals were used to see how the

lesson plans that had been made worked in the classroom and to note what needed

to improve for the next meeting. While field notes were used to record students’

behavior, feelings, and incidents during Pretest and Post-test in Cycle 1 and Cycle

2. Tomal (2003) said that by writing the journals and field notes, the information

obtained was expected to be more detail.

1.4.2 Speaking Assessment

In this study, assessment technique that was used was limited response

technique in which the students were required to respond the questions limitedly

using aural cues (What is this place?) and by requiring spoken answer (This is

Tangkuban Parahu) (Madsen, 1983). This technique was used based on some

considerations. First, the students were considered as beginners that were assumed

that they had not known many vocabularies. Second, their skills (reading, writing,

listening, and speaking) had not developed yet (Madsen, 1983) so that the

assessment needed to be fitted with their schemata or prior knowledge. Third, in

the end of the lesson the students were expected to be able to answer those kinds

of questions in the exhibition in their school party.

During the study, the assessment was conducted three times: Pre-test,

Post-test 1 (in Cycle 1), and Post-Post-test 2 (in Cycle 2). In the pre-Post-test, the students were

and what could be seen and done there. After 10 minutes, the students were asked

three questions: 1) What is this place, 2) What can you see there, 3) What can you

do there. Their ability to speak English was then assessed using speaking

assessment sheet which was decided based on some criteria adapted from Harries

(1984) and Brown (2004) (see Page 54).

Post-tests 1 and 2 were conducted after the students were given some

treatments to know the improvement of students’ speaking skill after PBL was

implemented. In the post-tests, the students were asked to explain the picture of

certain tourism objects and public places in Bandung. In the post tests, their

speaking was also assessed using speaking assessment sheet used in the pre-test.

The speaking assessment sheet used contains five aspects of speaking skill,

namely comprehension, vocabulary, grammar, fluency, and pronunciation. Each

aspect has its own criteria scaled from 1-5 (Harries, 1984). The criteria of

Table 3.4 The Criteria of Speaking Aspects

Criteria Comprehension Vocabulary Grammar Fluency Pronunciation

5

Appears to understand everything without difficulty

Speaks in L2 with accurate English words

Produces complete and accurate sentences (E.g. 1. This is Gasibu, 2. I can see many people there. 3. I can buy some clothes)

Speaks in L2 very fluently and effortlessly.

Speaks in L2 Intelligibly and has few traces of foreign accent.

4

Understands nearly

everything at normal speed, although occasional repetition may be necessary.

Speaks mostly in L2 with few L1 words

Produces some phrases instead of complete sentences with consistent and accurate word order (E.g. 1. Gasibu. 2. Seeing many people. 3.buying some clothes) or produces consistent omitted sentence (E.g. buy some clothes, see many people)

Speaks in L2 less fluently due

to few problems of

vocabulary/selection of word.

Speaks mostly in L2 Intelligibly with mother tongue accent.

3

Understands most of what is said at slower-than-normal speed with many repetitions.

Produces 4-6 English words. Produces inconsistent and incorrect sentences/ phrases (E.g. I can walking around, buy food, some game, etc).

Speaks mostly in L2 with some long pauses and hesitancy.

Speaks mostly in L1, but produces 1-3 English words and pronounce them in intelligible mother tongue accent.

2

Has great difficulty understanding what is said, often misunderstands the Qs.

Produces 1-3 English words (brands or place names such as KFC, Roppan, etc. do not

count as English

word/vocabulary) due to very limited vocabulary

Answers mostly in L1, with 1-3 English words/phrases (Madsen, 1983).

Speaks mostly in L1, Tries to speak in L2 but so halting with

so many pauses and “er..”

Speaks mostly in L1, but produces 1-3 English words. Needs some repetition in pronouncing the words to understand them.

1

Unable to comprehend the material so that unable to express/respond the questions

Vocabulary limitations so extreme as to make conversation in L2 virtually

Unidentified because of speaking in L1 all the time.

Unidentified because of speaking in L1 all the time.

Unidentified because of speaking in L1 all the time.

1.5 Data Analysis

Before analyzed, the data obtained from the observation were transcribed

and coded (see Appendix F) to make the analysis easier. Alwasilah (2011) states

that there are some benefits of coding the data. First, it helps the researcher to

simplify phenomena identification. Second, it helps the researcher to count the

frequent of phenomenon emerging. Third, it helps the researcher to see the

tendency of the findings. Fourth, it helps the researcher to organize the

categorizations and sub-categorization of the inventions.

