The effectiveness of mingle model to improve Banjarese undergraduates speaking skills

The effectiveness of mingle model to improve Banjarese undergraduates speaking skills

In this globalisation era, Indonesian university students speaking skills isincreasingly recognised as a serious concern in English language teaching andlearning. Empirical evidence showed that the students stihave problem in speaking,both accurately and fluently. This study aimed to investigate the...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: M.Arinal Rahman
Format: thesis
Language:eng
Published: 2019
Subjects:
PE English
Online Access:https://ir.upsi.edu.my/detailsg.php?det=5485
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id oai:ir.upsi.edu.my:5485
record_format uketd_dc
institution Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris
collection UPSI Digital Repository
language eng
topic PE English
spellingShingle PE English
M.Arinal Rahman
The effectiveness of mingle model to improve Banjarese undergraduates speaking skills
description In this globalisation era, Indonesian university students speaking skills isincreasingly recognised as a serious concern in English language teaching andlearning. Empirical evidence showed that the students stihave problem in speaking,both accurately and fluently. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness ofDarmayenti and Nofiadri (2015) Mingle Model to improve Banjarese undergraduatesspeaking skills. Sample consists of two selected intact group of second-semesterstudents at a university in South Kalimantan, with a total of 33 undergraduates whowere divided into the experimental and control groups. The control group wentthrough the conventional teaching speaking method while the experimental groupwent through the Mingle Model. This is a mixed method study which utilised thequantitative and qualitative approach. In the quantitative phase, data of both groupswere collected through a quasi-experimental method which involved the pretest andposttest. An interview was also conducted to investigate the views of the experimentalgroup on the use of the Mingle Model to improve their speaking accuracy andspeaking fluency. Data collected were analysed using serial t-test and the Five-PhasesCycles analysis. The t-test results were statistically significant (p <.05) with t (31) = -2.416, sig = .011 for the speaking accuracy and t (31) = -2.597, sig =.007 for thespeaking fluency. The qualitative results indicated that the participants found theMingle Model provided an easy way to communicate in the class and optimised thelearning time. The overall results of the study showed that the Mingle Model was aneffective approac to improve students speaking accuracy and speaking fluency ascompared to the conventional teaching speaking method. To further prove, a followupstudy using true experimental design and with a variety of population on theMingle Model is essential to expand the comprehension on the use of the model.
format thesis
qualification_name
qualification_level Master's degree
author M.Arinal Rahman
author_facet M.Arinal Rahman
author_sort M.Arinal Rahman
title The effectiveness of mingle model to improve Banjarese undergraduates speaking skills
title_short The effectiveness of mingle model to improve Banjarese undergraduates speaking skills
title_full The effectiveness of mingle model to improve Banjarese undergraduates speaking skills
title_fullStr The effectiveness of mingle model to improve Banjarese undergraduates speaking skills
title_full_unstemmed The effectiveness of mingle model to improve Banjarese undergraduates speaking skills
title_sort effectiveness of mingle model to improve banjarese undergraduates speaking skills
granting_institution Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris
granting_department Fakulti Bahasa dan Komunikasi
publishDate 2019
url https://ir.upsi.edu.my/detailsg.php?det=5485
_version_ 1747833202798493696
spelling oai:ir.upsi.edu.my:54852021-01-12 The effectiveness of mingle model to improve Banjarese undergraduates speaking skills 2019 M.Arinal Rahman PE English In this globalisation era, Indonesian university students speaking skills isincreasingly recognised as a serious concern in English language teaching andlearning. Empirical evidence showed that the students stihave problem in speaking,both accurately and fluently. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness ofDarmayenti and Nofiadri (2015) Mingle Model to improve Banjarese undergraduatesspeaking skills. Sample consists of two selected intact group of second-semesterstudents at a university in South Kalimantan, with a total of 33 undergraduates whowere divided into the experimental and control groups. The control group wentthrough the conventional teaching speaking method while the experimental groupwent through the Mingle Model. This is a mixed method study which utilised thequantitative and qualitative approach. In the quantitative phase, data of both groupswere collected through a quasi-experimental method which involved the pretest andposttest. An interview was also conducted to investigate the views of the experimentalgroup on the use of the Mingle Model to improve their