IMPROVING STUDENTS ACHIEVEMENT IN SPEAKING THROUGH TIME TOKEN STRATEGY.
IMPROVING STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN SPEAKING
THROUGH TIME TOKEN STRATEGY
A Thesis
Submitted to the English Department, Faculty of Language and Arts, State University of
Medan, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendiidkan
By:
ERRY ORIGIN PADANG
Reg. No. 209421014
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2015
ABSTRACT
Padang, Erry Origin. 209421014. Improving Students’ Achievement In Speaking
Through Time Token Strategy. A Thesis. English Department. Faculty Of Languages
And Arts. State University Of Medan.2014.
The objective of this study is to find out whether Time Token Strategy can improve students’
achievement in speaking. This study was conducted by using classroom action research. The
subject of this study was the second year students of SMA N 1 KERAJAAN. The study was
conducted in two cycles. The first cycle was three meetings and the second cycle was two
meetings. The instruments for collecting data were diary notes, questionnaries sheet,
interview and observation sheet for qualitative data. Based on the speaking test result, the
students’ score kept improving in every test. In orientation test, the mean score was 46.06. in
the test of cycle I the mean score was 60.05 and the mean score in the test of cycle II was
70.04. The findings showed that Time Token Strategy can improve students’ speaking
achievement.
Keywords: Speaking, Time Token Strategy, Test, Data, Classroom Action Research.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, the writer gives the greatest thanks to almighty God, Tuhan
Yesus Kristus, most merciful for the opportunity, health and blessing given to her
that enable her to complete her thesis in partial filfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan at English Deparment of Faculty of Language
and Arts, State Unversity of Medan (UNIMED).
The writer got assistance and support during completing her thesis. The writer
would like to express her deepest gratitude and appreciated to :
Prof. Dr. Ibnu Hajar Damanik, M.Si., the Rector of State University of
Medan.
Dr. Isda Pramuniati, M.Hum., the Dean of Faculty of Language and Arts.
Prof. Dr. Hj. Sumarsih, M.Pd., the Head of English Language and
Literature Department.
Dra. Masitowarni Siregar, M.Ed., the Head of English Education Study
Program.
Dra. Sri Juriati Ownie, M.A., her Advisor.
Porman Manik, S.Pd., the headmaster of SMA Negeri 1 Kerajaan, and the
English Teacher Meiwita Damanik, S.Pd., the collaborator doing the
research, and all the teachers and students who had helped the writer for
collecting the data.
Her beloved parents, Ramli Padang (Alm) and Rosni Berutu who have
patiently given moral, prayer, spiritual help, advises and financial support.
Her beloved sisters and brothers, Binsar Padang, Imma Padang, Winaria
Padang, Lini Padang, Arjun Padang, Badiana Padang and Jumanta Padang.
Her lovely best and beloved friends, Wintra Bancin S.T, Sriduinaria
Berutu, S,Pd., Amelia Sri Rizky, S.Pd for the love and happiness we share
during the study.
Her lovely classmates, Dik C Regular 2009.
Medan,
Februari 2015
The writer,
Erry Origin Padang
REG : 209421014
TABLE OF CONTENT
Pages
ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...............................................................................
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................
iv
LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................
vi
LIST OF APPENDICES ..................................................................................
vii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ......................................................................
1
A. The Background of The Study ...............................................................
1
B. The Problem of Study............................................................................
3
C. The Scope of The Study .........................................................................
3
D. The Objective The of Study ...................................................................
3
E. The Significance The of Study ...............................................................
4
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...................................................
5
A. Theoretical Framework ..........................................................................
5
1.
Speaking ..........................................................................................
5
a. The Purposes Speaking...............................................................
6
b. Types of Speaking .....................................................................
7
c. The Concept of Teaching Speaking ...........................................
8
d. Speaking Achievement ...............................................................
8
e. Students’ Achievement in Speaking ...........................................
9
2.
Cooperative Learning ......................................................................
11
3.
Time Token Strategy .......................................................................
13
a. Definition Time Token ...............................................................
13
b. The Advantages of Time Token .................................................
13
c. The Disadvantages......................................................................
14
d. Steps to Apply Time Token .......................................................
14
e. Expressing Agreement and Disagreement..................................
15
B. Assessment in Speaking .........................................................................
18
C. Conceptual Framework ..........................................................................
21
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................
23
A. Research Design .....................................................................................
23
B. Subject of the Research ..........................................................................
23
C. The Technique for Collecting Data ........................................................
23
D. Research Procedure ................................................................................
24
E. Scoring in Speaking................................................................................
27
F. Technique of Data Analysis ...................................................................
27
CHAPTER IV THE DATA AND DATA ANALYSIS...................................
29
A. The Data .................................................................................................
29
B. Data Analysis .........................................................................................
29
C. The Research Finding and Discussion ...................................................
37
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ............................
39
A. Conclusion ..............................................................................................
39
B. Suggestions.............................................................................................
39
REFERENCES ................................................................................................
40
APPENDICES .................................................................................................
41
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Pages
1.1 Students’ Average Score in Two Semesters .............................................
2
2.1 Assessment of Speaking ...........................................................................
18
4.1 Score of The Students In Orientation Test ...............................................
30
4.2 Score of The Students In Test Cycle I ......................................................
31
4.3 Score of The Students In Test Cycle II .....................................................
32
4.4 Comparison of the Students’ Score in Three Speaking Tests...................
33
4.5 The Percentage of Students who Got up to 65 .........................................
35
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendices
Pages
A. Lesson Plan..................................................................................................
41
B. Students Score .............................................................................................
61
C. Observation Sheet........................................................................................
64
D. Diary Notes..................................................................................................
66
E. Interviews ....................................................................................................
70
F. Questionnaire Sheet .....................................................................................
75
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. The Background of the Study
Speaking is one of the most important skills in language learning beside
listening, writing and reading. The newest curriculum, namely curriculum 2013
expects Senior High School students able to communicate in English. In teaching
learning English as a foreign language most students can not speak English well,
even though English has been taught to them since they were in elementary
school. Speaking is not easy like what people think. Many people like to speak but
when they are asked to speak English language, they can not speak English. In
general, some people realize that there are some factors of the speaking.
In relation to the writer’s experience while teaching training and practise,
PPL (Field Experience Program) in SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang, most of the
students can not speak fluently, therefore, they were passive in the class. Even
though the students were in group, they just kept silent. The teacher always asked
the best students in their group to speak up. The students still have low ability in
expressing their idea. It is proven by the table below which shows the students’
achievement in speaking test which was taken from their score in two semesters.
As a reflection, in the next cycle the researcher should improved her
ability in teaching speaking through this strategy. The students admitted that they
were enjoy learning by applying Time Token Strategy because they could share
their ideas by speaking orally and become interested to practice their English in
daily convensation in class or outside.
1
2
Table 1.1 Students’ Average Score in Two Semesters
Semester
I
II
Students’ Number (n)
20
20
Average
46,06
60,05
From table 1.1, it can be seen that the students’ average score did not reach
the minimum score which is stipulated by the school, which is 65. In semester 1,
the students’ average is 46,06. It did not reach the minimum score. While in
second semester, there is an improvement which is unfortunately not really
significant. They got 60,05. Based on the average, it can be concluded that there
must be something done toward the teaching method.
In relation to this study, there was a research which was conducted by
Ulfah, one of graduated students in State University of Medan. It was stated that
the ability of students in speaking is very low. There were some factors
accounting for the reluctance of the students to speak up in the class. They were
low proficiency in English (20%), fear of mistake (18%), teachers’ intolerance of
silent (25%), uneven of allocation of turns (20%), teachers’ language in put
(17%). Furthermore based on the data that was got for last three years (2010 –
2012) in SMA Negeri 2 Sidikalang, that the writer found so many students who
got the same problems as Ulfah’s research.
Teacher usually asks the students to read the dialogue then memorize it
before it is spoken in front of the class. As a result, old way to memorize words is
not efficient and effective for the students to increase their speaking achievement.
They still can not develop their ideas or opinions.
3
The explanation above becomes the reason why the writer wants to
conduct a study by using time token strategy to improve the courage of the
students to talk and then it will improve their speaking achievement. The reason
why the writer chooses time token for the writers’ study is because time token
help the students to distribute their participations orderly. Each students given
some tokens which contain time allocation to talk. If the students do not have
token, the students can not talk anymore. This makes other students who still have
token, have to talk. Using time token strategy to improve students’ speaking
achievement will give more chance to practice their speaking.
B. The Problem of Study
In relation to the background of the study, the problem of the study is
formulated as follows: “ Does the Students’ Speaking Ability Improved Through
Time Token Strategy?”
C. The Objective of The Study
The objective of the study is to investigate whether the application of time
token can improve students’ skill in speaking.
D. The Scope of The Study
This study focused on the application of Time Token strategy. It expected
that the student’ ability will be significantly improve.
4
E. The Significance of The Study
Findings of this study are expected to be useful for:
1. Teachers are hoped to have skill and to be able to adapt this teaching
strategy to improve their students’ speaking achievement through time
token.
2. The students, to develop their habit in expressing their ideas.
3. The students, to encourage them to be active in class to maximize students
talking time.
4. The readers, to explore their knowledge and to enlarge their understanding
about how to improve speaking achievement and conducting them who
interest for study related to this research.
1
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
A. Conclusion
It was found that the students’ speaking achievement increased from the
pre test to the last test. It is shown from the improvement of the mean of the
students score the mean of the pre test (46.06), the mean of the test I in cycle I
(60.05) and the mean of the test in cycle II (70.04). It can be stated that the score
continiously improved from the pre test until the third test. Therefore, it can be
concluded that Time Token strategy can improve students’ speaking achievement.
B. Suggestions
On the basis of the conclusion, some suggestions are offered:
a. To English teacher, it is better to use Time Token strategy especially in
teaching speaking because by applying this strategy students more active
in teaching and learning process, because they should share their opinion
or arguments with bravely, more active and be critical. It can also help the
teachers in monitoring and encouraging the students so that the students
can comprehend the material easily.
b. To the students, Time Token strategy is used for the training to be able to
speak.
c. It is also suggested to the other of researcher who are interested for further
study (students of university) related to this research, they should explore
the knowledge to enlarge their understanding about how to improve
speaking skill and search another references.
41
42
REFERENCES
Arends, Richard I. 2007. Learning to Teach: BelajaruntukMengajar. Yogyakarta:
PustakaPelajar
Bahrani, Taher., and Soltani, Rahmatollah. 2012. How to Teach Speaking;
Journal of Education and Practice, vol 3 No 2, 26& 29
Cantoni, Gina. 1987. Content Area language Instruction ; Approaches and
strategies. USA
Chaney, A.L., and Burk, T.L. 1998. Teaching Oral Communication in Grades K
8. Boston: Allyn & Bacon
Clark, H.H., and Clark, E.V.1997. Psychology and Language: An Introduction to
Psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Egan. K. B. 1999. Speaking: journal A Critical Skill and Challenge, vol. 16 No. 3,
277
Gillet, Maxwel & Gall, M.D. 2001. Theory into Practice ;Journal of The
Discussion Method in Classroom Teaching. Vol. XIX. 98.
Harmer. J. The practise Of English Language. Cambridge, UK. Longman
Istarani. 2011. 58 Model Pembelajaran Inovatif. Medan: Media Persada
Kayi, Hayriye. 2006. Teaching Speaking: Journal of Activities to Promote
Speaking in a Second Language. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. XII, No.
11, 1.
Hughes. A. 2003. Testing For Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press
Jones, Pauline. 1996. Planning An Oral language Program. In Pauline Jones (ed),
Talking to Learn. Melbourne: PETA,pp,12-26
Richard, Jack. 2008. Teaching Listening & Speaking ; Journal From Theory to
Practice, 19. Cambridge University Press. USA
https://unr.edu/homepage/hayriyek kayih [at]unr.nevada.edu
Nevada (Nevada, USA) . Accessed on 2 May 2013
University
of
https://sites.google.com/site/assess4learning/assessment-defined/assessment-forlearning-defined. Accessed on 2 May 2013
http://www.englishclub.com/speaking/agreeing-disagreeing-expressions.htm.
Accessed on 2 May 2013
THROUGH TIME TOKEN STRATEGY
A Thesis
Submitted to the English Department, Faculty of Language and Arts, State University of
Medan, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendiidkan
By:
ERRY ORIGIN PADANG
Reg. No. 209421014
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2015
ABSTRACT
Padang, Erry Origin. 209421014. Improving Students’ Achievement In Speaking
Through Time Token Strategy. A Thesis. English Department. Faculty Of Languages
And Arts. State University Of Medan.2014.
The objective of this study is to find out whether Time Token Strategy can improve students’
achievement in speaking. This study was conducted by using classroom action research. The
subject of this study was the second year students of SMA N 1 KERAJAAN. The study was
conducted in two cycles. The first cycle was three meetings and the second cycle was two
meetings. The instruments for collecting data were diary notes, questionnaries sheet,
interview and observation sheet for qualitative data. Based on the speaking test result, the
students’ score kept improving in every test. In orientation test, the mean score was 46.06. in
the test of cycle I the mean score was 60.05 and the mean score in the test of cycle II was
70.04. The findings showed that Time Token Strategy can improve students’ speaking
achievement.
Keywords: Speaking, Time Token Strategy, Test, Data, Classroom Action Research.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, the writer gives the greatest thanks to almighty God, Tuhan
Yesus Kristus, most merciful for the opportunity, health and blessing given to her
that enable her to complete her thesis in partial filfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan at English Deparment of Faculty of Language
and Arts, State Unversity of Medan (UNIMED).
The writer got assistance and support during completing her thesis. The writer
would like to express her deepest gratitude and appreciated to :
Prof. Dr. Ibnu Hajar Damanik, M.Si., the Rector of State University of
Medan.
Dr. Isda Pramuniati, M.Hum., the Dean of Faculty of Language and Arts.
Prof. Dr. Hj. Sumarsih, M.Pd., the Head of English Language and
Literature Department.
Dra. Masitowarni Siregar, M.Ed., the Head of English Education Study
Program.
Dra. Sri Juriati Ownie, M.A., her Advisor.
Porman Manik, S.Pd., the headmaster of SMA Negeri 1 Kerajaan, and the
English Teacher Meiwita Damanik, S.Pd., the collaborator doing the
research, and all the teachers and students who had helped the writer for
collecting the data.
Her beloved parents, Ramli Padang (Alm) and Rosni Berutu who have
patiently given moral, prayer, spiritual help, advises and financial support.
Her beloved sisters and brothers, Binsar Padang, Imma Padang, Winaria
Padang, Lini Padang, Arjun Padang, Badiana Padang and Jumanta Padang.
Her lovely best and beloved friends, Wintra Bancin S.T, Sriduinaria
Berutu, S,Pd., Amelia Sri Rizky, S.Pd for the love and happiness we share
during the study.
Her lovely classmates, Dik C Regular 2009.
Medan,
Februari 2015
The writer,
Erry Origin Padang
REG : 209421014
TABLE OF CONTENT
Pages
ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...............................................................................
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................
iv
LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................
vi
LIST OF APPENDICES ..................................................................................
vii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ......................................................................
1
A. The Background of The Study ...............................................................
1
B. The Problem of Study............................................................................
3
C. The Scope of The Study .........................................................................
3
D. The Objective The of Study ...................................................................
3
E. The Significance The of Study ...............................................................
4
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...................................................
5
A. Theoretical Framework ..........................................................................
5
1.
Speaking ..........................................................................................
5
a. The Purposes Speaking...............................................................
6
b. Types of Speaking .....................................................................
7
c. The Concept of Teaching Speaking ...........................................
8
d. Speaking Achievement ...............................................................
8
e. Students’ Achievement in Speaking ...........................................
9
2.
Cooperative Learning ......................................................................
11
3.
Time Token Strategy .......................................................................
13
a. Definition Time Token ...............................................................
13
b. The Advantages of Time Token .................................................
13
c. The Disadvantages......................................................................
14
d. Steps to Apply Time Token .......................................................
14
e. Expressing Agreement and Disagreement..................................
15
B. Assessment in Speaking .........................................................................
18
C. Conceptual Framework ..........................................................................
21
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................
23
A. Research Design .....................................................................................
23
B. Subject of the Research ..........................................................................
23
C. The Technique for Collecting Data ........................................................
23
D. Research Procedure ................................................................................
24
E. Scoring in Speaking................................................................................
27
F. Technique of Data Analysis ...................................................................
27
CHAPTER IV THE DATA AND DATA ANALYSIS...................................
29
A. The Data .................................................................................................
29
B. Data Analysis .........................................................................................
29
C. The Research Finding and Discussion ...................................................
37
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ............................
39
A. Conclusion ..............................................................................................
39
B. Suggestions.............................................................................................
39
REFERENCES ................................................................................................
40
APPENDICES .................................................................................................
41
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Pages
1.1 Students’ Average Score in Two Semesters .............................................
2
2.1 Assessment of Speaking ...........................................................................
18
4.1 Score of The Students In Orientation Test ...............................................
30
4.2 Score of The Students In Test Cycle I ......................................................
31
4.3 Score of The Students In Test Cycle II .....................................................
32
4.4 Comparison of the Students’ Score in Three Speaking Tests...................
33
4.5 The Percentage of Students who Got up to 65 .........................................
35
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendices
Pages
A. Lesson Plan..................................................................................................
41
B. Students Score .............................................................................................
61
C. Observation Sheet........................................................................................
64
D. Diary Notes..................................................................................................
66
E. Interviews ....................................................................................................
70
F. Questionnaire Sheet .....................................................................................
75
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. The Background of the Study
Speaking is one of the most important skills in language learning beside
listening, writing and reading. The newest curriculum, namely curriculum 2013
expects Senior High School students able to communicate in English. In teaching
learning English as a foreign language most students can not speak English well,
even though English has been taught to them since they were in elementary
school. Speaking is not easy like what people think. Many people like to speak but
when they are asked to speak English language, they can not speak English. In
general, some people realize that there are some factors of the speaking.
In relation to the writer’s experience while teaching training and practise,
PPL (Field Experience Program) in SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang, most of the
students can not speak fluently, therefore, they were passive in the class. Even
though the students were in group, they just kept silent. The teacher always asked
the best students in their group to speak up. The students still have low ability in
expressing their idea. It is proven by the table below which shows the students’
achievement in speaking test which was taken from their score in two semesters.
As a reflection, in the next cycle the researcher should improved her
ability in teaching speaking through this strategy. The students admitted that they
were enjoy learning by applying Time Token Strategy because they could share
their ideas by speaking orally and become interested to practice their English in
daily convensation in class or outside.
1
2
Table 1.1 Students’ Average Score in Two Semesters
Semester
I
II
Students’ Number (n)
20
20
Average
46,06
60,05
From table 1.1, it can be seen that the students’ average score did not reach
the minimum score which is stipulated by the school, which is 65. In semester 1,
the students’ average is 46,06. It did not reach the minimum score. While in
second semester, there is an improvement which is unfortunately not really
significant. They got 60,05. Based on the average, it can be concluded that there
must be something done toward the teaching method.
In relation to this study, there was a research which was conducted by
Ulfah, one of graduated students in State University of Medan. It was stated that
the ability of students in speaking is very low. There were some factors
accounting for the reluctance of the students to speak up in the class. They were
low proficiency in English (20%), fear of mistake (18%), teachers’ intolerance of
silent (25%), uneven of allocation of turns (20%), teachers’ language in put
(17%). Furthermore based on the data that was got for last three years (2010 –
2012) in SMA Negeri 2 Sidikalang, that the writer found so many students who
got the same problems as Ulfah’s research.
Teacher usually asks the students to read the dialogue then memorize it
before it is spoken in front of the class. As a result, old way to memorize words is
not efficient and effective for the students to increase their speaking achievement.
They still can not develop their ideas or opinions.
3
The explanation above becomes the reason why the writer wants to
conduct a study by using time token strategy to improve the courage of the
students to talk and then it will improve their speaking achievement. The reason
why the writer chooses time token for the writers’ study is because time token
help the students to distribute their participations orderly. Each students given
some tokens which contain time allocation to talk. If the students do not have
token, the students can not talk anymore. This makes other students who still have
token, have to talk. Using time token strategy to improve students’ speaking
achievement will give more chance to practice their speaking.
B. The Problem of Study
In relation to the background of the study, the problem of the study is
formulated as follows: “ Does the Students’ Speaking Ability Improved Through
Time Token Strategy?”
C. The Objective of The Study
The objective of the study is to investigate whether the application of time
token can improve students’ skill in speaking.
D. The Scope of The Study
This study focused on the application of Time Token strategy. It expected
that the student’ ability will be significantly improve.
4
E. The Significance of The Study
Findings of this study are expected to be useful for:
1. Teachers are hoped to have skill and to be able to adapt this teaching
strategy to improve their students’ speaking achievement through time
token.
2. The students, to develop their habit in expressing their ideas.
3. The students, to encourage them to be active in class to maximize students
talking time.
4. The readers, to explore their knowledge and to enlarge their understanding
about how to improve speaking achievement and conducting them who
interest for study related to this research.
1
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
A. Conclusion
It was found that the students’ speaking achievement increased from the
pre test to the last test. It is shown from the improvement of the mean of the
students score the mean of the pre test (46.06), the mean of the test I in cycle I
(60.05) and the mean of the test in cycle II (70.04). It can be stated that the score
continiously improved from the pre test until the third test. Therefore, it can be
concluded that Time Token strategy can improve students’ speaking achievement.
B. Suggestions
On the basis of the conclusion, some suggestions are offered:
a. To English teacher, it is better to use Time Token strategy especially in
teaching speaking because by applying this strategy students more active
in teaching and learning process, because they should share their opinion
or arguments with bravely, more active and be critical. It can also help the
teachers in monitoring and encouraging the students so that the students
can comprehend the material easily.
b. To the students, Time Token strategy is used for the training to be able to
speak.
c. It is also suggested to the other of researcher who are interested for further
study (students of university) related to this research, they should explore
the knowledge to enlarge their understanding about how to improve
speaking skill and search another references.
41
42
REFERENCES
Arends, Richard I. 2007. Learning to Teach: BelajaruntukMengajar. Yogyakarta:
PustakaPelajar
Bahrani, Taher., and Soltani, Rahmatollah. 2012. How to Teach Speaking;
Journal of Education and Practice, vol 3 No 2, 26& 29
Cantoni, Gina. 1987. Content Area language Instruction ; Approaches and
strategies. USA
Chaney, A.L., and Burk, T.L. 1998. Teaching Oral Communication in Grades K
8. Boston: Allyn & Bacon
Clark, H.H., and Clark, E.V.1997. Psychology and Language: An Introduction to
Psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Egan. K. B. 1999. Speaking: journal A Critical Skill and Challenge, vol. 16 No. 3,
277
Gillet, Maxwel & Gall, M.D. 2001. Theory into Practice ;Journal of The
Discussion Method in Classroom Teaching. Vol. XIX. 98.
Harmer. J. The practise Of English Language. Cambridge, UK. Longman
Istarani. 2011. 58 Model Pembelajaran Inovatif. Medan: Media Persada
Kayi, Hayriye. 2006. Teaching Speaking: Journal of Activities to Promote
Speaking in a Second Language. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. XII, No.
11, 1.
Hughes. A. 2003. Testing For Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press
Jones, Pauline. 1996. Planning An Oral language Program. In Pauline Jones (ed),
Talking to Learn. Melbourne: PETA,pp,12-26
Richard, Jack. 2008. Teaching Listening & Speaking ; Journal From Theory to
Practice, 19. Cambridge University Press. USA
https://unr.edu/homepage/hayriyek kayih [at]unr.nevada.edu
Nevada (Nevada, USA) . Accessed on 2 May 2013
University
of
https://sites.google.com/site/assess4learning/assessment-defined/assessment-forlearning-defined. Accessed on 2 May 2013
http://www.englishclub.com/speaking/agreeing-disagreeing-expressions.htm.
Accessed on 2 May 2013