In this study, there are two types of codes to differentiate two different

data. The first codes are used to analyze the students’ speaking aspect

improvement. The second ones are used to analyze speaking activities used in

PBL. The table below shows the video transcript codes used in analyzing the data

Table 3.5 Video Transcript Codes for Speaking Aspect

No. Explanation Code

Main Sub

1. Speaker Spkr

2. Teacher T

3. Student S

4. Students Ss 5. Bahasa Indonesia L1

6. English L2

7. Questions Qs

8. Question 1: What is this place? Q1 9. Question 2: What can you see there? Q2 10. Question 3: What can you do there? Q3 11. Pronunciation P

12. Pronunciation Criterion 1 (the lowest) P1 13. Pronunciation Criterion 2 P2 14. Pronunciation Criterion 3 P3 15. Pronunciation Criterion 4 P4 16. Pronunciation Criterion 5 (the highest) P5

17. Grammar G

18. Grammar Criterion 1 (the lowest) G1 19. Grammar Criterion 2 G2 20. Grammar Criterion 3 G3 21. Grammar Criterion 4 G4 22. Grammar Criterion 5 (the highest) G5 23. Vocabulary V

24. Vocabulary Criterion 1 (the lowest) V1 25. Vocabulary Criterion 2 V2 26. Vocabulary Criterion 3 V3 27. Vocabulary Criterion 4 V4 28. Vocabulary Criterion 5 (the highest) V5

29. Fluency F

30. Fluency criterion 1 (the lowest) F1 31. Fluency criterion 2 F2 32. Fluency criterion 3 F3 33. Fluency criterion 4 F4 34. Fluency criterion 5 (the highest) F5 35. Comprehension C

36. Comprehension Criterion 1 (the lowest) C1 37. Comprehension Criterion 2 C2 38. Comprehension Criterion 3 C3 39. Comprehension Criterion 4 C4 40 Comprehension Criterion 5 (the highest) C5

The table below shows the video transcript codes used in analyzing the

data from the video transcriptions of the whole meetings.

Table 3.6 Video Transcript Codes for Speaking Activities

No. Explanation Code

Main Sub

1. Imitative IM

2. Drilling DL

3. Storytelling ST

4. Intensive IN

5. Directed Response DR

6. Read Aloud RA

7. Sentence/Dialogue Completion SDC 8. Oral Questionnaire OQ

9. Picture-cued PC

10. Translation of limited stretches of discourse

TrL 11 Responsive Res

12. Question and answer QA 13. Giving Instruction and Direction GID 14. Paraphrasing PRH 15. Interactive: Transactional InTrans

16. Interview ITV

17. Discussion DSC

18. Games GMS

19. Interactive: Interpersonal Inter

20. Conversation CON

21. Role-play RP

22. Extensive EX

23. Oral Presentation OP 24. Picture-cued Storytelling PCST 25. Retelling A Story RS 26. Retelling News Event RN 27. Translation of extended prose TrEx

After coded, the data were analyzed using qualitative data analysis.

According to Powell and Renner (2003), qualitative data analysis is a process of

accordance with the characteristic of action research applied in this study, as

Alwasilah (2011) states that action research is very qualitative seen from the

research problems and research purposes.

The problems or questions that were tried to be answered in this study

were (1) to what extent PBL improves students speaking skill, (2) what aspect of

speaking skill improves, and (3) what speaking activities are used in PBL. To

answer those questions, there are three steps in analyzing the data. Those are data

reduction, data display, and conclusion (Miles and Huberman, 1984 as cited in

Alwasilah, 2011). Those steps are explained in the next section.

1.5.1 Data Reduction

Data reduction is a process of selecting data that were relevant to the

research questions (Alwasilah, 2011). The data that were not necessary were

reduced to make the analysis easier. After that, the relevant and selected data were

then coded and analyzed based on students speaking criteria adapted from Harries

(1984) and Brown (2004) to see students’ speaking skill improvement.

In this study, the data reduced were some data from some particular

students who did not follow the whole process of PBL treatments. From 29

students, only 18 of them were included as the participant of the study.