speaking accuracy andspeaking fluency. Data collected were analysed using serial t-test and the Five-PhasesCycles analysis. The t-test results were statistically significant (p <.05) with t (31) = -2.416, sig = .011 for the speaking accuracy and t (31) = -2.597, sig =.007 for thespeaking fluency. The qualitative results indicated that the participants found theMingle Model provided an easy way to communicate in the class and optimised thelearning time. The overall results of the study showed that the Mingle Model was aneffective approac to improve students speaking accuracy and speaking fluency ascompared to the conventional teaching speaking method. To further prove, a followupstudy using true experimental design and with a variety of population on theMingle Model is essential to expand the comprehension on the use of the model. 2019 thesis https://ir.upsi.edu.my/detailsg.php?det=5485 https://ir.upsi.edu.my/detailsg.php?det=5485 text eng closedAccess Masters Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris Fakulti Bahasa dan Komunikasi American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the AmericanPsychological Association (6th ed.). Washington: Author.Best, J. W., & Khan. (2006). Research in education (10th ed.). Boston: PearsonBorzova, E. (2014). Mingles in the foreign language classroom. English Teaching Forum,52( 2), 20-27.Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. San Francisco: LongmanBrown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2010). Language assessment: Principles and classroompractices. White Plains, NY: Pearson-Longman.Bruner, J.S. (1978). The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In A. Sinclair, R. Jarvella &W. J. M. Levelt (Eds.), The childs conception of language. New York: Springer-Verlag.Campbell, D. T., Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research.Chicago: Rand McNally.Choosri, C., & Intharaksa, U. (2011). Relationship between motivation and students English learning achievement: A study of the second-year vocational certificate levelHatyai Technical College Students. The 3rd International Conference on Humanities and SocialSciences Proceedings. Retrieved from http://tar.thailis.or.th/bitstream/123456789/665/1/006.pdfCreswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2010). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixedmethods approaches. Upper Saddle Creek: Sage publications.Creswell, J.,W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle Creek: Pearson Education.Darmayenti & Nofiadri, N. (2015). Mingle model for teaching English speaking skill for collegestudents. Al-Ta lim Journal, 22(1), 1-9.Dewi, R. K. (2011). Improving students speaking skill through dialogue (an action researchconducted at the tenth year students of SMAN 1 Teras, Boyolali of the academic year 2010/2011).[Unpublished] Thesis. Teacher Training and Education Faculty, Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta.Dewi, R. S. (2015). The effect of teaching method and achievement motivation onstudents speaking ability an exprimental study on student of Englishuin syarifhidayatullah jakarta. A Thesis. TeacherTraining and Islamic Education Faculty, University Islam of SyarifHidayatullah, Jakarta. (Online) Retrieved fromhttp://103.229.202.68/dspace/handle/123456789/30794 on December 15th,2017.Edge, J. (1993). Essentials of English language teaching. London: Longman.Esmail, A., Ahmed, M., & Noreen, S. (2015). Why do Pakistani students are reluctantto speak english. Academic Research International, 6(3), 372-383.Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2015). How to design and evaluateresearch in education (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Geyse, J. P. (2007). Teaching speaking made easy (English to the world). Selangor:August Publishing.Goh, H. S. (2004). The use of think-aloud in a collaborative environment to enhancethe reading comprehension abilities of ESL students at tertiary level. KualaLumpur: Universiti Malaya.Hadijah, S. (2014). Investigating the problems of english speaking of the students ofislamic boarding school program at STAIN Samarinda. Dinamika Ilmu:Jurnal Pendidikan, 14(2), 240-247.Hakim, A. N. (2014). Using English mingle game to improve the speaking ability ofthe seventh grade students at SMP Muhammadiyah 2 Mlati in the academicyear of 2013/2014. [Unpublished]. Yogyakarta State University, Indonesia.Handayani, S. (2016). Pentingnya kemampuan berbahasa inggris sebagai dalammenyongsong ASEAN community 2015. Jurnal Profesi Pendidik, 3(1), 102-106.Harmer, J. (2010). How to teach English. Edinburg Gate: Pearson Education Limited.Horwitz, E. K. (2007). Becoming a language teacher: A practical guide to secondlanguage learning and teaching. Boston.: Pearson.Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in secondlanguage acquisition. Applied linguistics, 30(4), 461-473.Hughes, R. (2011). Teaching and researching speaking (2nd ed.). Harlow, England:Longman.Humphries, S. C., Burns, A., & Tanaka, T. (2015). My head became blank and Icouldnt speak: Classroom factors that influence English speaking. TheAsian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 164-175.Indonesia. (2000). 1945 Constitution of the republic of indonesia secondamandement..Indonesia. (2003). National education system law .Jonson, K. F. (2006). 60 strategies for improving reading comprehension in gradesK8. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Kayi, H. (2006) Teaching speaking activities to promote speaking in a secondlanguage. The Internet TESL Journal, 12(11), 33-49.Kementerian Riset Teknologi Dan Pendidikan Tinggi Republik Indonesia (28 July2017), Visi, misi & strategi [Blog Post] retrieved fromhttp://www.dikti.go.id/visi-misi-strategi/.Khosravi S, Rezaee M, Sheikh Ahmadi A, Agajanzade M, (2015). The effect ofmotivation on young Kurdish learning on the learning English speaking assecond language in Iran. International Journal of Language Learning andApplied Linguistics World (IJLLALW), 9(3), 142-155.Klippel, F. (1984). Keep talking: Communicative fluency activities for languageteaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kurnia, N., Degeng, I. N. S., & Soetjipto, B. E, (2017). The implementation of findsomeone who and two stay two stray models to improve students selfefficacyand social studies learning outcomes. IOSR Journal of Research &Method in Education (IOSR-JRME), 7(3), 66-70.Lauder, A. (2010). The status and function of English in Indonesia: A review of keyfactors. Hubs-Asia, 12(1). 9-12.Li, Q. (2014). Differences in the motivation of Chinese learners of English in aforeign and second language context. System, 42, 451-461.Mattarima, K., & Hamdan, A. R. (2016). The teaching constraints of English as aforeign language in Indonesia: the context of school based curriculum.Sosiohumanika, 4(2), 287-300.McDonough, J. & C. Shaw. (1993). Materials and methods in ELT. Oxford:Blackwell.Misso, V., & Maadad, N. (2016). The English language and culturalappropriateness. Sosiohumanika, 4(1), 111-128.Mufidah, N. (2015). English education department alumnis perspective on Englishcurriculum development of IAIN Antasari Banjarmasin. Vidya Karya JurnalKependidikan, 30(1).589-664.Nation, P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. System, 17(3), 377-384.Nation, I. S., & Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking. NewYork: Routledge.Nunan, D. (1996). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Nur & Madkur. (2014). Teachersvoices on the 2013 curriculum for Englishinstructional activities. Indonesian Journal of English Education (IJEE),1(2), 119-134.Nurhaniyah, B., Soetjipto, B. E., & Hanurawan, F. (2015). The Implementation ofCollaborative Learning Model" Find Someone Who and Flashcard Game" toEnhance Social Studies Learning Motivation for the Fifth GradeStudents. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(17), 166-171.Polard, L & Hess, N. (1997). Zero prep: Ready to go activities for teachers.Herforthshire: Prentice Hall.Putri, A. (2016). Low motivation in learning speaking. Anglo-Saxon, 7(1), 14-20.Ruzieva, N. ?., & Yuldasheva, F. E. (2017). The use of mingles in the communicativeway of teaching. ??????????? ???????? ?????? ??????????, 1(1), 138-139.Samana, W. (2013). Teachers and students scaffolding in an EFLClassroom. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 2(8), 338-343.Sava??, M. (2014). Why are some students reluctant to use L2 in EFL speakingclasses? An action research at tertiary level. Procedia-Social and BehavioralSciences, 116, 2682-2686.Seymour, D., and M. Popova. (2003). 700 classroom activities: Instant lessons forbusy teachers. Oxford: Macmillan Education.Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.Harvard educational review, 57(1), 1-23.Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, England:Oxford University Press.Sugeng, B. (2015). Need for increasing grammar focus in English teaching: A case inIndonesia. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 5(3), 131-138.Teng, F., & Wong, J. (2015). Speed speaking: A new activity to engage more learnersto talk. ELTA Journal, 3(3), 47-58.Thornbury, S. (2009). How to teach speaking. Harlow: Longman.Tracy, K., & Robles, J. S. (2013). Everyday talk: Building and reflecting identities(2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching. Ernst Klett Sprachen.Vogt, M. E., and J. Echevarra (2008). 99 ideas and activities for teaching Englishlearners with the SIOP Model. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Vigoya, F. S. T. (2000). Testing accuracy and fluency in speaking throughcommunicative activities. HOW Journal, 5(1), 95-104.Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In Gauvain &Cole (Eds.) Readings on the development of children. New York: ScientificAmerican Books. pp. 34 40.Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychologicalprocesses. M. cole et al. (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Woollard, J., & Pritchard, A. (2013). Psychology for the classroom: Constructivismand social learning. Routledge.Yahya, Z. (2017). The rise of global english and language policies of China, Japan,Thailand and Malaysia. In A. Pieterse et al. (Eds.). Changing constellationsof southeast asia: from Northeast Asia to China. New York, NY: Routledge.Yin, R. K. (2009). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York, NY: TheGuilford Press

Similar Items