(A Survey Study at the Seventh Semester of English Education Department UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta)
By
Arina Muntazah NIM. 108014000067
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATION
FACULTY OF TARBIYAH AND TEACHERS
’
TRAINING
SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY
JAKARTA
v
Speaking Skill; A Survey Study at the Seventh Semester of English Education Department UIN Jakarta. Skripsi of English Education Department, Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teachers’ Training, State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, 2015.
This research is generally attempted to know and describe the difference
between sanguine students and phlegmatic students in their achievement in
speaking skill at the seventh semester of English Education Department UIN
Jakarta.
The method use in this research is quantitative research and comparative
analysis technique. This research is started by collecting theory. After wards,
giving the students personality test taken from standardized test by Florence
Littauer, and then classifying the sanguine student and phlegmatic student. Then, after classifying students’ personality, the writer took the students last speaking score in fifth semester in order to design compare both students’ personality with
their speaking score achievement. In analyzing the data, first step is finding
average of sanguine and phlegmatic students’ speaking score and deviation
standard to do homogeneity test. After doing homogeneity test, t-test is used to
prove the significant data. And the last step to do is answering hypothesis of the
research. The result of analysis data between variable X1 and X2 using t-test
formula showed that the value of to (t-observation) was 1.71. In the t-table, score
degree of freedom of 5% is 2.07 and score degree of freedom of 1% is 2.81. It can
be concluded that to is lower than t-table (2.07 > 1.71 <2.81). Based on statistic
calculation, it could be concluded that sanguine and phlegmatic students have no
vi
ABSTRAK
ARINA MUNTAZAH, 108014000067. Analisis Perbandingan antara Siswa yang Berkepribadaian Sanguinis dan Plegmatis dalam Pencapaian Ketrampilan Berbicara Mereka. Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Fakultas Ilmu Tarbiyah dan Keguruan, Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, 2015.
Penelitian ini bertujuan mengetahui dan menjelaskan tentang perbedaan antara mahasiswa yang berkepribadian sanguinis dan mahasiswa yang
berkepribadian plegmatis dalam pencapaian nilai ketrampilan berbicara mereka
pada mahasiswa semester tujuh Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris UIN Jakarta.
Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode penelitian
kuantitatif dan tehnik analisis perbandingan. Penelitian ini dimulai dengan
mengumpulkan teori pendukung. Kemudian memberikan tes kepribadian kepada
mahasiswa yang diambil dari tes standar personality oleh Florence Littauer,
selanjutnya mahasiwa dikelompokan berdasarkan kecenderungan kepribadian
sanguinis dan plegmatis. Setelah mahasiswa dikelompokan berdasarkan
kepribadian sanguinis dan plegmatis, nilai akhir ketrampilan berbicara bahasa
inggris mereka diambil untuk membandingkan perolehan nilai antara mahasiswa
sanguinis dan plegmatis. Dalam menganalisis data, langkah pertama yaitu
menemukan rata-rata nilai speaking dari mahasiswa sanguinis dan plegmatis dan
standar deviasi untuk melakukan uji homogenitas. Setelah melakukan uji
homogenitas, t-tes digunakan untuk membuktikan data yang signifikan. Dan
langkah terakhir yang dilakukan yaitu menjawab hipotesis penelitian. Hasil
analisis data dari kedua variable tersebut (variabel X1 dan X2) dengan
menggunakan rumus t-test menunjukan bahwa nilai to adalah 1.71 dan tingkat
kesalahan 5% adalah 2.07 dan tingkat kesalahan 1% adalah 2.81. Maka to lebih
rendah disbanding dengan nilai t-table (2.07 > 1.71 <2.81). Berdasarkan hasil
perhitungan statistik dapat disimpulkan bahwa mahasiswa sanguinis dan
mahasiswa plegmatis tidak memiliki perbedaan pada pencapaian mereka dalam
vii
All praise is only for Allah, the Lord of the world, the Creator of everything
in this universe, who has giving the blessing upon the researcher in finishing this
research paper. Peace and blessing be upon to our beloved prophet Muhammad
SAW, his families, companions, and all his followers.
The researcher sends her best regard to her beloved parents H. Abunashir, BA
and Hj. Farikha. They always give many things as in learning a lot of aspects in
life in order to be better with their abundant loves and care including their helps
during “skripsi” writing until she could finish her study at Department of English Education UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
In this occasion, the gratitude is addressed to her advisors, Drs. Nasifuddin
Jalil, M.Ag., and Zaharil Anasy, M.Hum., for their patiently guidance in
development during the “skripsi” writing. There are many suggestions, valuable advices, constructive corrections and comments the researcher had got from them.
Moreover, the researcher’s effort in doing this “skripsi” may not be separated from the involvement and contribution of others, so that the researcher would like
to express her deep appreciation and gratitude to:
1. Nurlena Rifa’I, M.A., Ph.D., the dean of Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teachers’ Training,
2. The chairman of English Education Departmnet, Drs. Syauki, M.Pd. and his
secretary, Zaharil Anasy, M.Hum., for their outstanding deducacy,
3. All the honorable lectures who have taught her new knowledge and have
given her gorgeous experiences in study,
4. Her beloved brother and sister, and all best friend who have always been in
the researcher side in facing all the laughter and tears during the study,
especially for Husni Mubarok for anything given, Sopiah, Lia Nuramaliah,
viii
5. All her beloved friends of English Education Department Class B for
academic year 2008 who always motivate her in accomplishing this research
paper.
No words to say except a thousand of gratefulness to everyone that they
cannot be mention here. They are involved trough their prayer for this writing.
Last word to say, may Allah always give His blessing to all of us. Amin.
Jakarta, 16 December 2014
The Writer
ix
COVER ... i
APPROVAL SHEET ... ii
ENDORSEMENT SHEET ... iii
SURAT PERNYATAAN KARYA SENDIRI ... iv
ABSTRACT ... v
ABSTRAK ... vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ... vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... ix
LIST OF TABLES ... xi
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. Background of the Research ... 1
B. Identification of the Problem ... 3
C. Limitation of the Research ... 4
D. Formulation of the Research ... 4
E. Objective of the Research ... 4
F. Significance of the Research ... 4
CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 5 A. Personality ... 5
1. The Definition of Personality ... 5
2. Type of Personality ... 6
a. The Sanguine Personality ... 7
x
B. Speaking ... 10
1. The Definition of Speaking ... 10
2. The Element of Speaking ... 12
C. Achievement ... 14
D. Thinking Framework ... 15
E. Review of Previous Study Related to Research ... 15
F. Hypothesis of the Research ... 16
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A. Location and Time of the Research ... 17
B. Method of the Research ... 17
C. Population and Sample ... 18
D. Technique of Data Collection ... 18
E. Technique of Data Analysis ... 20
F. Statistical Hypotheses ... 22
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION A. Research Finding 1. Data Description ... 23
2. Data Analysis ... 25
B. Interpretation ... 32
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION A. Conclusion ... 33
B. Suggestion ... 33
REFERENCES ... 35
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 The Four Temperaments ... 11
Table 3.1 Personality Traits ... 19
Table 4.1 The Sanguine Students of the Seventh Semester of English Education Department... 23
Table 4.2 The Phlegmatic Students of the Seventh Semester of English Education Department... 24
Table 4.3 Mean and Deviation Standard of the Two Variables ... 27
Table 4.4 The Statistic Descriptive of the Research ... 29
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
A.