1.5.2 Data Display

The result of data analysis was explained descriptively. Descriptive

(non-numeric), not quantitative (numeric) and need to be given interpretation

(Alwasilah, 2011). Some tables and excerpts were also going to be displayed to

show the result briefly and clearly.

1.5.3 Conclusion

After displaying the result, the last step was drawing conclusion related to

the research questions: (1) to what extent PBL improves students speaking skill

and (2) what aspect of speaking was improved. Finally, the conclusion was going

to be explained in chapter 5.

1.6 Concluding Remark

This chapter has described research methodology that is used in this study.

The next chapter will present the findings and discussions of this study based on

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter draws the conclusion of this study and presents some

suggestions for future study with similar topic. This chapter will be divided to two

sections, namely conclusion and suggestion.

1.1 Conclusions

As stated in Chapter 1 that for primary school in Indonesian context,

speaking skill is the focus of teaching English (Permen Diknas 2006). It is

considered as the initial skill for elementary students to reach the other skills so

that speaking skill is needed to improve. This study tried to apply PBL as the

method to improve students’ speaking skill.

Based on the data obtained from observation and speaking assessment, this

study draws some conclusions related to the three research questions: 1) does PBL

improve the students’ speaking skill?; 2) What aspects of speaking skill are improved through PBL?; and 3) what activities are used in PBL to improve the

students’ speaking skill? The conclusions are drawn as the following.

First, in this study PBL improves the students’ speaking skill. It was proved by the improvement of speaking aspects proposed by Harries (1984) and

Brown (2004) that is used as the framework of this study.

pronunciation. The improvement of speaking aspects of each student is different

because of their different ZPD (zone of proximal Development) (Vygotski, as

cited in Cameron, 2001).

The last, among 21 activities proposed by Brown (2004), nine of them are

used in this study. Each activity helps to improve some particular speaking

aspects: 1) Drilling helps to improve the students’ comprehension, grammar, and pronunciation aspect. 2) Storytelling helps to improve the students’ comprehension, vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation aspect. 3) Directed

response helps to improve the students’ comprehension, grammar, fluency, and pronunciation aspect. 4) Picture-cued helps to improve the students’ comprehension, vocabulary, fluency, and pronunciation aspect. 5) Translation of

limited stretches of discourse helps to improve the students’ comprehension and vocabulary aspect. 6) Question and answer helps to improve the students’ comprehension, vocabulary, and grammar aspect. 7) Discussion helps to improve

the students’ comprehension and vocabulary aspect. 8) Games help to improve the students’ comprehension and vocabulary aspect. 9) Role-play helps to improve the students’ comprehension, vocabulary, grammar, fluency, and pronunciation aspect.

1.2 Suggestions

This study has many limitations. Therefore, there are some suggestions for

Actually in action research, how many cycles used in a study is depended on

whether or not the goal of the study has been achieved satisfactorily or not, since

as Alwasilah (2011) says that Action research is a never ending process.

Therefore, it is suggested that the further researcher conduct the research in longer

time. However, if they have limited time like the researcher had in this study, it is

suggested that they choose a project that focus on merely a topic so that the

participants’ performance may be more optimal even though with the limited time.

Second, in deciding the project, they need to consider their participants’ age and characteristic, whether they are ready to choose the project by themselves

or not. This was because even though PBL suggests that the students was the main

project decision maker, sometimes due to limited language or experience, they

need to be guided first (Gaer, 1998, and Moon, 2000).

Third, in this study, the students were given different pictures in the

pre-test, so that when they could not answer the questions, too many possibilities

appeared. Therefore, it is also suggested that when conducting a pretest, they need

to make sure that the materials that are going to be examined to the students are

the same so that examining the students’ prior knowledge would be easier. For example all of the students are given a picture of Bandung Zoo and asked about it,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alwasilah, A. C. (2011). Pokoknya Action Research. Bandung: Kiblat Buku

Utama.

Bas, G., & Beyhan, O. (2010). The effect of multiple intelligences supported

project-based learning on students' achievement levels and attitudes

towards english lesson. International electronic journal of elementary

education , 365-386.

Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21th century: skill for the future.

The Cleaning House, 83: 39-43.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to

Language Pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Brown, H. D. (2004). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices.

United States of America: Longman.

Broughton, G., Brumfit, C., Flavell, R., Hill, P., & Pincas, A. (2003). Teaching

English as a Foreign Language Second Edition. New York: Routledge. Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative Action Research for English Teachers.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Byrne, D. (1998) Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: An Introduction,

London:Routledge.

Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Language to Young Learners. Cambridge:

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative

Approaches. California: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2010). Research Design: Pendekatan Kualitatif, Kuantitatif, dan

Mixes. Edisi Ketiga. Yogyakarta: pustaka Pelajar.

Cruz, H. A. and Vik, G. N. (2007). Using Project-Based Learning to Connect

Theory to Practice in Teaching Accounting Communication. A Journal: Association for Business Communication Annual Convention.

Curtain, H., & Dahlberg, C.A. (2010). Language and Children: Making The

Match, New Languages For Young Learners, Grade K-8,4/E. Allyn & Bacon.

Depdiknas (2006). Standar Kompetensi dan Kompetensi Dasar Mata pelajaran

bahasa Inggris. Sekolah Dasar dan Madrasah Ibtidaiyah. Jakarta: Depdiknas.

Diyanti, B. Y. (2006). Teaching Listening and Speaking to Young Learners.

[Online] Available:

staff.uny.ac.id/...diyanti.../Teaching%20List%20speak%20to%20YL.doc.

December 4th 2012.

Fitzell, S. (2012). 12 Surefire Ways to Remember Vocabulary. [Online]

Available:

http://susanfitzell.com/articles-by-susan-fitzell/12-surefire-ways-to-remember-vocabulary/. March 24th 2013.

Fraenkel, J.R; Wallen, E.N. (1990). How to Design and Evaluate Research

Fragoulis, L. (2009). Project-Based Learning in Teaching of English as A Foreign

Language in Greek Primary Schools: From Theory to practice. (A Journal). English Language Teaching. Vol. 2 September 2009.

Freeman, D. L. (1986). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gaer, S. (1998). Less Teaching and More Learning: Turning from traditional

methods to project-based instruction, the author found that her students

learned more. [Online] Available:

http://www.ncsall.net/index.html@id=385.html. February 20th 2012.

Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching: Third Edition

Completely Revised and Updated. England: Longman.

Harries, D. P. (1984). Testing Language as a Second Language. New York:

Addison Publishing Company. Inc.

Hopkins, D. (2008). A Teacher's Guide to Classroom Research 4th Edition.

Canada: McGraw Hill.

Jianing, X. 2007. Storytelling in the EFL Speaking Classroom. [Online]

Available: http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Jianing-Storytelling.html. March 24th

2013.

Kayi, H. (2006). Teaching Speaking: Activities to Promote Speaking in a Second

Language. [Online] Available:

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1990). Participatory Action Research

Communicative Action and Public Sphere. [Online] Available: www.sagepub.com/upm-data/21157_Chapter_10.pdf. October 27th 2012.

Koizumi, R. (2005). Relationships Between Productive Vocabulary Knowledge

and Speaking Performance of Japanese Learners of English at the Novice Level. A Dissertation Submitted to the University of Tsukuba In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of

Philosophy in Linguistics.

Ка даур ваЕ. А., 2006. Group Work in Teaching Speaking. [On Line] Available:

http://www.vestnik-kafu.info/journal/6/196/. December, 24th 2012.

Kumpulainen, K., & Wray, D. (2002). Classroom Interaction and Social

Learning. London: RoutledgeFalmer

Linse, C.T. (2005). Practical English Language Teaching: Young Learners. New

York: McGraw-Hill ESL/ELT.

Madsen, H. S. (1983). Techniques in Testing. New York: Oxford American

English.

McCloskeey, M. L. (2002). Seven Instructional Principles for Teaching Young

Learners of English. [Online] Available:

home.comcast.net/~mlmccloskey/Handouts02/TEYL/7Principles.pdf. August

20th 20102.

McKay, P. (2006). Assessing Young Language Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge

McLeod, S. (2012). Zone of Proximal Development. [Online] Available:

http://www.simplypsychology.org/Zone-of-Proximal-Development.html.

January 5th 2013.

Mettetal, G. (2003). Improving Teaching through Classroom Action Research.

Essays on Teaching Excellence toward the Best in the Academy Vol. 14,

No. 7, 2002-2003. [On Line] Available:

http://cte.udel.edu/sites/cte.udel.edu/files/u7/v14n7.htm. May 10th 2012.

Moon, J. (2005). Children Learning English. Thailand: Macmillan Books for

Teachers.

