YAYASAN PEMBINA UNIVERSITAS MURIA KUDUS

UNIVERSITAS MURIA KUDUS

FAKULTAS KEGURUAN DAN ILMU PENDIDIKAN

Kampus Gondangmanis Bae Kudus Po. Box 53 Telp/Fax. 0291-4438229

SKRIPSI PROPOSAL

Name : Anita Ratna Kusumaningroom

NIM/Semester : 2008-32-329

Skripsi Title : Using Real-World Tasks to Improve Speaking Ability of the

Tenth Grade Students of SMA 1 Bae Kudus in the Academic Year

2011/2012

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Research

Oral communication fulfills a number of general and discipline-specific pedagogical

functions. Learning to speak is an important goal in itself, for it equips students with a set of

skills they can use for the rest of their lives. Speaking (Rahman, 2010: 1) is the mode of

communication most often used to express opinions, make arguments, offer explanations,

transmit information, and make impressions upon others. Students need to speak well in their

personal lives, future workplaces, social interactions, and political endeavors. They will have

meetings to attend, presentations to make, discussions and arguments to participate in, and

groups to work with. If basic instruction and opportunities to practice speaking are available,

students position themselves to accomplish a wide range of goals and be useful members of

their communities.

Considering the importance of speaking ability, people try to find the way to improve

speaking ability. According to Celce and Mc. Intosh in Safitri (2011) there are two aspects to

improve speaking ability. They are linguistic and cognitive aspect. Linguistics aspect

encompasses many components, such as vocabulary enrichment, grammar understanding,

conversation, and idioms. Meanwhile, the cognitive aspect involves getting idea to express.

Both of the aspects are connected in order to achive the goal of speaking in communication.

When the students have enough ideas without mastering grammar and vocabulary, they will

find difficulties in speaking. Whereas the students master grammar, enough vocabularies

without having ideas in variably, they cannot speak and communicate well. So, both are very

important in order to be able to speak in foreign language.

In order to improve speaking ability, a lot of popular programs and foreign language

teaching methods try to replicate the target language environment through immersion

programs, bilingual school curricula, and computer-assisted teaching (Lapkin et al. cited in

Khamkhien, 2010). By imitating those programs, hopefully the students can speak English

well. But it is really contrast to the fact that the students, who are expected to have a good

speaking ability, are still very difficult in speaking. This phenomena is influenced by several

factors. The lack of speaking practice, the low mastery of vocabularies, the lack of students’

confidence to speak up, the low understanding of grammar, and the teaching technique used

by the teachers in teaching learning process are the reasons why the students still have a low

ability in speaking.

These issues occur in SMA 1 Bae Kudus, one of the International standard senior high

school in Kudus. This school uses English as medium in all subjects. It absolutely increases

the needs of the students to master English especially speaking. When the writer was doing

Field Experience Program, she found that the students of tenth grade of SMA 1 Bae Kudus

are still difficult to speak English well. This argument is strengthened by the statement of

English teacher of tenth grade, Dian Supraptiningsih, S.Pd, that the students’ scores of

speaking skill are still low. The writer observed the teaching learning process before doing

the research. From the observation the writer knew that the teacher still uses Presentation

Practice Production as the technique of teaching. She explains the materials, asks the students

to practice and finally she asks the students to produce a products based on the material has

been given. For instance, the teacher explained about the using of sympathy expression, she

gave the example of dialogues, asked the students to make other examples and perform their

dialogues in front of the class. This technique of teaching actually is a good technique but it

can not optimally improve the speaking ability of the students, because they only modify the

existing dialogue or text, read and memories the vocabulary, and some of them do not really

comprehend the content of their speech.

Based on this issue, the writer tries to conduct real-world tasks as a technique of

teaching to improve students’ ability in speaking. Real-world tasks

(http://ptrirat.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/pedagogical-and-real-world-tasks/) are tasks that

reflect real-world uses of language and which might be considered a rehearsal for real world

tasks. According to Rod Ellis (2003: 37) real-world task offers the opportunity for ‘natural’

learning inside the classroom. It emphasizes meaning over form but can also cater for

learning form. It is intrinsically motivating and compatible with a learner-centered

educational philosophy. It also can be used alongside a more traditional approach. And from

some kinds of real-world tasks the researcher chooses retelling story.

Thus, from the reason above the writer would like to conduct a research entitled

“Using Real-World Tasks to Improve Speaking Ability of the Tenth Grade Students of

SMA 1 Bae Kudus in the Academic Year 2011/2012”.

B. Statement of the Problems

Based on the background above, the problem of the research can be determined as

follows:

Is there any significant difference between the speaking ability of the tenth grade

students of SMA 1 Bae Kudus in the academic year 2011/2012 before and after

being taught by using real-world task?

C. Objective of the Research

The objective of the research is determined as follows:

To find out whether or not there is any significant difference between the

speaking ability of the tenth grade students of SMA 1 Bae Kudus in the academic

year 2011/2012 before and after being taught by using real-world task.

D. Significance of the Research

The research is expected to give significance of English teaching model and

development pedagogically, practically, and scientifically as follows:

Theoretically

1. To get brand new idea of designing and managing English teaching in order to

develop students language competence.

2. To gain teachers’ professionalism by designing new English teaching model

development.

Practically

1. To improve students’ speaking ability by doing more practice using the

technique.

2. To enrich the teachers’ teaching technique by conducting the technique in their

teaching process

E. Scope of the Research

In this research the scope of the study is focused on the speaking ability of the tenth

grade students of SMA 1 Bae Kudus in the academic year 2010/2011 taught by using real-

world task. The material of teaching is based on the syllabus of the tenth grade. In this

research, the researcher takes the even semester of the tenth grade students of SMA 1 Bae

Kudus in the academic year 2011/2012 as the subject of the research.

F. Operational Definitions

Based on the title of the study, there are four terms need to be defined; the speaking

ability, real world task, and the tenth grade students of SMA 1 Bae Kudus in the academic

year 2011/2012.

1. Speaking ability is a skill used by someone in daily life communication whether

at school or outside orally, it expresses feelings, ideas, concept, wishes, opinion,

and arguments by orally, or means the ability of using English as communication

language orally.

2. Real-world tasks are tasks that reflect real-world uses of language and which

might be considered a rehearsal for real world tasks.

3. The tenth grade students of SMA 1 Bae Kudus in the academic year 2011/2012 is

the students of tenth grade who are studying in SMA 1 Bae Kudus in the

academic year 2011/2012.

II. REVIEW TO RELATED LITERATURE

A. Speaking

According to language acquisition, there are four steps needed to complete the process

of learning English as second language. Firstly, we have to listen, then to speak, to read and

the last is to write. Those are called the language skills.

One of four skills that must be mastered is speaking. Speaking is an interactive

process of constructing meaning that involves producing, receiving and processing

information (Brown, 1994; Burns and Joyce, 1997). Revel in Prima (2011) states that

communicative is an exchange between people, of knowledge, of information, of ideas, of

opinion, of feeling so the must to be a concept ideas and follow, of what they are going to

say. So that, speaking is a skill that should be mastered by someone who learns English to

communicate with the other person. It is in line with Boer in Witantri (2010:1) that the

students can express their ideas, wishes, opinion and attitude in speaking. Then the partner

must pay attention to the speaker to decode the message and finally is able to give appropriate

responses to the partner.

Brown (2003: 141) classifies five basic types of speaking performances as the

following:

1. Imitative

It is one end of a continuum of types of speaking performance. This ability simplifies

parrot back (imitative) a word or phrase or possibly a sentence.

2. Intensive

It is the production of short stretches of oral language designed to demonstrate

competence in a narrow band of grammatical, phrasal, lexical, or phonological

relationships.

3. Responsive

It includes interaction, very short conversations, standard greetings and small talk, simple

request and comments. The stimulus is almost always a spoken prompt, with perhaps

only one or two follow up questions or retorts.

4. Interactive

Interaction can take the two forms of transactional language, which has the purpose of

exchanging specific information, or interpersonal exchanges, which have the purpose of

maintaining social relationship.

5. Extensive

It includes speeches, oral presentations, and story-telling. The language style is

frequently more deliberative and formal.

Applying only one activity for the whole course seems to be impossible to achieve the

goal of being able to speak English. Using various activities is required to cope with different

aspect of speaking which is going to be improved.

Speaking emphasizes on oral performance. It is a productive skill that can be directly

and empirically observed. According to Brown (2003:172), speaking consists of some spoken

components used also as the assessment. They are grammar, fluency, pronunciation,

vocabulary use, and comprehension (content). Those components give a big role for non

native English speakers.

B. Task-Based Language Teaching

Prabhu in Murad (2009: 49) defines a task as an activity which requires learners to

arrive to an outcome from given information through some processes of thought and which

allowed teachers to control and regulate that process. While Nunan (2003: 11) states that task

is a piece of meaning-focused work involving learners in comprehending, producing and/or

interacting in the target language. Tasks are analyzed or categorized according to their goals,

input data, activities, settings and roles.

Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT) refers to an approach based on the use of

tasks as the core unit of planning and instruction in language teaching (Nunan, 2003: 223). It

proposes the notion of “task” as a central unit of planting and teaching. Although definitions

of task vary in TBLT, there is a commonsensical understanding that a task is an activity or

goal that is carried out using language. Drawing on SLA research on negotiation and

interaction, TBLT proposes that the task is the pivot point for stimulation of input-output

practice, negotiation of meaning, and transactionally focused conversation. Tasks are

believed to foster processes of negotiation, modification, rephrasing, and experimentation

that are at the heart of second language learning.

Characteristics of a task-based approach to language learning:

1. An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language.

2. The introduction authentic texts (teaching materials) into the learning situation.

3. The provision of opportunities for learners to focus not only on language, but also on the

learning process itself.

4. An enhancement of the learner’s own personal experiences as important contributing

elements to classroom learning.

5. An attempt to link classroom language learning with language activation outside the

classroom.

There two types of tasks; pedagogical task which have a psycholinguistic basis in

SLA theory and research but do not necessarily reflect real-world tasks, and real-world tasks

which are designed to practice or rehearse those tasks that are found to be important in a need

analysis and turn out to be important and useful in the real world

Real-World Tasks

Real-world tasks (http://ptrirat.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/pedagogical-and-real-world-

tasks/) are tasks that reflect real-world uses of language and which might be considered a

rehearsal for real world tasks. Real-world tasks are related to the real-world demand in which

the students will face in their life. Washing our face is a task, as is preparing breakfast, going

to work by car, etc. Tasks are a part of our lives to such an extent that there is hardly any

activity that cannot be called a task. According to Rod Ellis (2003: 37) real-world task offers

the opportunity for ‘natural’ learning inside the classroom. It emphasizes meaning over form

but can also cater for learning form. It is intrinsically motivating and compatible with a

learner-centered educational philosophy. It also can be used alongside a more traditional

approach.

Experiential Learning

Kolb (1984, p. 38) believes learning is the process whereby knowledge is created

through the transformation of experience. Practicing speaking in real situation can be said as

concept of experiential language learning.

Examples of experiential techniques are:

1. Hands-on projects (such as nature projects)

2. Computer activities (especially in small groups)

3. Research projects

4. Cross-cultural experiences (camps, dinner groups, etc)

5. Field trips and other “on-side” visits (such as to a grocery store)

6. Role plays and simulations.

Some teachers controlled techniques may be considered experiential:

1. Using props, realia, visual, show and tell sessions.

2. Playing games (which often involves strategy) and singing.

3. Utilizing media (TV, radio, and movies)

Authentic Materials

Rogers in Kilickaya (2004) defines authentic materials as 'appropriate' and 'quality' in

terms of goals, objectives, learner needs and interest and 'natural' in terms of real life and

meaningful communication. Nunan (1989, as cited in Al Musallam, 2006) refers to authentic

materials as any material that has not been specifically produced for the purpose of language

teaching. Little et al (1988, as cited in Al Musallam, 2006) define authentic materials as those

that have been produced to fulfill some social purpose in the language community in which

they were produced. While Bacon and Finnemann (1990, as cited in Al Musallam, 2006)

define authentic materials as texts produced by native speakers for non-pedagogical purposes.

Authentic material is significant since it increases students' motivation for learning. The main

advantages of using authentic materials are (Philips and Shettlesworth 1978; Clarke 1989;

Peacock 1997, cited in Kilickaya, 2004):

They have a positive effect on learner motivation.

They provide authentic cultural information.

They provide exposure to real language.

They relate more closely to learners ' needs.

They support a more creative approach to teaching.

Authentic Task

According to Mueller (2011) authentic tasks are assignments given to students

designed to assess their ability to apply standard-driven knowledge and skills to real-world

challenges. In other words, a task we ask student to perform is considered authentic when, 1)

students are asked to construct their own responses rather than select from ones presented

and; 2) the task replicates challenges faced in the real world.

Authentic tasks have several characteristics as the following:

Traditional Authentic

Selecting a response Performing a task

Contrived Real-life

Recall/recognition Construction/application

Teacher-structured Student-structured

Indirect evidence Direct evidence

Selecting a Response to Performing a Task: On traditional assessments, students

are typically given several choices (e.g., a,b,c or d; true or false; which of these match with

those) and asked to select the right answer. In contrast, authentic assessments ask students to

demonstrate understanding by performing a more complex task usually representative of

more meaningful application.

Contrived to Real-life: It is not very often in life outside of school that we are asked

to select from four alternatives to indicate our proficiency at something. Tests offer these

contrived means of assessment to increase the number of times you can be asked to

demonstrate proficiency in a short period of time. More commonly in life, as in authentic

assessments, we are asked to demonstrate proficiency by doing something.

Recall/Recognition of Knowledge to Construction/Application of Knowledge:

Well-designed traditional assessments (i.e., tests and quizzes) can effectively determine

whether or not students have acquired a body of knowledge. Thus, as mentioned above, tests

can serve as a nice complement to authentic assessments in a teacher's assessment portfolio.

Furthermore, we are often asked to recall or recognize facts and ideas and propositions in

life, so tests are somewhat authentic in that sense. However, the demonstration of recall and

recognition on tests is typically much less revealing about what we really know and can do

than when we are asked to construct a product or performance out of facts, ideas and

propositions. Authentic assessments often ask students to analyze synthesize and apply what

they have learned in a substantial manner, and students create new meaning in the process as

well.

Teacher-structured to Student-structured: When completing a traditional

assessment, what a student can and will demonstrate has been carefully structured by the

person(s) who developed the test. A student's attention will understandably be focused on and

limited to what is on the test. In contrast, authentic assessments allow more student choice

and construction in determining what is presented as evidence of proficiency. Even when

students cannot choose their own topics or formats, there are usually multiple acceptable

routes towards constructing a product or performance. Obviously, assessments more carefully

controlled by the teachers offer advantages and disadvantages. Similarly, more student-

structured tasks have strengths and weaknesses that must be considered when choosing and

designing an assessment.

Indirect Evidence to Direct Evidence: We can make some inferences about what

that student might know and might be able to do with that knowledge. The evidence is very

indirect, particularly for claims of meaningful application in complex, real-world situations.

Authentic assessments, on the other hand, offer more direct evidence of application and

construction of knowledge.

The Previous Research

There is a similar research which was done by a student of Education Faculty of

Yarmouk University, Tareq Mitib Murad (2009) before. His thesis entitled “The Effect of

Task-Based Language Teaching on Developing Speaking Skills among the Palestinian

Secondary EFL Students in Israel and Their Attitudes towards English”.

The results can be explained by the fact that the TBLT program enables the teachers

to improve the students’ communicative skills, to provide opportunities for native like

interactions, to practice making oral representations immediately after getting enough

meaning. Unlike the conventional approach which moves the learner from accuracy to

fluency, the most important feature of task-based framework, like any other communicative

focused activities, is that it moves the learner from fluency to accuracy. In TBLT class, the

atmosphere is comfortable, cooperative and non-threatening. Consequently, less confident

students who normally refuse to speak in public want to perform because they benefit from

the core activity so much that all the psychological barriers such as stress, anxiety and fear

are put away.

Students were able to understand questions, interact fluently and give extended

answers in the designed tasks and activities. This process enhanced students' fluency.

Students were also able to use correct complex language structures, such as relative and

conditional clauses and they used rich vocabulary and pronounced correctly. This enhanced

their accuracy. In addition, the students had ample opportunities to express their opinions and

ideas that were related to the designed task especially in the pre task phase. The teachers who

implemented the program also played an important role in developing the students’ speaking

skills. First, they had a positive attitude towards TBLT, and were enthusiastic to teach

according to its procedures and principles. Willis (1996) and Carless (2001) emphasized the

role of the teachers in promoting students’ learning through TBLT. Second, during the

implementation of the program, the teachers acted as monitors or facilitators, and encouraged

their students to perform the activities. The teachers who were involved in the current study

kept in mind that a task in TBLT is goal- directed and based on meaning and form. They also

took into account that a task for oral social interaction is a simulation of a real life activity;

authenticity of tasks is critical quality in TBLT.

Hypothesis

The hypothesis is “There is a significant different between the Speaking Ability of the

Tenth grade students of SMA 1 Bae Kudus in the academic year 2011/2012 before and after

being taught by using Real-World Tasks”.

III. METHOD OF THE RESEARCH

A. Design of the Research

The design of this research is experimental. It uses one group pre test post test design.

And this research is categorized as quasi experiment. The design used in this research is

formulated by Arikunto (1990:279) as follow:

Pre test treatment post test

T1 X T2

Note : T1 : Pre test

X : Treatment

T2 : Post test

The researcher conducts the experimental research for tenth grade students of SMA 1

Bae Kudus in academic year 2011/2012. The treatment is given in four times and two tests,

the first test is pretest which is aimed to know the students’ speaking ability before being

taught by using Real-World tasks and the post-test is held to find the students’ speaking

ability after being taught by using Real-World Tasks.

There are two variables; independent variable and dependent one. The independent

variable is called X variable is the using of Real-World tasks. While the dependent variable is

called Y variable is the students’ ability of speaking.

B. Population and Sample

In this research, the population is the tenth grade students of SMA 1 Bae Kudus in the

academic year 2011/2012. The number of population 350 students. The researcher does not

use all the population but chooses a sample group as subject of the research. To take the

sample the researcher uses cluster random sampling technique. And finally class X-6 was

chosen as the sample.

C. Instrument of the Research

In this research, the researcher uses a speaking test as the instrument of the research.

In order to get the best data needed, the test which is administered must be reliable and valid.

To get the reliability of the whole test, the writer uses Anates v4.0.5 by Drs. Karno

To, M.Pd. and Yudi Wibisono ST, all scores are counted automatically.

The criteria of reliability value are as follows:

r = 0,00-0,20 : there is no reliability

r = 0,21-0,40 : low reliability

r = 0,41-0,60 : medium reliability

r = 0,61-0,80 : high reliability

r = 0,81-1,00 : perfect reliability

The scoring of the test is using by some criteria’s as stated by Brown and Bailey

(1984:39).

No Speaking components

Indicators points

1. Pronunciation a. Students have few traces of foreign accent

b. Students are always intelligible, though one is conscious of definite accent

c. Students have pronunciation problems necessitate concentrated listening and occasionally lead to misundersatanding.

d. Students are very hard to understand because of pronunciation problem, must frequently be asked to repeat.

e. Students have pronunciation problem severe as to make speech virtually unintelligible.

5

4

3

2

1

2. Grammar a. Students make a 5

few noticable errors of grammar in order

b. Students occasionally make grammatical or word errors which or not, however obscure meaning

c. Students make frequent errors of grammar and word order which occasionally obscure meaning

d. Students have grammar and word errors make comprehension difficult.

e. Students have erors in grammar and word order so severe as to make speech virtually unintelligible.

4

3

2

1

3. Vocabulary a. Students’ use of vocabulary and idioms is virtually that of native speaker.

b. Sometimes, Students use inappropriate terms or must rephrase ideas because of lexical inadequencies.

c. Students frequently are wrong words conversation somewhat limited because of in adequate vocabulary.

d. Students misuse of word and very limited vocabulary so extreme as to make comprehension

5

4

3

2

1

quite difficult.e. Students have

limitation vocabulary so extreme as to make conversation virtually.

4. Fluency a. Students have speech as fluent and effortless as that native speaker.

b. Students have speed of speech seems to be affected by language problems.

c. Students have speed and fluently rather strongly.

d. Students usually hesitant often force in to silence by language limitation.

e. Students have speech is as halting and fragmentary as to make conversation virtually impossible.

5

4

3

2

1

5. Comprehension a. Students appear to understand everything without difficult.

b. Students understand nearly everthing at normal speed, although occasionally repetition may be necessary.

c. Students understand most what is said at slower than normal speed with repetition

d. Students have great difficulty following what is said. Can comprehend only social conversation spoken slowly.

5

4

3

2

1

e. Student cannot say to understand even simple conversational English

The Assessment criteria of the speaking ability

From the table above, the result will be multiplied by four, so the highest score will

be 100 for the good speaking students. Then, the researcher categorized the score based on

the criteria as follows:

Grade 0-100 Note

90-100

70-89

50-69

30-49

< 29

Excellent

Good

Sufficient

Poor

Bad

Assessment criteria of speaking ability

D. Data Collection

For getting the data needed in the research, the researcher does the following steps:

a. The researcher asks permission to the Dean of Teacher Training and Education

Faculty of Muria Kudus University to do the research.

b. Then, asks a permission and gives the recommendation letter to SMA 1 Bae

Kudus.

c. After getting the permission for doing research in X-6, the researcher gives pre-

test to the students to find out the speaking ability of the students before being

taught by Real-World tasks.

d. Then, the researcher teaches speaking by Real-World tasks, in this case is

narrative genre in X-6 in six meeting.

e. The researcher gives the post-test to the students to find out the data result of the

speaking ability of the students after being taught by Real-World tasks. It is done

in the last meeting.

E. Data Analysis

In this research, the data needed is the speaking ability of the X-6 of SMA 1 Bae

Kudus in the academic year 2011-2012 before and after being taught by Real-World tasks. To

analyze the data, the researcher uses the T-test technique as follows:

t0 =

Note:

t : the t-value from correlated means

: Mean of differences

D : The differences between paired scores

: The sum of the squired differences scores

N : The number of sample

Formula to compute the difference of the mean:

Note

: The mean of the differences scores

D : the difference between the paired scores

N : The number of sample

To analyze the data, it is needed to count mean and standard deviation. In counting

the mean and the standard deviation, the researcher uses the formula by Ali (1982:181-182)

as follows:

a. Formula of calculating mean

=

Notes: = mean

f = frequency

x = middle score of the internal class

N = number of sample

b. Formula of calculating the standard deviation

SD =

Notes: S = Standard Deviation

i = Internal width

f = Frequency

x = coding

N = Number of sample

To determine there is a significant difference between the speaking ability of the

X- 6 students of SMA 1 Bae Kudus in Academic Year 2011/2012, before and after being

taught by Real-World tasks, or not.

The hypothesis testing calculated by the statistical or null hypothesis as follows:

H0 : =

It means there is no significant difference between the speaking ability of X-6

students of SMA 1 Bae Kudus in the Academic Year 2011/2012 before and after taught by

using Real-World tasks.

H1 :

It means there is a significant difference between the speaking ability of X-6

students of SMA 1 Bae Kudus in the Academic Year 2011/2012 before and after taught by

using Real-World tasks.

Notes:

: the mean of the speaking ability of X-6 students of SMA 1 Bae Kudus in the

Academic Year 2011/2012 before taught by using Real-World tasks.

: the mean of the speaking ability of X-6 students of SMA 1 Bae Kudus in the

Academic Year 2011/2012 after taught by using Real-World tasks.

Skripsi Organization

To enable the writer in arranging the research and to make it easy to understand, the

writer divides this research into six chapters as follows:

Chapter I contains introduction. It consists of background of the research, statement of

the problem, objective of the research, significance of the research, scope of the research,

definition of the terms and outline of the research.

Chapter II deals with review to related literature which consists of the definition of

speaking, task-based language teaching, experiential learning, authentic materials, authentic

task, the previous research and hypothesis.

Chapter III deals with methodology of the research, this chapter discusses design of

the research, subject of the research, instrument of the research, procedure of data collection,

and technique of analyzing data.

Chapter IV deals with research findings.

Chapter V deals with discussion.

Chapter VI is conclusion and suggestion.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Al Musallam, Enas. 2004. Using Authentic Materials in the Foreign Language Classroom: Teachers’ Perspectives in Saudi Arabia. Unpublished Term Paper. University of Saudi Arabia

Arikunto, Suharsimi. 1998. Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktek. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Brown, H. Douglas. 2004. Language Assessment Principles and Classroom Practices. White Plains: Longman

Khamkhien, Attapol. 2010. Teaching English Speaking and English Speaking Tests in the Thai Context: A Reflection from Thai Perspective. Unpublished Research Paper. Nakhon Pathom: Department of Liberal Arts, Faculty of Liberal Arts and Science Kasetsart University

Kilickaya. Farit. 2004. Authentic Materials and Cultural Content in EFL Classroom. The Internet TESL Journal, 10 (7). http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Kilickaya-AutenticMaterial.html (10 Desember 2011)

Kolb, David A. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. http://www.learning-theories.com/experiential-learning-kolb.html (26 Desember 2011)

Mueller, Jon. 2011. Authentic Task. http://jfmueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/toolbox/ tasks.htm#characteristics (28 Desember 2011)

Murad, Tareq Mitib. 2009. The Effect of Task-Based Language Teaching on Developing Speaking Skills among the Palestinian Secondary EFL Students in Israel and Their Attitudes towards English. Unpublished Thesis. Yarmouk: Curriculum and Instruction Department of Education Faculty of Yarmouk University.

Nunan, David. 1991. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Prima. (2011). Speaking. http://achankprima.blogspot.com/2011/01/definisi-of-speaking.html (26 Desember 2011)

Rahman, M. Mojibur. 2010. Teaching Oral Communication Skills: A Task-based Approach. Unpublished Research Paper. Dhanbad: Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Indian School of Mines University

Richard, Jack C. and Rodgers, Thedore S. 2001. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Safitri. Rizky Sandi. 2011. The Use of British Parliamentary System of Debate to Improve the Speaking Ability of Eleventh Grade Students of Sma 1 Kudus in Academic Year 2010/2011. Unpublished Skripsi. Kudus: University of Muria Kudus

Suprihadi. 2006. Language Teaching. Kudus: English Education Department of Teacher Training and Education Faculty of Muria Kudus University

Witantri, Qoriah. 2010. Learning Strategies to Improve Speaking Skill Used by An English Department Student of Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta. Unpublished Research Paper. Surakarta: English Education Department of Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta

Kudus, December 28th, 2011

Acknowledged by

Head of English Education Department Proposer

Fitri Budi Suryani, SS. M.Pd. Anita Ratna K.

NIS. 0610701000001155 2008-32-329

Approved by Advisor I

Nuraeningsih, S. Pd., M. Pd.

NIS. 0610701000001201

Advisor II

Fitri Budi Suryani, SS, M.Pd.

NIS. 0610701000001155

tambahan (the improvement of students’ speaking skill through guessing game technique dwi yanti 2009 ENGLISH

DEPARTEMENTSCHOOL OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATIONKUSUMA NEGARAJAKARTA)