TABLE OF CONTENT
APPROVAL SHEET ... .ii
DECLARATION OF AUTHORSHIP ... iii
PREFACE ... iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... v
ABSTRACT ... vi
TABLE OF CONTENT ... vii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ... ..1
1.1. Background of the Study ... ..1
1.2. Identification of the Problems ... ..2
1.3. Aims and Research Questions ... ..3
1.4. Significance of the Study ... ..4
1.5. Organization of the Thesis ... ..4
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ... ..6
2.1. Motivation ... ..6
2.1.1. Definition ... .6
2.1.2. Self-Determination ... ..8
2.1.2.1. Extrinsic Motivation... ..8
2.1.2.2. Instinct Motivation ... ..9
2.1.2.2.1. Competence Needs ... 10
2.1.2.2.2. Relatedness Needs ... 11
2.1.2.2.3 Autonomy Needs ... 12
2.2. Contextual Teaching Learning ... 13
2.2.1. Definition of CTL ... 14
2.2.2. Historical Roots of CTL ... 14
2.2.3. Principles of CTL ... 15
2.2.3.4. Using Problem-Based Learning ... 19
2.2.3.5. Using Independent Learning Groups ... 19
2.2.3.6. Using Authentic Assessment ... 20
2.2.4. Approaches for Implementing CTL ... 21
2.3. Motivational Indicators ... 22
2.4. Speaking ... 24
2.4.1. Speaking as Interaction ... 24
2.4.2. Speaking as Transaction ... 25
2.4.3. Speaking as Performance ... 26
2.4.4. Speaking in the Curriculum ... 28
2.5. Concluding Remarks ... 28
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ... 30
3.1. Research Design ... 30
3.2. Participants ... 32
3.3. Data Collection and Analysis ... 33
3.3.1. Data Collection... 33
3.3.2. Data Analysis ... 33
3.5. Time and Procedures ... 34
CHAPTER IV: DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS ... 36
4.1. Data Presentation and Analysis for Cycle I ... 36
4.1.1. Planning ... 36
4.1.2. Action and Observation ... 37
4.1.2.1. Individual Study ... 37
4.1.2.2. Pair Work Discussion ... 42
4.1.2.3. Group Work ... 45
4.1.2.4. Whole Class Discussion ... 48
4.1.2.5. Writing Session ... 50
4.1.3. Reflection ... 52
4.1.3.1. Planning ... 52
4.1.3.3. Action and Observation: Pair Work ... .55
4.1.3.4. Action and Observation: Group Work ... .57
4.1.3.5. Action and Observation: Class Discussion ... .58
4.1.3.6. Action and Observation: Writing Session ... .60
4.1.4. Revision ... .66
4.1.4.1. Planning ... .66
4.1.4.2. Action and Observation ... .67
4.1.4.2.1. Individual Work ... .67
4.1.4.2.2. Pair Work ... .68
4.1.4.2.3. Group Work ... .68
4.1.4.2.4. Class discussion ... .68
4.1.4.2.5. Writing Session ... .69
4.2. Data Presentation and Analysis for Cycle II ... .86
4.2.1. Planning ... .86
4.2.2. Action and Observation ... .86
4.2.2.1. Individual Study ... .70
4.2.2.2 Pair Work Study ... .74
4.2.2.3. Group Work ... .76
4.2.2.4. Class Discussion ... .79
4.2.2.5. Writing Session ... .81
4.2.3. Reflection ... 81
4.2.3.1. Planning ... 82
4.2.3.2. Action and Observation ... 83
4.2.3.2.1. Individual Work ... 83
4.2.3.2.2. Pair Work ... 84
4.2.3.2.3. Group Work ... 84
4.2.3.2.4. Class Discussion ... 85
4.2.4. Revision ... .92
5.2 Implications ... ..96
5.3. Suggestions ... ..97
References ... ..98
Appendices ... 107
Apendix 1 Students’ Diaries ... 107
Apendix 2 Teacher’s Diary ... 108
Apendix 3 Observers’ Diaries ... 110
Apendix 4 Questionnaires ... 112
Apendix 5 Topics of Discussion ... 114
Apendix 6 Individual Work’s List ... 115
Apendix 7 Pair Work’s List ... 116
Apendix 8 Group Work’s List ... 117
Apendix 9 Language Enrichment... 118
Apendix 10 Prepared Questions ... 119
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This chapter elaborates background of the study, identification of the problems that the study deals with, aims and research questions, significance of the study, and organization of the thesis.
1.1. Background of the Study
Motivation has been understood as one of the important and determinant aspects in promoting students’ success in learning. It is because motivation can increase the possibility for the students to commit their time and efforts to achieve their learning objectives (Bong & Clark, 1999).
Specific to the language teaching, some experts have commented on the important position of motivation for in the teaching. For example, Rost (2006) considers motivation is more important than teaching methodology. According to Rost (2006), there are two main reasons why motivation is so important. The first is that motivation arouses students’ interest. The second is that motivation helps the students keep their enthusiasm.
(2003) specify that many studies have indicated that CTL could be an appropriate choice for teachers especially for those who have problems with their students’ motivation. Specifically, Lynch & Harnish (2003) report that CTL enabled teachers to manage, motivate, and ultimately teach students effectively. They also pointed out that the students engaged in their studies also rated CTL classes as more interesting and more engaging which then was effective to maintain the students’ continued engagement in learning activities. Similarly, Brand (2003) reports that CTL can increase students’ motivation to learn (see also Lamborn, 1992; MacIver, 1990; Pintrich and Schunk, 1996). Other studies by MacIver (1990), Melchoir and Orr (1995), Luchs (1980), and Brill (1994), also affirm that exposure to CTL can positively affect students’ motivation as measured by their attendance.
Inspired by those studies, the current study presents collaborative action research at a junior high school located in Jampang, West Java. The study focuses on how students’ motivation, especially in speaking, can be improved through CTL which so far has not much been investigated.
1.2. Problem Identification
speaking. Consequently, they just gave minor emphasis on speaking which is one of the important skills in learning English. The second problem which might be the answer to the first problem was that the teachers found it difficult to provide an effective model for teaching speaking. As a result, the teachers used to switch speaking activity with other activities like writing and vocabulary enrichment. The last problem was that the students at the school really wanted to be able to speak but their teachers’ way of teaching was not supportive for their speaking skill enhancement. Consequently, they felt uninterested and unenthusiastic each time their teachers asked them to participate in the speaking activities.
This preliminary investigation has clearly informed the writer that the teachers at the school were not capable of providing an instruction of speaking that is desirable for their students.
1.3. Aims and Research Questions
The study has two aims. The first is to investigate how students’ motivation in speaking can be improved through contextual-teaching learning, and the second one is to provide a teaching model resulted from the study that can be implemented in the teaching of speaking through CTL.
For these aims, there are two questions to be addressed:
1. How can students’ motivation in speaking be improved through CTL? 2. What model can be implemented in the teaching of speaking through
1.4. Significance of the Study
The important role of motivation in promoting students’ success in learning is undeniable. Therefore, this action research study of how to improve students’ motivation is not just valuable for English teaching and learning but also may be useful for the teaching of other subjects. Moreover, the research’s findings may help other teachers of English improve their language teaching.
Specifically, it is expected that the study can be useful for English teachers especially in terms of enhancing their students’ motivation and engagement in learning. A model for teaching speaking through CTL resulted from this study also may be valuable and useful for English teachers especially in helping them understand how to implement CTL teaching practices in the teaching of speaking in their classrooms.
1.5. Organization of the Thesis
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This chapter elaborates the matters related to research methodology arranging from research design, participants, data collecting and analysis, and time and procedures.
3.1. Research Design
This is an action research. There are a number of views commenting on this research method. Wallace (1998: 1), Coles & Quirke (2001: 14) say that action research is the process of systematic collection and analysis of data in order to make changes and improvements or solve problems. Another view comes from Nunan (1992: 17) saying that action research has been a form of research which is becoming increasingly significant in language education. For this reason, the writer used the action research since he sought to make improvements or solve problems in the teaching of English speaking.
Action Research Cycles, Ferrance (2000)
Cycle I
Cycle II
A. Planning
In the planning, the writer formulated a question that must be answered. The question was “What motivates students to speak? In other words, the teacher had to plan an instruction that might motivate the students to speak.
Two observers involved in the project had to be aware of the question “How did the instruction contribute to the students’ motivation improvement. The observers were on-site teachers who were also committed to applying the outcomes of the project to their own teaching.
B. Action and Observation
of individual work, pair work, group work, whole class discussion, and writing session. The topics used for the students’ speaking activities were based on the students’ real-life situation and experiences which are the main factors to improve students’ motivation to speak.
C. Reflection
There were some issues reflected in this study: activities that motivated the students to study, the teacher’s instruction and students’ participation while the teaching and learning activities took place, and the problems faced by the students and the teacher.
D. Revision
In this stage, the students were prepared to make revision. The teacher and the two observers then formulated some revisions which were based on the reflected activities. Then, the teacher started again planning the instruction for the subsequent cycle.
3.2. Participants
English teachers to teach them speaking through a way that could motivate them to speak.
3.3. Data Collection and Analysis
3.3.1. Data Collection
In order to collect the data needed, students’ diaries, teacher’s diary, observers’ diaries, and questionnaires were used. The students’ diaries (see
Appendix 1) were used to provide the teacher with useful information about students’ feelings thereby their motivation could be investigated. The use of diaries this way is supported by Jane (2001) and Peck (1996). Students’ diaries were written after students have finished participating in each cycle. Teacher’s diary (see Appendix 2) and observers’ diaries (see Appendix 3) were used to provide data about students’ motivation and the events happening in the class. The events were also used as a guide for better instruction in order to enhance students’ motivation. The use of such diaries is described as an excellent way to monitor teaching practice in a systematic but flexible way (Miller, 2004: 41). Questionnaire (see Appendix 4) was used to provide data about students’ motivation. The questionnaire was yes/no type designed to provide data about the indicators of intrinsically motivated students adopted from Blackburn (2005).
3.3.2. Data Analysis
coding for their research. In this project, open coding was used to label concepts from the data. This process helped the writer to compile data into categories, and then axial coding was used to identify broader categories and connections.
However, for questionnaire and students’ diaries, their analyses were supported by simple statistical computation. The questionnaire and the students’ diaries consisted of 20 items and 5 items respectively. The items were designed to represent the indicators of intrinsically motivated students suggested by Blackburn (2005), namely (1) the learner pursues the activity independently, (2) the learner does not want to stop working until the finished, (3) the learner enjoys the activity, (4) the learner moves beyond the minimum expectations, and (5) the learner does not care if there are rewards attached.
3.4. Time and Procedures
The study lasted from July 2011 to September in 2011. There were two cycles conducted. The reason for the two cycles was that the writer was satisfied with the results achieved. Songsiri (2007) also used two cycles in his research.
The study was conducted twice a week: on Mondays and Tuesdays respectively. The study employed the problem-based learning (PBL) in teaching speaking to the participants. Mathews-Aydinli (2007) specifies five main steps of PBL process. They are pre-teaching, problem statement and language enhancement, grouping students, observing and supporting, and assessing.
must be met in PBL, including engagement, inquiry and investigation, performance, and debriefing (Sear, 2002:13).
The discussion was developed in line with the stages suggested by PBL and the principles held by CTL. The procedures as follows:
A. Individual Study: each student was provided with a short prepared paper containing some issues or topics. The student then were advised to read the paper carefully and make a list of four issues or topics to be discussed in the pair work.
B. Pair work: each student was required to discuss with his/her partner, comparing each other their respective lists and trying to present two common issues to be discussed in the group work.
C. Group work: students within each group discussed, trying to choose one most urgent and important issue.
D. Whole class discussion: members of class were required to decide one most urgent and relevant issue to be discussed.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
This chapter tries to conclude the findings of the research and their implications for the teaching of speaking through Contextual Teaching Leaning (CTL). Some suggestions are also provided that might be useful for further related researches.
5.1. Conclusion
The study has outlined how CTL could be useful in improving students’ motivation in speaking. Al least, there are three important aspects the study can tell how CTL is useful for motivating students to speak.
The first is that through CTL, students’ competence in learning could be enhanced. The principles of CTL that initiate students to be self-regulated, situate them to learn in multiple and diverse contexts, allow them for problem solving and independent learning, and support them with authentic assessment could be effective for activating and generating their sense of competence in learning.
learning motivating, the learning should be able to generate students’ autonomy by connecting what the students learn to the worlds that have relevancies to their direct lives. When they learn in such situation, they could feel that what they learn is important for them.
The third or the last is that CTL produces positive changes in students since they feel related to others to improve. The positive changes include increased social and personal responsibility, growth in moral and ego development, and improved self-esteem which all contribute to improve their motivation.
To sum up, CTL practices could energize students’ needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness that could result in the motivated behaviors of the students in learning. As indicated by Deci (1991) cited in Borich and Tombari (1997), in order for the students to be motivated to learn, the learning should be able to generate the three needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
5.2. Implications
Based on the aforementioned findings, there are some important notes the study could highlight as the implications of the study in teaching-learning practices.
Second, teachers should let their students get involved in what they will learn. Doing so could be very effective in enhancing the students’ engagement in learning since they learn what they find interesting.
Third, teaching-learning activities should be able to generate the students’ needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness. By activating these needs, the teaching-learning activities could be motivating for the students that their engagement in the learning-learning activities could persist in a longer period of time.
5.3. Suggestion
References
Achinstein, B. & Ogawa, R. (2006). (In) Fidelity: what the Resistance of New Teachers Reveals about Professional Principles and Prescriptive Educational Policies, Harvard Education Review. 75(1), 30-63.
Albanese, M.A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). “Problem Based Learning: a Review of Literature on its Outcomes and Implementation Issues”. Academic Medicine, 68 (1), 52-81.
Anderson, J. R. (1982). “Acquisition of Cognitive Skill”. Psychological Review, 89, 369-406.
Anderson, R. C., Shirey, L., Wilson, P., & Fielding, L. (1987). Interestingness of Children's Reading Material. In Snow, R. E., & M. J. Farr, (Eds.), Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction, 3, 297–337. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baumeister, R., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachment as a Fundamental Human Motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
Bergin, D. (1999). Influences on Classroom Interest. Educational Psychologist, 34, 87-98.
Berns, R. G., & Erickson, P. M. (2001). Contextual Teaching and Learning: Preparing Students for the New Economy. The Highlight Zone: Research @ Work, 5, 2-9. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED452376). Available online: http://www.cccbsi.org/Websites/basicskills/Images/ CTL .pdf [current as of January 2, 2011]
Bishop, J. (2000, February). Who Participates in School-to-Work Programs? Initial Tabulations. Washington, D.C.: National School-to-Work Office.
Blackburn, B. R. (2005). Classroom Motivation from A to Z: How to Engage Your Students in Learning. Eye on Education.
Bong, M., & Clark, R. E. (1999). Comparison between Concept and Self-Efficacy in Academic Motivation Research. Educational Psychologist, 34, 139-153.
http://www.edb.utexas.edu/borich/Edpsy-Brand, B. (2003). Essentials of High School Reform: New Forms of Assessment and Contextual Teaching and Learning. Washington, D.C.: American Youth Policy Forum.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Bremer, D. C., Kachgal, M., & Schoeller, Kris. (2003). Self-Determination: Supporting Successful Transition. Available online: http:// www. ncset. org/ publications/viewdesc.asp [current as of December, 2010]
Brill, C. (1994). The Effects of Participation in Service Learning on Adolescents with Disabilities. Journal of Adolescence 17(4), 369-380.
Brown, S. (2005). How Can Research Inform Ideas of Good Practice in Teaching? The Contributions of Some Official Initiatives in the UK. Cambridge Journal of Education. 35(3), 383-405.
Brown, Gillian and Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the Spoken Language. Cambridge University Press.
Bush, M, A. (2006). What Comes Between Classroom Community and Academic Emotions: ‘Testing a Self-Determination Model of Motivation in the College Classroom’. A Dissertation: The University of Texas. Available online: http//www.lib.utexas.edu/etd/d/2006/bushd55031/bushd55031.pdf-[current as of October 11, 2010]
California State Department of Education. (1987). Caught in the Middle: Educational Reform for Young Adolescents in California Public Schools. Sacramento, CA: Author.
Coles, P., & Quirke, P. (2001). Professional Development through the Action Learning Gateway. Thailand TESOL Newsletter. 15(2), 14-20.
Conrad, D. & Hedin, D. (1991, June). School-Based Community service: What We Know from Research and Theory. Phi Delta Kappan, 743-749.
Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the Grade: A Self-Worth Perspective on Motivation and School Reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘‘what’’ and ‘‘why’’ of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Self-Determination Research: Reflections and Future Directions. In E. L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook on Self-Determination Research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Deci, E., Vallerand, R.J., Pelletier, L. & Ryan, R.M. et al. (1991). Motivation and Education: The Self-Determination Perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26 (3 & 4), 325-346.
Dörnyei, Z. (1998). “Motivation in Second and Foreign Language Teaching”. Language Teaching, 31(3), 117-135.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and Researching Motivation. Harlow, England: Longman.
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, Orientations, and Motivations in Language Learning: Advances in Theory, Research, and Applications. Language Learning, 53 (1). 3-32.
Elkind, D. (1974). Children and Adolescents: Interpretative Essay on Jean Piaget. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ferrance, E., (2000). Action Research. Brown University. Available online: http www. alliance. brown.edu/pubs/themes_ed/act_research.pdf [current as of December 7, 2010]
Flavell, J. H. (1963). The Developmental Psychology of Jean Piaget. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Gardner, R. C (1985). Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gallagher, S.A., Stepien, & Rosenthal (1992, Fall). The Effects of Problem-Based Learning on Problem Solving. Gifted Child Quarterly; 36 (4), 195-200. Gehlbach, H., & Roeser, R.W. (2002). “The Middle Way to Motivating Middle
Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching. (4th ed.) Pearson Education Ltd.
Haussler, P., & L. Hoffmann (2000). A Curricular Frame for Physics Education: Development, Comparison with Student's Interests, and Impact on Student's Achievement and Self-Concept. Science Education, 84(6), 689-705.
Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1988). Strategies for Increasing Text Based Interest and Students’ Recall of Expository Texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 465-483.
Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its Contribution as a Mental Resource for Learning, Review of Educational Research, 60 (4), 549-571.
Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (1998). Situational Interest and Learning. In L. Hoffmann, Krapp, A., Renninger, K. A., & Baumert, J. (Eds.), Interest and Learning. Proceedings of the Seeon-Conference on Interest and Gender. Kiel, Germany: Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften.
Hoyenga, K. B., & Hoyenga, K. T. (1984). Motivational Explanations of Behavior. Monterey, CA: Brookes/Coles Publishing Company.
http://www.nmsa.org. [current as of December 5, 2010]
http://penningtonpublishing.com [current as of December 5, 2010]
Jane, E. B. (2001). The Use of Cooperative Learning Techniques in a Community College Course. Dissertation, MAdEd, St. Francis Xavier University, Canada.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R.T., & Stanne, M. (2000, May). Cooperative Learning
Methods: A Meta-Analysis. Available online:
http://www.clcrc.com/pages/cl-methods.html [current as of January 4, 2011]
Johnson, B.E., (2002). Contextual Teaching and Learning: What Is It and Why Is It Here to Stay. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press Inc. A Sage Publication Company.
Jordan, R.R. (1990). Pyramid Discussions. English Language Teaching Journal 44, 1: 46-54. Available online: http://userssch.gr/konsfig/speakinghalfass- gn.pdf [current as of January 4, 2011]
Kellough, R. D., & Kellough, N. G. (2008). Teaching Young Adolescents: Methods and Resources for Middle Grades Teaching (5th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Knowles, T., & Brown, D. F. (2000). What Every Middle School Teacher Should Know. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.
Lampert, M. (1986). Knowing, Doing, and Teaching Multiplication. Cognition and Instruction, 3(4), 305-342.
Lepper, M. R., & Cordova, D. I. (1992). A Desire to be Taught: Instructional Consequences of Intrinsic Motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 16, 187-208.
Lepper, M. R. (1985). Microcomputers in Education, Motivational and Social Issues. American Psychologist, 40(1), 1-18.
Loesch-Griffin, D., Petrides, L.A. & Pratt, C. (1995). A Comprehensive Study of Project YES- Rethinking Classrooms and Community: Service-Learning as Educational Reform. San Francisco, CA: East Bay Conservation Corps.
Luchs, K. (1980). Selected Changes in Urban High School Students after Participation in Community-Based Learning and Service Activities. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryland.
Lynch, R. L., & Harnish, D. (2003). Implementing Contextual Teaching and Learning by Novice Teachers. Occupational Research Group, College of Education, Athens: The University of Georgia. Available online: www.coe.uga.edu/ctl/casestudy/Final.pdf [Current as of October 11, 2010] MacIver, D. J. (1990). Meeting the Needs of Young Adolescents: Advisory
Groups, Interdisciplinary Teaching Teams, and School Transition Programs. Phi Delta Kappan, 71(6), 458-464.
Manning, M. L. (2002). Developmentally Appropriate Middle Level Schools (2nd Ed.). Olney, MD: Association for Childhood Education International.
Aptitute, Learning and Instruction: III. Conative and affective process analyses (pp. 223-253). Hilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mathews-Aydinli, J. (2007). Problem-Based Learning and Adult English Language Learners. Center for Adult English Language Acquisition (CAELA). Washington, DC : Center for Applied Linguistics.
Melchoir, A., and Orr, I. (1995). National evaluation of Service America: Final report. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.
Miller, L. (2004). Teachers as Researchers: Teacher Journals. MET Journal. 13(4), 39-41.
Mynard, J. (2003). Investigating learner autonomy in a virtual EFL classroom: A grounded theory approach. In J. Hull, J. Harris and P. Daraswang (Eds), Research in ELT: Proceedings of the International Conference (117-127). King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Thailand.
Neuman, W. L. (1997). Social Research Methods, Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Needham Heights, Allyn and Bacon.
Newmann, F.M., Wehlage, G.G., & Lamborn, S. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. In Newmann, F.M. (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American school. New York: Teachers College Press.
Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness in the Classroom: Applying Self-determination Theory to Educational Practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7, 133-144. Available online: http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/documents/2009_NiemiecRyan_TR E.pdf [current as of November 22, 2010]
Norman, G.R. & Schmidt, H.G. (1992). The Psychological Basis of Problem Based Learning: A review of the Evidence. Academic Medicine, 67(9), 557-65.
Nunan, D. (1991). Language Teaching Methodology. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.
Nunan, D. (1991). Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers. UK: Prentice Hall.
Nunan, D., & Lamb, C. (1996). The Self-Directed Teacher: Managing the Learning Process. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Ormrod, J. E. (1999). Human learning (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River,NJ:Merrill
Oxford, R. & Shearin, J. (1994). “Language Learning Motivation: Expanding the Theoretical Framework”. The Modern Language Journal. 78(1), 12-28. Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in Education: Theory,
Research, and Application. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Merrill.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in Education: Theory, Research, and Application. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Peck, S. (1996). “Language Learning Diaries as Mirrors of Students’ Culture Sensitivity”. In K.M. Bailey and D. Nunan (Eds.), Voice from the Language Classroom ( pp.236-247). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Piaget, J. (1952). The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: International University Press.
Piaget, J. (1960). The Child's Conception of the World. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
Pusat Kurikulum. 2004. Kurikulum Bahasa Inggris 2004. Jakarta: Depdiknas. Richards, Jack C. 1990. Conversationally speaking: approaches to the teaching of
conversation. In Jack C Richards. The Language Teaching Matrix. New York: Cambridge University Press. 67-85
Rost, M., (2006). Generating Students’ Motivation. Pearson Education, Inc. Available online at http://www.pearsonlongman.com/ae/worldview/moti -vation.pdf [October 11, 2010]
Handbook of selfdetermination research (pp. 3–33). Rochester: The University of Rochester Press.
Sarantakos, S. (1993). Social Research. Melbourne, Macmillan.
Scales, P. C. (2003). Characteristics of Young Adolescents. In National Middle School Association, This We Believe: Successful Schools for Young Adolescents (pp. 43–51). Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.
Sears, Susan. (2002). Contextual Teaching and Learning: A Primer for Effective Instruction. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Shaffer, B. (1993). Service-Learning: An Academic Methodology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Shindler, J. (2008). Transformative Classroom Management. Available online: http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/jshindl/cm/Chapter14CooperativeLearni ng.htm [current as of October 11, 2010]
Slavin, R.E. (1991, February). Synthesis of Research on Cooperative Learning. Educational Leadership, 71-82.
Slavin, R.E. (1990). Cooperative Learning. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Skinner, E., & Edge, K. (2002). Self-determination, Coping, and Development. In E. L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of Self-determination Research (pp. 297–337). Rochester: The University of Rochester Press.
Songsiri, M. (2007). An Action Research Study on Promoting Students’ Confidence in Speaking English: Victoria University.
Stevenson, C. (2002). Teaching Ten to Fourteen Year Olds (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Switzer, G., Simmons, R., Dew, M., Regalski, J. & Wang, C. (1995). The Effect of a School-Based Helper Program on Adolescent Self-Image, Attitudes, and Behavior. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 429-455.
Tosti, D.T. (2006). What ever happened to feedback technology? Performance Improvement. 45(2), 5-7.
Vars, G. F. (1965). A Bibliography of Research on the Effectiveness of Block-Time Programs. Ithaca, NY: Junior High School Project, Cornell University.
Wade, R.C., and Saxe, D.W. (1996). Community Service Learning in the Social Studies: Historical Roots, Empirical Evidence, Critical Issues. Theory and Research in Social Education, 24 (4), 331-359.
Wallace, M. J. (1998). Action Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Weiler, D., LaGoy, A., Crane, E., & Rovner, A. (1998). An Evaluation of K–12 Service Learning in California: Phase II final report. Emeryville, CA: RPP International with the Search Institute.