Mora, M. (2010). Teaching Speaking in a Classroom. [Online] available:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27235175/Teaching-Speaking-in-a-Classroom. July

22th 2012.

Nordquist, R. (2012). Grammar. [Online] Available:

http://grammar.about.com/od/fh/g/grammarterm.htm. December 14 th

2012.

Patton, A. (2012). Work That Matters: The Teacher’s Guide to Project-Based Learning. The Paul Hamlyn Foundation.

Powell & Renner. (2003). Analyzing Qualitative Data. [Online] Available:

www.learningstore.uwex.edu/pdf/g3658-12.pdf. September 13th 2012.

Ratminingsih, N. M. (2012). Drills and Total Physical Response: An Attempt to

Enhance Young Learner’s Oral Communicative Competence. [On Line]

Richards, J. C. (2008). Teaching Listening and Speaking from Theory to Practice.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Roschelle, J. (1995). Learning in interactive environments: Prior knowledge and

new experience. In J.H. Falk & L.D. Dierking, Public institutions for

personal learning: Establishing a research agenda. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums, 37-51.

Švecová, L. (2011). CLIL in Very Young Learners (Diploma thesis).

Slattery, M. & Jane W. (2001). English for Primary Teachers. Qxford: Oxford

University Press.

Thomas, J. W. (2000). A Review of Research on PBL.

http://www.bobpearlman.org/BestPractices/PBL.Research.pdf. July 17 2012.

Tomal, D. R. (2003). Action Research for Educators. United States of America:

Scarecrow Press. Inc.

Vilímec, E. (2006). Developing Speaking Skill. A Thesis from University of

Pardubice Faculty of arts and philosophy Department of english and

american studies. Unpublished.

Westwood, P. (2008). What Teachers Need to Know about Teaching Methods.

Australia: Acer Press.

Williamson, G. (2008). Language Form. [Online]. Available:

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alwasilah, A. C. (2011). Pokoknya Action Research. Bandung: Kiblat Buku Utama.

Bas, G., & Beyhan, O. (2010). The effect of multiple intelligences supported project-based learning on students' achievement levels and attitudes towards english lesson. International electronic journal of elementary education , 365-386.

Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21th century: skill for the future. The Cleaning House, 83: 39-43.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Brown, H. D. (2004). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. United States of America: Longman.

Broughton, G., Brumfit, C., Flavell, R., Hill, P., & Pincas, A. (2003). Teaching English as a Foreign Language Second Edition. New York: Routledge. Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative Action Research for English Teachers.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Byrne, D. (1998) Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: An Introduction, London:Routledge.

Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Language to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. California: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2010). Research Design: Pendekatan Kualitatif, Kuantitatif, dan Mixes. Edisi Ketiga. Yogyakarta: pustaka Pelajar.

Cruz, H. A. and Vik, G. N. (2007). Using Project-Based Learning to Connect Theory to Practice in Teaching Accounting Communication. A Journal: Association for Business Communication Annual Convention.

Curtain, H., & Dahlberg, C.A. (2010). Language and Children: Making The Match, New Languages For Young Learners, Grade K-8,4/E. Allyn & Bacon.

Depdiknas (2006). Standar Kompetensi dan Kompetensi Dasar Mata pelajaran bahasa Inggris. Sekolah Dasar dan Madrasah Ibtidaiyah. Jakarta: Depdiknas.

Diyanti, B. Y. (2006). Teaching Listening and Speaking to Young Learners.

[Online] Available:

staff.uny.ac.id/...diyanti.../Teaching%20List%20speak%20to%20YL.doc. December 4th 2012.

Fitzell, S. (2012). 12 Surefire Ways to Remember Vocabulary. [Online] Available: http://susanfitzell.com/articles-by-susan-fitzell/12-surefire-ways-to-remember-vocabulary/. March 24th 2013.

Fraenkel, J.R; Wallen, E.N. (1990). How to Design and Evaluate Research Education. United States of America: McGraw-Hill.

Fragoulis, L. (2009). Project-Based Learning in Teaching of English as A Foreign Language in Greek Primary Schools: From Theory to practice. (A Journal). English Language Teaching. Vol. 2 September 2009.

Freeman, D. L. (1986). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gaer, S. (1998). Less Teaching and More Learning: Turning from traditional methods to project-based instruction, the author found that her students

learned more. [Online] Available:

http://www.ncsall.net/index.html@id=385.html. February 20th 2012.

Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching: Third Edition Completely Revised and Updated. England: Longman.

Harries, D. P. (1984). Testing Language as a Second Language. New York: Addison Publishing Company. Inc.

Hopkins, D. (2008). A Teacher's Guide to Classroom Research 4th Edition. Canada: McGraw Hill.

Jianing, X. 2007. Storytelling in the EFL Speaking Classroom. [Online] Available: http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Jianing-Storytelling.html. March 24th 2013.

Kayi, H. (2006). Teaching Speaking: Activities to Promote Speaking in a Second Language. [Online] Available: http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Kayi-TeachingSpeaking.html. January 4th 2013.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1990). Participatory Action Research Communicative Action and Public Sphere. [Online] Available: www.sagepub.com/upm-data/21157_Chapter_10.pdf. October 27th 2012. Koizumi, R. (2005). Relationships Between Productive Vocabulary Knowledge

and Speaking Performance of Japanese Learners of English at the Novice Level. A Dissertation Submitted to the University of Tsukuba In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics.

Ка даур ваЕ. А., 2006. Group Work in Teaching Speaking. [On Line] Available:

http://www.vestnik-kafu.info/journal/6/196/. December, 24th 2012.

Kumpulainen, K., & Wray, D. (2002). Classroom Interaction and Social Learning. London: RoutledgeFalmer

Linse, C.T. (2005). Practical English Language Teaching: Young Learners. New York: McGraw-Hill ESL/ELT.

Madsen, H. S. (1983). Techniques in Testing. New York: Oxford American English.

McCloskeey, M. L. (2002). Seven Instructional Principles for Teaching Young

Learners of English. [Online] Available:

home.comcast.net/~mlmccloskey/Handouts02/TEYL/7Principles.pdf. August 20th 20102.

McKay, P. (2006). Assessing Young Language Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McLeod, S. (2012). Zone of Proximal Development. [Online] Available: http://www.simplypsychology.org/Zone-of-Proximal-Development.html.

January 5th 2013.

Mettetal, G. (2003). Improving Teaching through Classroom Action Research. Essays on Teaching Excellence toward the Best in the Academy Vol. 14,

No. 7, 2002-2003. [On Line] Available:

http://cte.udel.edu/sites/cte.udel.edu/files/u7/v14n7.htm. May 10th 2012. Moon, J. (2005). Children Learning English. Thailand: Macmillan Books for

Teachers.

Mora, M. (2010). Teaching Speaking in a Classroom. [Online] available: http://www.scribd.com/doc/27235175/Teaching-Speaking-in-a-Classroom. July 22th 2012.

Nordquist, R. (2012). Grammar. [Online] Available: http://grammar.about.com/od/fh/g/grammarterm.htm. December 14 th 2012.

Patton, A. (2012). Work That Matters: The Teacher’s Guide to Project-Based Learning. The Paul Hamlyn Foundation.

Powell & Renner. (2003). Analyzing Qualitative Data. [Online] Available: www.learningstore.uwex.edu/pdf/g3658-12.pdf. September 13th 2012.

Ratminingsih, N. M. (2012). Drills and Total Physical Response: An Attempt to Enhance Young Learner’s Oral Communicative Competence. [On Line] Available: www.undiksha.ac.id/images/img_item/613.docx. October 15th

Richards, J. C. (2008). Teaching Listening and Speaking from Theory to Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Roschelle, J. (1995). Learning in interactive environments: Prior knowledge and new experience. In J.H. Falk & L.D. Dierking, Public institutions for personal learning: Establishing a research agenda. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums, 37-51.

Švecová, L. (2011). CLIL in Very Young Learners (Diploma thesis).

Slattery, M. & Jane W. (2001). English for Primary Teachers. Qxford: Oxford University Press.

Thomas, J. W. (2000). A Review of Research on PBL. http://www.bobpearlman.org/BestPractices/PBL.Research.pdf. July 17 2012. Tomal, D. R. (2003). Action Research for Educators. United States of America:

Scarecrow Press. Inc.

Vilímec, E. (2006). Developing Speaking Skill. A Thesis from University of Pardubice Faculty of arts and philosophy Department of english and american studies. Unpublished.

Westwood, P. (2008). What Teachers Need to Know about Teaching Methods. Australia: Acer Press.

Williamson, G. (2008). Language Form. [Online]. Available: