See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/346924422

The Effect of Talking Chips Technique Toward the Improvement of Students'

Speaking Achievement at one of the Senior High Schools in Bandung

Article in Linguists Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching · December 2020

DOI: 10.29300/ling.v6i2.2776

CITATIONS READS

11 577

1 author:

Syafryadin Syafryadin
Universitas Bengkulu
81 PUBLICATIONS 471 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Syafryadin Syafryadin on 10 December 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Vol. (6), No. (2); 2020
ISSN : 2355-2069 (Print)
ISSN : 2656-5765 (Online)
Published by IAIN Bengkulu

THE EFFECT OF TALKING CHIPS TECHNIQUE TOWARD THE

STUDENTS’ SPEAKING ACHIEVEMENT

SYAFRYADIN SYAFRYADIN
Universitas Bengkulu
syafryadin@unib.ac.id

DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.29300/ling.v6i2.2776

Received: January 21st 2020 Accepted: May 5th 2020 Published: December 3rd 2020

Abstract
This study investigated how the Talking Chips Technique can help students to improve their speaking. The sample
was only one class and total number of students was 36 students. This study used a time series design and three
data collection, i.e. note taking, participant observation, and speaking test. The data from observation were
analyzed by using thematic analysis and band score of speaking. This study was conducted by using multiple pre-
test and post-test. Therefore, the findings of this study were based on pre- test, treatments and post- test. During
the treatments, there were problems related to classroom management (noisy, low participation, laughing), fluency
(pause, flow and speed) and accuracy (pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary). Those problems could be
minimized. After post-test, there were still problems, but the problems were fewer than previous ones like only
fluency and accuracy because students had showed the awareness and enthusiasm in speaking English. This study
showed the improvement of students’ speaking achievement from treatment until posttest. It was proved by the
mean score pretest and posttest. In pre-test, the mean score of fluency was 61.1 and 62.81 for accuracy. In post-
test, the mean score of fluency was 71.451 and accuracy was 74.69. Then, t- test for fluency was 7.05 and t-test
for accuracy was 8.31 with t critical or table was 2.031. It meant that H 1 was accepted. There was significance
improvement of students’ speaking in terms of fluency and accuracy. The findings suggest that the students still
need further treatments to improve their speaking even though they have achieved the target.

Keywords: Talking Chips Technique, teaching Speaking, achievement

INTRODUCTION
Speaking English is still a difficult skill for senior high school students. It was based on
an observation and interview with the teacher and the students in the tenth grade at one of the
senior high schools in Bandung on 9th of October 2012. It was found that most of the students
had low ability in speaking English. Furthermore, most of the students got stuck because they
did not know what they wanted to say. They made many mistakes in speaking English like
grammatical mistakes and poor vocabularies. Next, they used Indonesian language for several
words. They also pronounced words incorrectly and so many pauses when they were speaking
English. In addition, they were lack of motivation in speaking because the teacher just taught

How to cite this article: Syafryadin, S. (2020). The Effect of Talking Chips Technique Toward the Improvement
of Students’ Speaking Achievement at one of the Senior High Schools in Bandung. Linguists : Journal Of Linguistics
and Language Teaching, 6(2). 1-13. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.29300/ling.v6i2.2776
1
 Syafryadin Syafryadin
them by using asking and answering questions. Therefore, the students were not enthusiastic
in speaking English.
In line with the facts mentioned above, Ur (2012) said that students had problems in
speaking activities, such as inhibition, low motivation, mother tongue use, and nothing to say.
Those problems were often occurred when students spoke English. Harmer (2011) also says
that there are two elements of speaking which become problems for students. Those elements
are accuracy and fluency. Those elements are very important for students in speaking English.
They have to consider about those elements when they are speaking English. It is because
without considering those elements, our speaking will not be good. Then, the problems of
fluency and accuracy also cause misunderstanding between speaker and listener, if the speaker
cannot speak fluently and accurately. In brief, students should pay attention to elements of
speaking. Harmer (2011) says that if students want to speak English fluently and accurately,
they need to be able to pronounce the words correctly and speak without mistakes in grammar.
Furthermore, In language teaching process, speaking becomes one of the important skills and
be the goal of language teaching because the success of learning the language is measured
based on the performance of the learners or students’ to use the target language learned
(Rakmanina et.al., 2020; Syafriadin, 2020)
According to Johnson (2013), there are two factors that have effect on teaching and
learning speaking. Firstly, lack of knowledge skill in terms of grammatical ability, vocabulary,
pronunciation, and oral practicing. Secondly, self factors in terms of students’ condition like
guilt, fear, worry, anxiety, and poor idea. Teaching speaking needs innovation to improve
students’ speaking fluency and accuracy. Thus, this research attempts to apply Talking Chips
technique in teaching speaking in to see whether this technique could help students to speak
fluently and accurately. According to Kagan (2009), Talking Chips Technique is a technique
of teaching speaking which make the students interested and help students to speak. It is
because this technique can make students: (1) active in the classroom, (2) learn how to
cooperate in a group and (3) have a chance to speak English because in Talking Chip, students
are divided into several groups and each member of the group will have a turn to speak English.
Related to Talking Chips Technique, Furyanto (2011) had conducted this technique in teaching
speaking using action research. This study is going to investigate know whether Discussion
Using The Talking Chips Technique can improve the speaking skill of the XI IPA 1 students
of SMA Negeri 1 Bantarujeg or not, and to know the strength and the weaknesses of the
implementation of Discussion using the Talking Chips Technique when it is used to teach
speaking. The finding of the study shows that the Talking Chips Technique could improve the
students’ speaking skill.

2
 The Talking Chips technique also applies three functions of speaking which are stated
by Richard (2008). The first function is that speaking can be used by people to communicate
with others in order to be more interactive or try to interact for other people. The Second
function is that speaking can be used for transaction purposes because in speaking, a human
can deliver his or her meaning and making other people understand clearly about the
transaction. The Third function is that speaking can be seen as the consideration in our
performance. It means that if someone speaks well in front of many people, someone will have
good performance in speaking. Based on those functions, speaking is very important for
students as Bailey and Savage (1994) point out that speaking is an activity which involve other
language skills.
However, studies on teaching speaking by using Talking Chips technique are rarely
conducted in Indonesia because it is not known well by most of the teachers. Thus, this research
is expected to reveal some advantages of the use of the technique, so that it will help teachers
in teaching speaking.

METHOD
The design of this research was the quasi experimental study (time series design).
Quasi-experimental design which consisted only experimental class without control class. Ary,
et al (2010) defines quasi-experimental design as the design that would have two choices either
uses control group or not. Sugiyono (2017) states that the times series design is one of the quasi
experimental designs which only used experimental class without a control group. Creswell
(2012) states that time series design is a design which only uses one group with multiple pretest
and posttest. The design of this study can be seen in the following schema:

Figure 1.

Time Series Design

Select
Pre test Pre test Pre test Treatments Post test Post test Post test
participants

Ary, et al defined population as all members of any well-defined class of people, events
or objects. The population of this research was all of the first year students in one of the senior
high schools in Bandung who were registered in academic year 2012/2013. It was considered
homogeneous because all the populations were not based on ranking. Based on the data
gathered, the first grade students in one of the senior high schools in Bandung.

Linguists: Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching

Vol. 6, No. 2, December 2020
3
 Syafryadin Syafryadin
Table 1. The total of students at grade x in one of the senior high schools in Bandung

No Class Total Students

1 X1 36

2 X2 36

3 X3 37

4 X4 38

5 X5 39

6 X6 35

7 X7 38

8 X8 39

9 X9 38

Total 336

The sampling technique of this research was the purposive sampling. It means that in
determining the sample class was based on the purpose of the study. In this study, the researcher
used class X1 as the experimental study because all the classes have the same level in terms of
ability. There was not favorite class.
Data collection of this research comprised qualitative data and quantitative data.
Qualitative data could be seen from the result of observation sheet and note taking. It was
because those instruments were used to collect more information about the implementation of
Talking Chips Technique in speaking English. Then, it could be seen from teaching and
learning process and how the problems that faced by students could be overcome. While,
quantitative data were seen from speaking test. In this case, the result of evaluation test was as
the consideration in cultivating the quantitative data. The quantitative data elaborated about the
result of accuracy and fluency in speaking.
The data of the research were analyzed by using descriptive and inferential statistic.
Descriptive statistic analysis was used to describe the maximum and minimum scores, mean,
and deviation standard. While the inferential statistical analysis was used to test the hypothesis.
Before the hypothesis test was done, it was conducted normality test of the data as the condition
for testing the hypothesis.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

4
Findings

Table 2. Mean scores of the fluency in pre test and post test

Pre test Post test

Pretest 1 Pretest 2 Pretest 3 Posttest 1 Posttest 2 Posttest 3

61.11 61.11 60.72 71.45 71.21 71.45

Table 3. Mean scores of accuracy in pretest and post test

Pre test Post test

Pretest 1 Pretest 2 Pretest 3 Posttest 1 Posttest 2 Posttest 3

62.80 62.80 62.42 74.69 74.69 74.69

Based on the table, it can be seen that there happened consistency scores of fluency and
accuracy. For example, three pre-tests for fluency have almost the same scores namely 61.11,
61.11 and 60.72 and posttests of fluency also have almost the same scores like 71.45, 71.21
and 71.45. For accuracy, three pretests also have the same scores like 62.80, 62.80 and 62.42
and posttests of accuracy also have the same scores namely 74.69.
The data also indicated that there was improvement of students’ speaking fluency and
accuracy from pretest until posttest. In terms of fluency, students got improvement around 10
points from 61.11 to 71.45. Students also had achieved the standard of speaking fluency even
though there were still students who did not achieve the standard of speaking fluency. In terms
of accuracy, students also got improvement, but it was higher than fluency score. The
increasing score from pretest until posttest was around 14 points namely from 62.80 to 74.69.
In general, these improvements of fluency and accuracy showed that students had achieved
standard of speaking. It also showed that students had good ability in speaking.
Graph 1. Distribution mean scores for fluency

80
70
60
50
Pre test Pre test Pre test Post Post Post
1 2 3 test 1 test 2 test 3

Graph 2. Distribution mean scores for accuracy

Linguists: Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching

Vol. 6, No. 2, December 2020
5
 Syafryadin Syafryadin
80
75
70
65
60
55
Pre Pre Pre Post Post Post
test 1 test 2 test 3 test 1 test 2 test 3

Based on graph 1 and 2, it showed that the improvement of students’ fluency and
accuracy from pretest and posttest. The first, Graph 4.2.1 was the graph of the mean score of
fluency. This graph also showed that three pretests of fluency were consistent and three posttest
of fluency were also consistent. The graph showed that good improvement and good result of
research. The second, graph 4.2.2 was graph of the mean score of accuracy. The graph of
accuracy also showed the consistency of three pretests and three posttests. According to
Creswell (2012), the graph which showed the consistency of three pretests and three posttests
was good result. Sugiyono (2017) also stated that good result of time series design was showed
by graph which had consistency of pretests and posttests. In short, the graph of fluency and
accuracy could show that students’ speaking fluency and accuracy were good. It meant that the
students had got improvement and good ability in speaking.

Hypothesis Testing

Before testing the hypothesis, firstly it was checked the homogeneity of variance to see
whether the classes that used for research were homogeneous or not. Based on appendix, it was
gotten that Fcount was 1.08 and Ftable was 1.72 with α = 0.05. So it can be concluded that the
variance of this class was homogeneous because Ftable > Fcount.
After that, it was conducted the normality of the data for fluency and accuracy of this
class. By using Chi-Square calculation it was gotten that the data were distributed normally in
both of elements in speaking. For fluency in pretest χ2count < χ2table or -10.2 < 11.07 and in
posttest -10.2 < 11.07. For accuracy in pretest χ2count < χ2table or -58.6 < 11.07 and in posttest
χ2count < χ2table or -41.8 < 11.07. (For detailed computation could be seen in appendix).
After conducting the computation of normality and homogeneity test, it can be
continued with the hypothesis testing to prove whether there was a significant effect of Talking
Chips Technique on students’ speaking achievement. For testing the hypothesis, it was needed
the values of pretest and posttest class as shown in table below:

Table 4. Table for computation of t test for fluency

6
 SD
XD
Score 10.34 8.8

Table 5. Table for computation of t test for accuracy

SD
XD
Score 11.88 8.57

By putting those values into tobserved formula, it was gotten that tobserved for fluency is
7.05 with α = 0.05 and df= 70, tcritical = 2.0315 (by using interpolation). Then, tobserved for
accuracy is 8.31 with α = 0.05 and df= 70, tcritical = 2.0315 (by using interpolation). Therefore,
tobserved > tcritical or H0 was rejected and H1 was accepted. It means that there was a significant
effect of Talking Chips Technique on students’ speaking achievement in terms of fluency and
accuracy at grade X in one of the senior high schools in Bandung.

DISCUSSION
Before implementing Talking Chips technique in teaching speaking, there was pretest
for students. Based on pre- test, it was found that students had many problems related to the
fluency and accuracy in speaking. For example, pausing, mispronouncing, making grammatical
mistake, lack vocabulary, flow of speech, afraid of speaking, being shy, and so on. Those
problems must be noticed and overcome by teacher. The result of this pretest indicated that
most of students did not have good ability in speaking. The students had to work hard to
improve their ability. Besides, the teacher had to find out solution to increase the ability of
students in speaking English.

The Talking Chips Technique was applied in teaching speaking by following several
steps based on the procedures .This technique was conducted in five treatments and students
got improvement. Before conducting the first meeting of the treatment, there was review about
simple present tense and descriptive text. For more details, in this discussion, there were several
things that should be discussed. Those were summary of activities during treatment and the
problems and how to solve those problems related to the theory of speaking itself.

Firstly, the teacher conducted Talking Chips Technique in teaching speaking based on
the procedures. However, the standard score in speaking could not be achieved by students. It

Linguists: Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching

Vol. 6, No. 2, December 2020
7
 Syafryadin Syafryadin
was because students got the mean score 61.1 for fluency and 62.80 for accuracy. Those scores
were still far from the standard or target for speaking score namely 70 for fluency and accuracy.
There were several problems that caused students could not achieve the target for speaking
score. Those were problem of understanding about Talking Chips Technique procedures,
classroom management problem, accuracy and fluency.
First, several students still got confused or misunderstood about the procedures of
Talking Chips Technique. Then, this problem was overcome by re-explained the procedures of
Talking Chips Technique. Second, the problems related to classroom management can be
explained as follows. (1) Several students were difficult to be controlled because several
students were laughing when their friends got mistakes and it made the classroom noise. Ur
(2012) pointed out that the learners would lose their concentration to speak if there was
inhibition like noisy or other obstacles in the classroom. In this part, the problems could be
solved by giving them instruction to be silent and used soft voice and make them sit close each
other. As Jacobs (1996) stated that the learner would be easy to be controlled, if they satclose
each other and used soft voice. (2) Several students did not participate well in speaking, such
as several students did not ask the questions. It meant that students got low participation.
According to Ur (1996), low participation is one of the problems in speaking which made
students passive in the classroom. In this case, this problem could be solved by giving them a
role or task or asked the students to provide and prepare questions.
The third problem was related to the accuracy. In the treatment, students made mistakes
in pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary. In terms of pronunciation, several students
mispronounced English words. In this case, the teacher provided models of pronunciation and
students practice the correct pronunciation. As La Huli (2003) stated that the students could
pronounce words well if students always practice to pronounce those words. In terms of
grammar, students added to be when they said something and most of them misplaces about
have and has with its subject and majority of students still forgot to put s or es at the end of
verb if the subjects were he, she or it. Related to this problem, the teacher tried to explain about
those grammatical terms. Grammatical had essential role in speaking and writing because
grammar is one of the parts that must be considered in speaking (Huddleston., & Pullum, 2005;
Martina., & Afriani, 2020). In terms of vocabulary, students still used Indonesia language for
several words because they did not know how to say those words in English. In this case, the
teacher tried to ask them to make a list of vocabularies in order to help them to speak. As
harmer (2011) stated that vocabulary was the basic of all the skills in English and vocabulary
could help students to speak English.

8
 The fourth problem was related to the fluency. Students still had problems related to
fluency. In terms of flow of the speech, several students were still slow, the rest of them tend
to medium. In this case, teacher motivated students to speak out and reminded them that they
shouldn’t be afraid of making mistakes. In terms of average speed, several students could not
produce between 50 and 100 words per minute. Related to this problem, the teacher encouraged
them to speak everything on their mind and built students’ self-confidence. Next, in terms of
Pausing, Several students produced silent pause, fillers uh/um only, or fillers uh/um plus were
sometimes distracting since those kinds of pause made them lost their focus. To solve this
problem, the teacher informed students to focus their mind before they spoke something.
Related to fluency problem, Ur (1996) stated that fluency of students could be better if they
always practiced and practiced. Then, students must be evaluated well in terms of fluency.
Secondly, after conducting Talking Chips Technique based on the procedures, students
got improvement. It was shown by the mean score of students in fluency (71.45) and accuracy
(74.69). Students did not have any problem with classroom management and procedures of this
technique. All students could be controlled well. However, several students still got problems
in terms of fluency and accuracy. In terms of accuracy, several students still made mistakes in
terms of pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary. In pronunciation, several students still
mispronounced the words, but it was less than the previous meeting. In this part, the teacher
was enthusiastic to provide models of pronunciation for students. In grammar, several students
did not know how to distinguish to be and auxiliary verb, so that they forgot to put to be or
auxiliary verb. Then, several students still had problems with suffix s/es in simple present tense
or plural things. These grammatical problems were solved by explaining about those parts.
According to Emilia (2010), the teacher should teach grammar explicitly in order to form good
understanding. In vocabulary, few students still used Indonesia language, but it was less than
the previous meeting. To handle this problem, the teacher asked them to make the list of
vocabularies and learn how to pronounce it.
In terms of fluency, several students still had problems in terms of flow of speech,
average speed and pausing. However, those problems were less than the previous meeting. In
flow of speech, few students were still slow, the rest of them tend to medium. Teacher
motivated students to speak out and reminded them that they shouldn’t be afraid of making
mistakes. In average speed, few students could not still produce between 50 and 100 words per
minute. To solve this problem, teacher tried to encourage them to speak everything on their
mind and built students’ self-confidence. In terms of pause, few students produced silent pause,
fillers uh/um or ee e e only, or fillers uh/um /hmmmmmm, but they could continue their
speaking. To overcome this problem, the teacher still asked the students to focus on their mind
before speaking something.
Linguists: Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Vol. 6, No. 2, December 2020
9
 Syafryadin Syafryadin
Furthermore, these students’ speaking improvements were also supported by
cooperative learning principle which had been implemented well in speaking class. As Kagan
(1992) stated that there were cooperative learning principles like simultaneous interaction, face
to face interaction, individual accountability, and equal participation. During Talking Chips
technique was implemented in the classroom, all students did face to face interaction because
they worked together and face to face in group. Besides, it also happened simultaneous
interaction because in group, they cooperated and interacted between them. Next, it happened
individual accountability because every student in a group must be responsible for their task or
role. The last, it also occurred equal participation because all students were given equal
opportunity to speak.
In addition, Talking Chips gave positive effect on students’ speaking skill. It was
because Talking Chips could develop the students’ potency in speaking. Many progresses were
experienced by the students either in terms of fluency or accuracy. Even though, there were
still several students who had still problems in speaking English, but, at least, they had spoken
English. The students who had still problems in speaking would be given further treatment in
order to develop their skill. In this case, the teacher must be creative, patient, and hard work to
develop the students’ ability in speaking.
In short, when the Talking Chips technique was implemented in teaching speaking,
students got improvement in their speaking after pretest until posttest. Those improvements
proved that the Talking Chips technique could increase the students’ achievement in speaking.
Those improvements were influenced by several things like they had been active in speaking,
they had good motivation, and so on. The thing that must be considered that the role of teacher
is also important in order to develop students’ skill in speaking. The last sentence is that Talking
Chips could improve students’ achievement in teaching speaking at one of the senior high
schools in Bandung.

CONCLUSION
There are two things that can be concluded in this research. Those things are how
Talking Chips Technique applied in teaching speaking and how Talking Chips Technique can
improve the students’ speaking at grade X in one of the senior high schools in Bandung. Firstly,
Talking Chips Technique had been implemented well in teaching speaking based on the
procedures. During the teacher conducted Talking Chips Technique, students still got problems
related to the classroom management, procedures of Talking Chips Technique, fluency and
accuracy. During several meetings of treatments, several problems could be solved, but the
problems about fluency and accuracy still occurred. However, those problems were still less

10
than previously. It was the same as after posttest, students still made mistakes in terms of
fluency and accuracy. However, the mistakes were fewer than before.
Secondly, the improvement of students’ speaking achievement could be seen from the
mean score of pretest and posttest. In pretest, generally, the mean score of fluency was 61.1
and 62.81 for accuracy. In posttest, generally, the mean score of fluency was 71.451 and
accuracy was 74.69. Those mean scores got improvement from pretest to post test. Besides, the
score of ttest for fluency and accuracy were 7.05 and 8.31 and tobserved was higher than tcritical. It
indicated that there was significant improvement of Talking Chips technique to students’
speaking skill. Next, it was caused also by the progress of the students. For example, they were
active in speaking, high motivation, responsible for their task and so on. Besides, the
cooperative learning elements which had been implemented well during the Talking Chips
Technique was implemented in teaching speaking like face to face interaction, individual
accountability, simultaneous interaction, and equal participation.

REFERENCES

Arikunto, S,. (2003). Procedure Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktek. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Ary, et al. (2010). Introduction to Research in Education. USA: Holt, Rinehart and Winston
Bailey, K.M., and L. Savage., eds. (1994). New ways in teaching speaking. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Barkley, Elizabeth E. and Cross, Patricia K. (2005). Collaborative learning techniques. Bandung: Nusa
Media.
Brown, H.D. (2000) Principle of Language Learning and Teaching 4 th end Person Education Ltd.
Byrne, D. (1986). Teaching Oral English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burns, Anne and Joyce, Helen. (1997). Focus on speaking. Sydney: National Centre for English
Language Teaching and Research.
Cameron, Lyne. (2001). Teaching language to young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Cauldwell, R. (2005). Resource paket – Assessment of speech: Fluency. ED –4076 Rev. 07.09.
Department of Education. Retrieved April 25th, 2010, from http://www-
docstoc.com/docs/67625460/speakingfluency.doc.
Chaney, A.L., and T.L. Burk. 1998. Teaching Oral Communication in Grades K-8. Boston:
Allyn&Bacon
Creswell, John W. (2012). Educational Research. Boston: Pearson.
Emilia, Emi. (2010). Teaching writing. Developing critical learners. Bandung: RIZQI PRESS.
Harmer, Jeremy. (2011). The practice of English language teaching 5th Edition (Longman Handbooks
for Language Teacher). New York: Longman Inc.
Harme, Jeremy. (1993). The practice of English language teaching. London: Longman.

Linguists: Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching

Vol. 6, No. 2, December 2020
11
 Syafryadin Syafryadin
Harmer, Jeremy. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (Longman Handbooks for
Language Teacher). New York: Longman Inc.
Hendrikus, Wuwur. (1991). Retorika. Yogyakarta: Kanisius.
Hopkinds, D. (1985). A teacher guide classroom research. Open University Pres: Philedelphia.
Huda, Miftahul. (2011). Cooperative learning : Metode, tehnik, struktur, dan model penerapan.
Yogyakarta: Pustaka Belajar.
Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, K. Geoffrey. (2005). A student’s introduction to English grammar.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers: Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Isjoni. (2011). Cooperative Learning : Efektivitas pembelajaran kelompok. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Jhonson, D.W. (2013). Active Learning: Cooperative in the College Classroom.
Kagan, S. (2009). Cooperative learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing. Retri- eved April 12nd,
2010, from http://www.gdrc.org/kmgmt/c- learn/methods.html.
Krashen. (1989). English fluency for speaking. New York.
Linse, Caroline .T. (2005). Practical English language teaching young learners. New York: McGraw-
Hill ESL/ELT.
Lado, R. (1961). Language testing: The construction and use of foreign language tests. London:
Longman Group Ltd.
Makey, F. William. (1995). Language Teaching Analysis. Geneva Longman.
Martina, F., & Afriani, Z.L. (2020). Pelatihan pendekatan Genre-Based pada pembelajaran skill menulis
bagi guru bahasa Inggris SMPN 10 kota Bengkulu. Jurnal Inovasi Pengabdian Masyarakat
Pendidikan, 1(1). 57-73.
Nunan, D. (1995). Focus on the learner: Learning styles and strategies in language teaching
methodologies - A textbook for teachers, Chapter 9, pp. 165-188.
Rakhmanina, L., Martina, F., & Jayadi, N. (2020). The comparison study on two-types of students
personality: Sanguine and phlegmatic toward their English speaking ability. PROJECT
(Professional Journal of English Education, 3(4), 443-452.
Richards, J. C. (2008). Conversationally speaking: Approaching to the teaching conversation. The
language teaching matrix. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Riduwan. (2004). Metode dan Teknik Menyusun Tesis. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Sayekti, Ratna. (1983). Modul Struktur. Jakarta
Shumin, Kang. (1997). Factor To Consider Developing Of Speaking English Journal Vol 35 No.3 Juli-
September Page 8. Forum
Smith, K.A. (1996). Cooperative learning : Theory, research, and practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Syafryadin, S., Martina, F., & Salniwati, S. (2020). Compensation strategies in speaking activities for
non-English department students: poor and competent speakers. JEES (Journal of English
Educators Society), 5(2). 109-116.
Sugiyono. (2017). Metode penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif dan R&D. Bandung:Alfabeta.
Tarigan, H. G. (1996). Berbicara: Sabagai suatu keterampilan berbahasa. Bandung: Angkasa.

12
 Underhil, Nic. (1987). Testing Spoken Language: A Handbook of Oral Testing Tecniques. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Ur, P. (2012). A Course in language teaching practice and theory. United Kingdom. Cambridge
University Press.
Weir, J. C. (1990). Communication Language Teaching. UK. Prentice Hall International.
Widdowson, H. G. (1987) ‘The Roles of Teacher and Learner’, ELT Journal, Pege 41-42, 83-88.

Linguists: Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching

Vol. 6, No. 2, December 2020
13

View publication stats