Background of the Research
English speaking skill becomes the most important skill in the era of
globalization. In education speaking also become the important skills that should
be mastered by students. Speaking is the activity of giving speeches and talks. As
the tool of communication, English speaking skill becomes an important
component for the students since it makes their social intercourse becomes wider.
It means learning English is not only learning about the theory, but also learning
how to practice it in a real communication. So it cannot be denied that in the
competitive era of globalization, the ability to speak in English is very important.
Moreover, this skill is very important for the students of English education
department who are prepared to be professional English teacher. To teach English
of course they have to know how to speak it correctly. However, because English
is not the students’ first language and as English has difference in the way it written with the way it pronounce, it is not easy to be mastered particularly
speaking skill. In speaking, student needs more effort not only how to arrange the
words, but also how to pronounce them well. Thus, students need more practice to
speak English fluently.
In the class all students are required to practice speaking. Some students do it
well, but not with some others. They keep quite is not because they are not able to
speak English, but they are worried will do mistake or they feel anxiety. Some
students are very active, they do not think too much about will do mistake. They
have full confidence. Meanwhile, other students are very passive; they will speak
if they think they sure they will right. This is what the psychology called as a
personality. According to Hippocrates, there are four kinds of personality. They
are choleric, sanguine, melancholic and phlegmatic.1 Clearly, the choleric is
1Jacques jouanna, Greek medicine from Hippocrates to Galen: Selected Papers, (Netherland:
personality with strong principle, has good leadership, and good in speaking, the
sanguine is the cheerful and skillful person who always want to be famous person,
the melancholic is perfectionist personality and has analytical thinking, and the
phlegmatic is obedient personality which has consistency in learning.
In one class, certainly teachers face the different personality of their students.
There is a passive and active student. The active students are named by sanguine
personality and the passive students are named by phlegmatic personality. Of
course the sanguine personality is more talkative than the phlegmatic personality
who rather likes to keep silent. So, the teachers are required to understand the
students’ personality.
According to the researcher’s experience when she was in forth semester of
her study, it was clearly seen that both type personality were found in one class. In
teaching-learning process, the student with sanguine personality performed more
confident than the students with phlegmatic personality.
Because the comparative analysis is to do in this study, the difference
between sanguine and phlegmatic personality which is one from extrovert and one
from introvert is chosen to be studied.
Based on the explanation above, the students with sanguine personality may
have better ability in speaking than the phlegmatic personality especially in their
fluency. In the other hand, the students with phlegmatic personality may also have
better ability in speaking score because they will think deeper before they decide
to speak up, then the students with phlegmatic personality may have better in
accuracy when they speak up.
To prove the theory, it needs to compare both personalities above with their
competence in speaking ability and compare those personalities with their
speaking score to measure which personality is better in speaking skill. Based on
that reason, therefore, this “skripsi” is under the title “A Comparative Analysis between Students with Sanguine and Phlegmatic Personality on Their
Achievement in Speaking Skill” (A Survey Study at the Seventh Semester of English Education Department State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah
3
The object of study should be specific; therefore the students on the seventh
semester of English Education Department State Islamic University (UIN Syarif
Hidayatullah Jakarta) are selected. Speaking is one of the subjects in English
major which has levels. Only the students who already succeed in passing the
basic level can take the next level. To do the research in this major is decided
because speaking in English major in university becomes a specific subject of the
study and of course it has specific score rather than in school which only has
English subject in general. So it is more reliable to accomplish the research.
B.
Identification of the Problem
Problem clearly appear because students with different personality are in one
class. There is a group with active and talkative students and other group is the
group of passive students who really love to keep silent when they are learning.
The active students in speaking are named by sanguine personality and the passive
belong to phlegmatic personality.
The related problems that can be identified to the sanguine personality and
phlegmatic personality of student are such the example below:
1. Some students are difficult to practice their speaking in the class.
2. Other students are eager to practice speaking but they miss grammatical
structure.
3. Some lectures do not really put attention about students’ personality. 4. The teaching strategy used in the class did not consider students’
personality.
C.
Limitation of the Problem
Based on the identification of the problem above, it could be limited only on
the differences between sanguine students and phlegmatic student in their learning
D.
Formulation of the Research
Based on the limitation of the problem, the research question of this “skripsi” can be formulated as follows:
“Did the sanguine students have differences speaking score with the phlegmatic students?”
E.
Objective of the Research
The objective of the study was to known and describe the difference score of
speaking skill for the students with sanguine and phlegmatic personality.
F.
Significance of the Research
The result of this research was expected to make a deep understanding about
students’ personality and give significance not only theoretically but also practically to:
1. Students
The result of this research is expected to help students to recognize their
personalities and minimize their weakness.
2. Institutions
This research can contribute to all educational institutions to consider
students’ personality and determine the best strategy in teaching learning process to minimize students’ gap and maximize their potential in speaking skill.
3. Further Researchers
The result of this study is expected to be used as consideration or preview
5
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This chapter is going to explain theoretical description that consists of
personality including the sanguine and phlegmatic personality; speaking that
consist of understanding of speaking and the element of speaking; achievement;
thinking framework; review of previous study to research; and hypotheses of the
research.
A.
Personality
1. The Definition of Personality
The word „personality’ originally comes from the Latin persona. It refers to the masks worn by actors in ancient Greek dramas in order to develop a role or
false appearance. But according to psychologists the word „personality’ is more
than the role people play.1
Psychologists have different view about personality. Golden Allport described
personality is something real within an individual that leads to characteristic
behavior and thought. For Carl Roger, personality or „self’ is an organized,
consistent pattern of perception of the „I’ or „me’ that lies at the hearth of an
individual’s experiences. Whereas according to B. F. Skinner, the word
personality was unnecessary. Skinner did not believe that it is necessary or
desirable to use a concept such as self or personality to understand human
behavior. For Sigmund Freud, personality is largely unconscious, hidden and
unknown.2
In addition, in the book Personality Psychology, Larsen defines personality as
“the set of psychological traits and mechanisms within the individual that are
1Jess Feist and Gregory J. Feist, Theories of Personality, (New York: McGraw Hill, 2009), p. 3.
organized and relatively enduring and that influence his or her interaction with,
and adaption to, the intrapsychic, physical, and social environment.”3
According to Lawrence “In psychology, the field of personality is concerned not only with the total individual but also with individual differences. While
recognizing that all people are similar in some ways, those interested in
personality are particularly concerned with the ways people differ from one
another.”4
From the various definitions above, it could be synthesized that many different
definitions are possible. Personality can be defined as a set of characteristics in the
psychological behavior and thoughts, perception, and individual differences.
2. Types of Personality
The study of personality is broad and varied in psychology, one the topic is
type of personality. There are two types of personality. They are extrovert and
introvert.
On this discussion, the writer only concentrates on Hippocrates’s theory of
personality traits which is grouped into big four temperament, they are sanguine,
choleric, phlegmatic, and melancholic.5 In relation to the statement above, it can be classified that sanguine and choleric are extrovert while phlegmatic and
melancholic are introvert.
In addition, according to Hippocrates in the book Pathology Student’s Library
written by Ghozenko, he offered the first constitutional classification. He focused
his attention on the differences of existing in various people reflected in
temperament and social behavior. These observations were assumed by
Hippocrates as the basic of his classification. According to his terminology, this
ancient typology, the choleric, sanguine, phlegmatic and melancholic exist up to
the present time. The choleric personality is impetuous, easily irritated and
3Randy J. Larsen and David M. Buss, Personality Psychology, 2nd Ed., (New York: Graw-Hill, 2005), p. 4.
4Lawrence A. Pervin, Personality Theory, Assessment and Research, (New York: John Willey & Sons, Inc, 1980), p. 4.
5
7
angered, sometimes uncontrollable. His work ability is high, but not constant.
While sanguine personality is communicable, vivacious, lively, active and
emotional. In other hand, phlegmatic personality is calm, apathetic, unexcitable,
but stable. Moreover, melancholic personality is unsociable, sometime depressed,
and hesitating.6
a. The Sanguine Personality
“The sanguine personality described enthusiastic, positive, and cheerful individuals, satisfied with life and generally enjoying good mental as well as
physical health.”7 He tends to be cooperative and caring. Characteristic of sanguine person are sociable, outgoing, talkative, responsive, easygoing,
lively, carefree, leadership.8
Sanguine personality also is one of the personalities type. Its characteristic
is creative, fun-loving, enjoy with people, and seek out adventure sometimes
result in label of superficiality and frivolity, more joyful place because of the
inspiration, enthusiasm, and fellowship he provides.9
According to Eysenck, the sanguine person is carefree and full of hope,
pleasant and friendly to help others, sociable, given to pranks, contended, does
not take anything very seriously, and has many friends. Unfortunately he is
bad debtor, he asks for time to pay, and does not really sure to keep his
promise. He is not vicious but difficult to convert from his sins; he may feel
sorry for a bad thing he did but then he forget so soon; he is easily fatigued
and bored by work but enjoyed mere games that constant change, and
persistence is not his forte.10
6A.I Gozhenko et al, Pathology Medical Student’s Library, (Radom: Radomska Szkola Wyisza Zubrzyckiego, 2009), p. 56.
7Thomas Chamoro-Premuzic and Adrian Furham, loc. cit.
8Walter Mischel et al., introduction to personality, 7th Ed., (New York: John Willey & Sons, Inc., 2004), p. 52.
9Art Bennet, LMFT and Laraine Bennet, The Temperament God Gave You, (Manchester, New Hampshire: Shopia Institute Press, 2005), p. 37.
1) The Strength of Sanguine
The points below are from the book of „Personality Plus’ authored by
Florence Littaure, they are traits (characters) which appear in variety of
quantity.
Animated Delightful
Playful Cheerful
Sociable Inspiring
Convincing Demonstrative
Refreshing Mixes-easily
Spirited Talker
Promoter Lively
Spontaneous Cute
Optimistic Popular
Funny Bouncy11
2) The weakness of Sanguine
Traits below are the negative of the sanguine in some ways of the student
type when he interacts in school environment. Florence Littaure mentioned the
traits as follow:
Brassy Wants Credits
Undisciplined Talkative
Repetitious Disorganized
Forgetful Inconsistent
Interrupts Messy
Haphazard Loud
Permissive Scatter brained
Angered easily Restless
Naïve Changeable12
b. The Phlegmatic Personality
“Phlegmatic is a personality type based on the ancient Greek humors
discussed by Hippocrates and Galen in which one is apathetic and conforming
on the outside but tense and distraught on the inside.” He is lethargic, takes away from others; somewhat passive. Characteristic of phlegmatic person are
9
passive, careful, thoughtful, peaceful, controlled, reliable, even-tempered, and
calm.13
Phlegmatic are reserved or quite person, prudent, sensible, reflective,
respectful, and dependable. They are not easily insulted or provoked to anger,
even they do not like exaggeration in speech. They are loyal and committed,
tolerant and supportive. They also have excellent quality, very discipline, and
excel in profession where being calm under pressure, moreover they are
agreeable people, they often hide their will even ignore it.14
1) The strength of Phlegmatic
Adaptable Diplomatic
Peaceful Consistent
Submissive Inoffensive
Controlled Dry Humor
Reserved Mediator
Satisfied Tolerant
Patient Listener
Shy Contented
Obliging Pleasant
Friendly Balanced15
2) The weakness of Phlegmatic
Numerous traits below are the simple descriptions to know about the
weakness of the phlegmatic personality. Florence Littaure mentioned that
traits:
Blank Worrier
Unenthusiastic Timid
Reticent Doubtful
Fearful Indifferent
Indecisive Mumbles
Uninvolved Slow
Hesitant Lazy
Plain Sluggish
Aimless Reluctant
Nonchalant Compromising16
13Walter Mishel et al., loc. cit.
14Bennet, op. cit, p. 40. 15Littaure, loc. cit.
The table below describes the personality characteristics which differ
between one and others by Christian in Astrology and Personality Testing
book written by Martin and Deidre Bobgan:17
Table 2.1
The Four Temperaments
Sanguine Choleric Melancholic Phlegmatic
Cheerful Optimistic Melancholy Calm
Friendly Active Sensitive Dependable
Talk active Confidence Analytical Efficient
Lively Strong-willed Perfectionist Easy Going
Restless Quick to anger Unsociable Passive
Self-centered Aggressive Moody Stubborn
Undependable Inconsiderate Rigid Lazy
Based on the table above it can be concluded that phlegmatic personality is
also called as introvert person. He is talkative less than sanguine personality
because phlegmatic personality is passive. In characteristic, phlegmatic student
likes to avoid the wrongness, and student who has this personality will be more
keep silent than try to speak. In other hand, sanguine personality or extrovert
person is more active. In this case, the student with sanguine personality is
talkative more and he does not worry anymore about making a mistake in their
speaking.
B.
Speaking
1. The Definition of Speaking
Speaking is one of the language production skills used for communication. It
is the most natural way to communicate. In communication people do not only to
respond to other people, but also to express their ideas, feeling, thought, etc. Thus,
speaking is very significant to the quality of people’s living processes and
experiences. The ability to which people develops an efficient and effective
11
communicative is by the way to speak. Without speaking, people might be hard to
socialize even it can be isolated from any kind of society.
The speaking is used actively by a person to communicate with others in
order to express ideas, feeling, as well as opinion to achieve a particular goal.
Speaking is an interactive process of constructing meaning that involves
producing andreceiving and processing information.
In addition, Nunan defined speaking as “the ability to carry out a conversation
in the language.”18
It can be said that in the conversation, people need special skill
to take part in dialog. They need to know what language is appropriate and
understanding what the other speaker means to the topic that is discussing. As
Littlewood said that “When we speak, we are constantly estimating the hearer’s
knowledge and assumptions, in order to select language that will be interpreted in
accordance with our intended meaning.”19Further he explained that “…one factor
determining the speaker’s choice of language is the knowledge that he assumes
the hearer to process. A further important factor is his interpretation of the social
situation in which communication is taking place: language carries not only
function meaning, it also carries social meaning”.20
In relation to the statement above, Jo McDonough and Christopher Shaw
satated “Speaking is not the oral production of written language, but involves
learners in the mastery of a wide range sub-skill which added together, consitute
an overall competence in the spoken language”.21
It means that speaking is nor
merely to transform written language by speaking it. Speaking involves the ability
to integrate sub-skill, such as grammar, vocabulary, and sound. In speaking,
speaker needs to know how to produce a sound, the rules to produce an infinite
numbers of sentences, and to understand of what language is appropriate in certain
situation. In fact that one skill can not be performed without others.
18David Nunan, Language Teaching Methodology. A Textbook for Teachers, (Edinburgh: Longman Pearson Education, 1998), p. 39.
19William Littlewood, Communicative Language Teaching, an Introduction, (Landon: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 3.
20Ibid., p. 4.
Based on the definitions above, it can be synthesized that speaking is the
process of responding and expressing ideas, opinions, feeling or thought with the
other people. As human beings, especially social creature need to express their
thoughts, opinions, or feelings in appropriate way in order to have a good social
life.
2. The Element of Speaking
Speaking a language is especially difficult for foreign language because
effective oral communication requires the ability to use the language appropriately
in social interaction. Speaking foreign language requires more than knowing its
grammatical and semantic rules. It also acquires the knowledge of how native
speaker use the language structurally, such as pitch, stress, and intonation or
known as pronunciation, body language, fluency, control of idiomatic expression,
and understanding of cultural pragmatics are required.22 a. Pronunciation
As one of the speaking element, pronunciation plays an important role to make
sure that the productions of the words do not obscure the meaning. People need to
acquire the words in the correct way. It is also often judged people by the way
they speak, and so learners with poor pronunciation may be judged as incompetent
or lack of knowledge, they make the meaning of words not clear. As stated on the
article of AMEP Research Centre, “pronunciation refers to the production of
sounds that we use to make meaning.”23 Pronunciation is the way for speakers’ produce clearer language when they speak. The speaker must be able to articulate
the words, and create the physical sounds that carry meaning.
b. Grammar
Jeremy Harmer states that the grammar of a language is the description of
rules which allows someone to generate language itself.24 For most people, the
22
Marianne Celce-Murcia (ed.), Teaching English as Second or Foreign Language, 2nd Ed,
(Boston: Heinle &Heinle Publishers, 1991), p. 204.
23Adult Migrant English Program Research Centre, Fact Sheet – What is pronunciation?, AMEP Research Centre, October 2002, 2014, p. 1.
13
essence of language lies in grammar. It enables people to make statements about
how to use their language. In brief, grammar represent one’s linguistic
competence; therefore it includes many aspects of linguistic knowledge: the sound
system (phonology), the system of meaning (semantics), the rules of word
formation (morphology), the rules of sentence (syntax), and the vocabulary of
words (lexicon).
“Language without grammar would be chaotic; countless words without indispensable guidance for how they can be ordered and modified. A study of
grammar (syntax and morphology) reveals a structure and regularity, which lies at
the basic of language and enables us to talk of the language system.”25
c. Vocabulary
Vocabulary is single words, set phrases, variable phrases, phrasal verbs and
idioms.26 Vocabulary has a significance role in speaking, without many sources of vocabulary, some people may have difficulty in their speech. Some people define
vocabulary as words. Words are perceived as the building blocks upon which
knowledge of a second language can be built. However a new item of vocabulary
may be more than a single word. For example, „police man’ and „father-in-law’
which are made up of two or three words but express a single idea. There are also
multi word idioms like „call it a day’, where the meaning of phrase cannot be deduced from an analysis of the word component.27
d. Fluency
Fluency can be reached with practice. Fluency is the ability to talk accurately,
quickly, and use the expression properly. It means speaking a language without
hesitation or producing some errors. It refers to the ability to talk with normal
levels of continuity, rate and effort and to link ideas and language together to form
coherent and connected speech. The key indicators of fluency are speech rate and
25Norbert Pachler (ed.), Teaching Modern Foreign Language (London: Routledge, 1999), p .94.
26Keith S. Folse, Vocabulary Myths: Applying Second Language Research to Classroom Teaching, (Michigan: University of Michigan, 2004), p. 2.
continuity.28 In fluency practice, the speakers’ attention is on the information they are communicating than on the language itself.
e. Comprehension
The last element of speaking is comprehension. As stated by Laura in her
article, comprehension is a complex process that has been understood and
explained in a number of ways.29 Comprehension means the ability to understand meaning which is spoken. Comprehension takes part in some situations for
example discussing work or problems, making arrangements, chatting at social
gathering, watching a film, and being interviewed.
C.
Achievement
According to Simpson and Weiner as quoted by Yusuf achievement is defined
as measurable behavior in a standardized series of tests. They contended that
achievement test intends to measure systematic education and training in school
occupation towards a conventionally accepted pattern of skills or knowledge.
Several subjects may be combined into an achievement battery for measuring
general school proficiency either in point score or achievement age and perhaps
achievement quotient. According to Bruce and Neville (1979) educational
achievement is measured in relation to what is attained at the end of a course,
since it is the accomplishment of medium or long term objective of education.
In the same occasion, Yusuf described that achievement is regarded as action
of completing or attaining by exertion. It subsumes anything won by exertion, a
feat, a distinguished and successful action.30
From the explanation above, it can be said that achievement is used to
describe the status or level of person's learning and his ability to apply what he
has learnt. In educational view, achievement is to measure how much has been
28Paul Davis and Eric Pearse, Success in English Teaching, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 57.
29Laura S. Pardo, What Every Teacher Needs to Know about Comprehension, International Reading Association: 2004, 2014, p. 1.
15
learned in a subject and what specific abilities or skills have been developed. So,
the term denotes to the performance of students, which is determined at the end of
a course.
Students’ achievement in this research refers to achievement in learning English. The achievement is reflected by students’ scores after following the lesson and through the test. However, students’ achievement was influenced by
certain factors; one of them was students’ personality.
D.
Thinking Framework
Many people think that some factors which initiate problem in the teaching or
learning speaking skill are the students’ lake of practice to speak English. The
teachers seldom expose them to speak English, and the method used by the
teachers does not build students’ interest. However, the problems are not only
those things; there is also a factor which influences students’ performance in
speaking. It is personality. Every student has different personality; as stated in
previous chapter that the sanguine personality is dominating in speaking than the
phlegmatic personality. This statement will prove that sanguine student will have
better score in speaking than the phlegmatic one.
Therefore, the writer is interested in analyzing whether the students who have
sanguine and phlegmatic personality are influence their achievement in speaking
skill score.
The first step in doing this research is giving the personality test that consist of
40 numbers of traits list of personality in order to determine whether the students
are sanguine or phlegmatic. After students have been classified into sanguine and
phlegmatic, the next step is comparing the student speaking score with those two
personalities. This aimed to answer the research question.
E.
Review of Previous Study Related to Research
The writer found the similar research written by Nadiyah (2010) which the
title is “Comparative Analysis on Choleric Students and Melancholic Students
personality of the second grade students SMA Muhammadiyah 25 Pamulang with
students’ achievement in speaking score. Based on her opinion, different
personality of the student would make different result in students’ speaking
ability. In her research showed that there are no significantly differences between
students’ difference personality with their achievement in speaking score. The
relationship between Nadiyah’s research with the writer’s research is the variable used. Nadiyah used choleric and melancholic students as variables. However, the
writer in this “skripsi” has different focus. The writer focuses on two other types of personality, they are sanguine and phlegmatic personality and will do the
research in seventh semester of English Education Department State Islamic
University (UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta).
Another previous study related to research is from Lidya Catrunnada Ira
Puspitawati with her paper research entitled “Prokrastinasi Task Differences on
Thesis Introvert and Extrovert Personality”. The result of this quantitative research showed that personality differences have statistically different to the
students’ prokratinasi on doing their thesis task. It was noted that, the students with extrovert personality have prokrastinasi more than the introvert one. The
relationship between this research and the writer’s research is the use of
dependent variable; however the writer used speaking as dependent variable, and
the writer used sanguine and phlegmatic as independent variables. Sanguine is one
of the categories of extrovert personality, and phlegmatic is one of categories of in
introvert personality.
F.
Theoretical Hypothesis
Based on the theories which were described above, it can be posed a
theoretical hypothesis that the sanguine students have better score that the
17
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter consists of the location and time of the research, the method of
the research, the population and sample, the technique of data collecting, the
technique of data analysis, and the theoretical hypothesis.
A.
Location and Time of the Research
The research was conducted at English Education Department State Islamic
University (UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta) which is located on Jalan Ir. H. Juanda No.95 Ciputat. The research was successfully conducted on 20th of November 2014.
B.
Method of the Research
The method of this research is comparative analysis. It can be used to test
hypotheses concerning about whether there is differences or not between variable
tested. This is aimed to know whether the personality of students especially
sanguine and phlegmatic students has difference achievement in speaking skill
score.
This research is quantitative non-experimental research which describe things
that have occurred and examine relationship between things without any direct
manipulation of condition.1
The first step in doing this research was giving questionnaire to the students
of the seventh semester to get the data about their personality, and then got their
score from Department of English Education to compared students’ speaking
score with their personality.
C.
Population and Sample
1. Population
The population target in this research was all students from the seventh
semester of English Education Department State Islamic University (UIN Syarif
Hidayatullah Jakarta) which consist of three classes with 128 students; VII. A,
VII. B, and VII. C.
2. Sample
The sample used in this research was purposive sample by classified only
sanguine and phlegmatic students, and those became the sample. There are 21
students from the sanguine personality and 27 students from the phlegmatic
personality.
D.
Technique of Data Collection
The techniques of data collection in this research were questionnaire of
personality test taken from standardized assessment written by Frolence Littauer.
It identifies students’ personality by examining their personality based on the list
of traits. There were 40 question numbers of test from the four personality types;
sanguine, choleric, phlegmatic and melancholic. Then, the paper tests were given
to the students in order to determine their type of personality.
Table 3.1 Personality Traits STRENGNESS
1. --- Adventurous --- Adaptable --- Animated --- Analytical
2. --- Persistent --- Playful --- Persuasive --- Peaceful
3. --- Submissive ---
Self-Sacrificing
--- Sociable --- Strong-willed
4. --- Considerate --- Controlled --- Competitive --- Convincing
5. --- Refreshing --- Respectful --- Reserved --- Resourceful
6. --- Satisfied --- Sensitive --- Self-reliant --- Spirited
19
8. --- Sure --- Spontaneous --- Scheduled --- Shy
9. --- Orderly --- Obliging --- Outspoken --- Optimistic
10. --- Friendly --- Faithful --- Funny --- Forceful
11. --- Daring --- Delightful --- Diplomatic --- Detail
12. --- Cheerful --- Consistent --- Cultured --- Confident
13. --- Idealistic --- Independent --- Inoffensive --- Inspiring
14. --- Demonstrative --- Decisive --- Dry Humor --- Deep
15. --- Mixes Easily --- Mover --- Musical --- Mediator
16. --- Thoughtful --- Tenacious --- Talker --- Tolerant
17. --- Listener --- Loyal --- Leader --- Lively
18. --- Contented --- Chief --- Chart maker --- Cute
19. --- Perfectionist --- Pleasant --- Productive --- Popular
20. --- Bouncy --- Bold --- Behaved --- Balanced
WEAKNESS
21. --- Blank --- Bashful --- Brassy --- Bossy
22. --- Undisciplined --- Unsympathetic --- Unenthusiastic --- Unforgiving
23. --- Reticent --- Resentful --- Resistant --- Repetitious
24. --- Fussy --- Fearful --- Forgetful --- Frank
25. --- Impatient --- Insecure --- Indecisive --- Interrupts
26. --- Unpopular --- Uninvolved --- Unpredictable --- Unaffectionate
27. --- Headstrong --- Haphazard --- Hard to please --- Hesitant
28. --- Plain --- Pessimistic --- Proud --- Permissive
29. ---Angered easily --- Aimless --- Argumentative --- Alienated
30. --- Naïve --- Negative
attitude
--- Nervy --- Nonchalant
31. --- Worrier --- Withdrawn --- Workaholic --- Wants credit
32. --- Too Sensitive --- Tactless --- Timid --- Talkative
33. --- Doubtful --- Disorganized --- Domineering --- Depressed
35. --- Messy --- Moody --- Mumbles --- Manipulative
36. --- Slow --- Stubborn --- Show-off --- Skeptical
37. --- Loner --- Lord over others --- Lazy --- Loud
38. --- Sluggish --- Suspicious --- Short-tempered --- Scatterbrained
39. --- Revengeful --- Restless --- Reluctant --- Rash
40. ---Compromising --- Critical --- Crafty --- Changeable
The questionnaire has 40 numbers. Every number of items consists of traits
from the four personality types. To do the test the students were asked to choose
some traits which reflect themselves.
The students were asked to put a check list (v) to the four traits options on
entirely items numbers. The answer represents their traits that fit them best. Then
the check list test paper that have been done by the students are matched to the
indicators table above. For example:
Number 1
( C ) Adventurous
( P ) Adaptable
V ( S ) Animated
( M ) Analytical
Each symbol means:
C : is for Choleric
S : is for Sanguine
M : is for Melancholic
P : is for Phlegmatic
By seeing the checklist, the students answer “animated” for items number 1.
It means the item number 1 will be counted as sanguine students. The same way is
applied to the next numbers until the last one.
The way of personality judgment is by seeing the highest result that appears
21
E.
Technique of the Data Analysis
First of all, the students were given questionnaire to determine students’
personality types, and then calculate the speaking score of both personalities with
statistic count. The two groups; the sanguine and phlegmatic students and each
score of English speaking are clearly distributed as the single data distribution into
two tables.
Because the research is non-experimental research, it used data information to
measure the hypotheses, and the result will explain how the results either support
or refuse the hypothesis or answer the research question.
In this research the writer used the formula:
Mean of Variable X1
∑
Mean of Variable X2
∑
Standard Deviation of Variable XI S =
√
∑
Standard Deviation of Variable X2 S =
√
∑t-
test√
Note:
X1 = The total scores of sanguine students
X2 = The total scores of phlegmatic students
N1 = The number of sanguine students
N2 = The number of phlegmatic students
2 = Mean of phlegmatic students
S1 = Standard deviation of sanguine students
S2 = Standard deviation of phlegmatic students
to = t- test
F.
Statistical Hypotheses
Significant critical value: 0.05 and 0.01
Criteria :
If to > t-table means there is influence and Ha is accepted, while Ho is
rejected.
If to < t-table means there is no influence and Ha is rejected, while Ho is
accepted.
The Hypotheses of the research describes how the research must be answered.
Ho = There is no significantly difference between sanguine and phlegmatic
students’ on their achievement in speaking score.
Ha = There is significantly differencesbetween sanguine and phlegmatic
23
CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION
This chapter consists of the data description, the data analysis, the data
interpretation and the statistic interpretation.
A.
Research Findings
1. Data Description
The following two tables are the students who have been categorized into the
sanguine and the phlegmatic personality. They were sample which had been
chosen by purposive sampling and the following are their En glish speaking score
[image:34.595.113.510.309.750.2]taken from English Education Department.
Table 4.1
The Sanguine Students
The Seventh Semester of English Education Department
No Name Speaking Score
1 Student 1 80.00
2 Student 2 70.40
3 Student 3 68.00
4 Student 4 80.00
5 Student 5 73.40
6 Student 6 71.80
7 Student 7 75.70
8 Student 8 76.00
9 Student 9 70.70
10 Student 10 70.70
11 Student 11 76.00
12 Student 12 78.50
13 Student 13 78.20
No Name Speaking Score
15 Student 15 80.90
16 Student 16 72.70
17 Student 17 80.00
18 Student 18 78.30
19 Student 19 77.70
20 Student 20 77.80
[image:35.595.114.511.109.769.2]21 Student 21 80.00
Table 4.2
The Phlegmatic Students
The Seventh Semester of English Education Department
No Name Speaking Score
1 Students 1 74.40
2 Students 2 70.00
3 Students 3 80.30
4 Students 4 75.30
5 Students 5 80.00
6 Students 6 70.10
7 Students 7 74.70
8 Students 8 71.20
9 Students 9 70.60
10 Students 10 71.50
11 Students 11 80.00
12 Students 12 70.40
13 Students 13 74.50
14 Students 14 74.50
15 Students 15 72.10
16 Students 16 73.10
25
No Name Speaking Score
18 Students 18 80.30
19 Students 19 77.40
20 Students 20 74.80
21 Students 21 80.30
22 Students 22 78.30
23 Students 23 77.30
24 Students 24 77.40
25 Students 25 77.80
26 Students 26 71.30
27 Students 27 73.10
The 48 students are the sanguine and the phlegmatic students. From the total
number of students of the seventh semester, only 73 students who participated to
fill the questionnaire of personality test. The other 25 students belong to the other
personalities; they are neither the sanguine students nor the phlegmatic students.
2. Data Analysis
To begin the data analysis, first step is finding the average of the sanguine and
phlegmatic students.
The way to find the average of the sanguine and phlegmatic students’ score is by the following calculation. The average in statistics is known by mean (M). The
pattern of Mean is
∑
Description:
This pattern is to find Mean from single data of which scores are more
than one frequency; whether they are for some data or whole of them. The
following is the calculation for x1 or the sanguine students.
∑
= 76.04
After having the first Mean, and the next step is forward to the second Mean.
It is for the phlegmatic students. The calculation is as follows:
∑
= 75.17
Next step is finding the Deviation Standard of the sanguine and the phlegmatic
students.
Deviation Standardof sanguine students is as follows:
S = √∑
= √
= √
= √ = 4.01
Deviation Standardof phlegmatic students is as follows:
S = √∑
= √
= √
=√ = 1.89
The calculation and the results of the mean and deviation standard were
27
Table 4.3
Mean and Deviation Standard of the Two Variables
No The Sanguine Students The Phlegmatic Students
Students Score )2 Students Score ( - )2
1 1 80.00 3.96 15.68 1 74.40 -0.77 0.59
2 2 70.40 -5.64 31.81 2 70.00 -5.17 26.73
3 3 68.00 -8.04 64.64 3 80.30 5.13 26.32
4 4 80.00 3.96 15.68 4 75.30 0.13 0.02
5 5 73.40 -2.64 6.97 5 80.00 4.83 23.33
6 6 71.80 -4.24 17.98 6 70.10 -5.07 25.70
7 7 75.70 -0.34 0.17 7 74.70 -0.47 0.22
8 8 76.00 -0.04 0.002 8 71.20 -3.97 15.76
9 9 70.70 -5.34 36.48 9 70.60 -4.57 20.88
10 10 70.70 -5.34 28.52 10 71.50 -3.67 13.47
11 11 76.00 -0.04 0.002 11 80.00 4.83 23.33
12 12 78.50 2.46 6.05 12 70.40 -4.77 22.75
13 13 78.20 2.16 4.67 13 74.50 -0.67 0.45
No The Sanguine Students The Phlegmatic Students
Students Score )2 Students Score ( - )2
16 16 72.70 -3.34 11.16 16 73.10 -2.07 4.28
17 17 80.00 3.96 15.68 17 78.80 3.63 13.18
18 18 78.30 2.26 5.11 18 80.30 5.13 26.32
19 19 77.70 1.66 2.76 19 77.40 2.23 4.97
20 20 77.80 1.76 3.10 20 74.80 -0.37 0.14
21 21 80.00 3.96 15.68 21 80.30 5.13 26.32
22 22 78.30 3.13 9.80
23 23 77.30 2.13 4.54
24 24 77.40 2.23 4.97
24 25 77.80 2.63 6.92
26 26 71.30 -3.87 14.98
27 27 73.10 -2.07 4.28
N=21 1596.8 321.444 N=27 2029.5 330.12
∑
= 76.04
S = √∑
= √
=
√ = √ = 4.01
∑
= 75.17
S = √∑
= √
=
29
[image:40.595.114.485.177.290.2]The next table concluded the result of the calculation above.
Table 4.4
The Statistic Descriptive of the Research
Statistic Sanguine Students Phlegmatic Students
The Highest Score 80.90 80.30
The Lowest Score 68.00 70.00
Mean 76.04 75.15
Standard Deviation 4.01 1.89
The tables above described that the Mean of the sanguine students’ score was
76.04, while the Mean of the phlegmatic students’ score was 75.15 and the
Deviation Standard of the sanguine students was 4.01, while the Deviation
Standard of the phlegmatic students was 1.89. Looking on the Table 4.4, there
were differences both the result of the Mean and Deviation Standard. The
sanguine students were fine superior of 0.89 on Mean and 2.12 on Deviation
Standard from phlegmatic students.
After analyzing the data and counting the formula, it has been found the result
of the Means and the Deviation Standard of students speaking achievement from both personality, and finally gave interpretation of ‘to’.
a. Statistical Test (t-test)
In analyzing the data from the result above, it used statistical calculation of
the t-test formula written by Sugiyono. As seen on the Table 4.4, it is suggested to
measure the homogenity varian of both samples. It is the biggest varian divided by
the smallest varian (the varian is taken from the deviation standard), and the result
is compared to F table based on the result of the degree of freedom (DF) from
DF of this research is (N1 – 1) and (N2-1) = (21 – 1= 20) and (27 – 1= 26)
The homogeneity varian is F=
= 2.12
The F tabel of the degree freedom of 5 % of 20 and 26 is 1.99
Based on the calculation presented above the result of F was higher than F table
(2.12>1.99), thus, it can be interpreted that the varian was not homogen.
Sugiyono further explained five procedures in determing the formula of
comparing two groups of sample; if two groups of sample have different amount
and the varian is not homogen, the Separated Varian formula is used. The
Saparated Varian formula is as follows:
√
√
√
√
b.
t-
tableThe degrees of freedom (DF) determined the t-table. For DF of this research
is
(N1 -1) + (N2-2) = (20-1) + (27-1) = 45 = 22.5
2 2 2
The degree of significance of 5% was 2.07, and the degree of significance of
1% was 2.81.
To prove the hypothesis, the data obtained from both personalities was
31
to > ttable : The alternative hypothesis (Ha) is accepted and the null
hypothesis (H0) is rejected. It means there is significance
difference between the sanguine students and the phlegmatic
student on their speaking skill achievement.
to < ttable : The alternative hypothesis (Ha) is rejected and the null hypothesis
(H0) is accepted. It means there is no significance difference
between the sanguine and the phlegmatic students on their
[image:42.595.119.512.101.540.2]speaking skill achievement.1
Table 4.5
The Calculation Result of the Hypothesis
Sample Mean Deviation Standard DF
t-Test
ttable 1%
ttable 5%
Conclusion
Sanguine
Students 21 76.04 4.01
22.5 1.71 2.81 2.07
Ho is
accepted
Phlegmatic
Students 27 75.17 1.89
Ha is
rejected
Based on the counting of the table above, it can be explained that:
a) The means of English speaking scores of the sanguine students was 76.04, with
the highest score was 80.90 and the lowest was 68.00. Meanwhile the means of
English speaking score of the phlegmatic students was 75.17, with the highest
score was 80.0 and the lowest was 70.00.
b) The deviation standard of the sanguine students was 4.01, and the deviation
standard of the phlegmatic students was 1.89.
c) The result of t-test was 1.71.
d) T-table for the degree of significance of 5% was 2.07, and the degree
significance of 1% was 2.81.
By comparing the values of t₀= 1.71 and ttable 2.81 and 2.07, the data
calculated with statistical result shows that t₀ was smaller than t-table. So, the
alternative hypothesis (Ha) was rejected and the null hypothesis (H₀) was
accepted. It means there is no significance difference between the sanguine
students and the phlegmatic students on their achievement in speaking skill.
B.
Interpretation
Based on the statistical calculation, it can be clarified that there was no
significant difference between the sanguine students and the phlegmatic students
in speaking skill achievement. The result of the t-test was 1.71, and it was smaller
than t-table both in the degree of significance of 5% and 1% (2.07 > 1.71 < 2.81).
So the null hypothesis (Ho) was accepted and the alternative hypothesis (Ha) was
rejected. It can be interpreted that there is no significance difference between the
sanguine students and the phlegmatic students on their speaking skill
achievement.
The sanguine students are assumed to have a good ability and better ability in
speaking. In this research, their score of speaking was 76.04 in average. The
phlegmatic students were estimated to be people who have less ability in speaking
than sanguine students. However, the average of their speaking score was 75.17.
Based on t-test calculation, it showed that there was no difference between
sanguine and phlegmatic students in speaking score achievement because of their
different average score was not too significant.
In relation to this conclusion and looking at the previous research in chapter II
that student with extrovert personality that was sanguine students had better in
English speaking score, and now it have already been proved. The students with
33
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
This chapter presents conclusion and suggestion based on this research which
has been done at Department of English Education State Islamic University
Jakarta (UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta).
A.
Conclusion
This research showed that there was no significantly different between
sanguine and phlegmatic student in their achievement in speaking skill. The data
interpreted that sanguine students and phlegmatic students had no difference in
their speaking score achievement. Even though the sanguine students had higher
average of English speaking score and the phlegmatic students got lower average
English speaking score, the t-test calculation showed that there was no
significantly difference between students with sanguine and phlegmatic
personality in their speaking score because the difference of their average is not
too significant.
Based on the result above it can be concluded that students’ personality both sanguine and phlegmatic did not have any effect on students’ achievement in speaking skill.
B.
Suggestion
Based on the conclusion of this research, it can be recommended some
suggestions go to:
1. Students
The result of this research is expected to help students to recognize their
personalities and minimize their weakness, and students should not worry
to have best score in speaking skill because personality is not significantly
influence.
This research can contribute to all educational institutions to consider
students’ personality and determine the best strategy in teaching learning process to minimize students’ gap and maximize their potential in
speaking skill.
3. Further Researchers
The result of this study is expected to be used as consideration or preview
for the next researchers in doing the same field of the study with the
35
REFERENCES
Baststone, Paul. Grammar, New York: Oxford University Press, 1950.
Bennet, Art., and Bennet, Laraine. The Temperament God Gave You, Manchester, New Hampshire: Shopia Institute Press, 2005.
Brudden, Philip M. Effective English Teaching, 2nd Ed, New York: The Bob’s Merrill Company, 1995.
Catrunnada, Lidya., and Puspitawati, Ira. Prokrastinasi Task Differences on Thesis Introvert and Extrovert Personality, Thesis of Undergraduate Program, Faculty of Psychology, Gunadarma University, 2008.
Celce-Murcia, Marianne (Ed.). Teaching English as Second or Foreign Language, 2nd Ed, Boston: Heinle &Heinle Publishers, 1991.
Chamorro-Premuzic, Thomas., and Furnham, Adrian. Personality and Intellectual Competence, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publisher, 2005.
Davis, Paul., and Pearse, Eric. Success in English Teaching, New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Engler, Barbara. Personality Theories, 8th Ed, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2009.
Eysenck, Hans. Fact and Fiction in Psychology, Baltimore: Penguins Book, 1965. Feis, Jess., and Feist, Gregory J. Theories of Personality, New York: Mc Graw
Hill, 2009.
Folse, Keith S. Vocabulary Myths: Applying Second Language Research to Classroom Teaching, Michigan: University of Michigan, 2004.
Friedman, Howard S., and Schustack, Miriam W. Personality: Classic Theories and Modern Research, 4th Ed, Boston: Pearson Higher Education, 2009. Gozhenko, A.l., et al., Pathology Medical Student’s Library, Radom: Radomska
Szkola Wyisza Zubrzyckiego, 2009.
Harmer, Jeremy. ´The Practice of English Language Teaching, New York: Longman Publishing, 1991.
Hewings, Martin. Pronunciation, London: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Larsen, Randy J., and Buss, David M. Personality Psychology, 2nd Ed, New
York: Graw-Hill, 2005.
Littlewood, Wlliam. Communicative Language Teaching, an Introduction, Landon: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Martin., and Bobgan, Deidre. Astrology and Personality Testing, California, 1992. McDonough, Jo., and Shaw, Christopher. Materials and Methods in ELT: A
Teacher’s Guide, Cambridge: Blackwell Publisher, 1993.
McMillan, James H., and Schummacher, Sally. Research in Education: Evidence-Based Inquiry, 6th Ed, Boston: Person Education, Inc., 2006.
Mischel, Walter., et al., Introduction to Personality, 7th Ed, New York: John Willey & Sons, Inc., 2004.
Nunan, David. Language Teaching Methodology. A Textbook for Teachers,
Edinburgh: Longman Pearson Education, 1998.
Pardon, Laura S. What every teacher needs to know about comprehension,
International Reading Association: 2004, 2014.
Pervin, Lawrence A., and John, Oliver P. Personality: Theory and Research, 7th Ed, New York: John Willey & Son, Inc., 1997.
Pervin, Lawrence A. Personality Theory, Assessment and Research, New York: John Willey & Sons, Inc, 1980,
Schmitt, Cornald J. Invitation to Language, Foreign Language Explanatory Program, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998.
Sugiyono. Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif Kualitatif dan R & D, Bandung: Alfabeta, 2009.
QUESTIONNAIRE The Purpose and Guidance:
1. This questionnaire is proposed in order to finish “skripsi” in Department of English
Education, Faculty and Tarbiyah and Teachers’ Training
2. The questionnaire conducted to identify kind of students’ personality
3. Please kindly help for answering by choosing each traits based on your personality by putting cross (x) in a, b, c or d.
4. Thank you very much for your kindly participation.
Respondent Identity Name :
NIM :
Class :
The Personality Test Of Florence Littauer The Four Personality Assessment
STRENGTHS
a. Adventurous, Orang yang mau melakukan suatu hal yang baru dan berani dengan tekad untuk menguasainya.
b. Adaptable, mudah menyesuaikan diri dan senang dalam setiap situasi.
c. Animated, penuh kehidupan, sering menggunakan isyarat tangan, lengan dan wajah secara hidup.
d. Analytical, suka menyelidiki bagian-bagian
