THE USE OF CIRCLE THE SAGE AS A STRATEGY

IN TEACHING CONDITIONAL SENTENCE TYPE 2

An Experimental Research at the Eleventh Grade Students of SMK N 7 Semarang in the

Academic Year 2010/2011

a final project

submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan in English

by

Wigati Martina

2201407156

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS

SEMARANG STATE UNIVERSITY

2011
 APPROVAL

This final project has been approved by the board of examination of English Department

of Faculty of Languages and Arts of Semarang States University on Wednesday, August

24, 2011.

Board of Examination

1. Chairman
Dr. Januarius Mujiyanto, M.Hum.
195312131983031002 _________________

2. Secretary
Dra. Rahayu Puji Haryanti, M.Hum.
196610201997022001 __________________

3. First Examiner
Dr. Rudi Hartono, S.S., M.Pd.
196907131999031001 __________________

4. Second Examiner/Second Advisor

Puji Astuti, S.Pd., M.Pd.
197806252008122001 __________________

5. Third Examiner/First Advisor

Drs. Suprapto, M.Hum.
195311291982031002 __________________

Approved by
The Dean of Faculty of Languages and Arts

Prof. Dr. Agus Nuryatin, M.Hum.

NIP. 196008031989011001
 PERNYATAAN

Dengan ini saya,

Nama : Wigati Martina
NIM : 2201407156
Prodi/Jurusan : Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris/Bahasa Inggris S1
Fakultas Bahasa dan Seni (FBS) UNNES menyatakan dengan ini sesungguhnya bahwa
skripsi/tugas akhir/final project yang berjudul:

“THE USE OF CIRCLE THE SAGE AS A STRATEGY IN TEACHING

CONDITIONAL SENTENCES TYPE 2 (AN EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH
STUDY AT THE ELEVENTH GRADERS OF SMK N 7 SEMARANG IN THE
ACADEMIC YEAR 2010/2011)”

yang saya tulis untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat untuk memperoleh gelar sarjana ini
benar-benar merupakan karya saya sendiri yang saya hasilkan setelah melalui penelitian,
pembimbingan, diskusi dan pemaparan/ujian. Semua kutipan, baik yang langsung
maupun yang tidak langsung, baik yang diperoleh dari sumber kepustakaan, wahana
elektronik maupun sumber lainnya, telah disertai keterangan identitas sumbernya dengan
cara sebagaimana yang lazim dalam penulisan karya ilmiah. Dengan demikian, walaupun
tim penguji dan pembimbung penulisan skripsi/tugas akhir/final project ini
membubuhkan tanda tangan sebagai keabsahannya, seluruh isi karya ilmiah ini tetap
menjadi tanggung jawab saya sendiri, jika kemudian ditemukan ketidakberesan, saya
bersedia menerima akibatnya.

Demikian, harap pernyataan ini dapat digunakan seperlunya.

Semarang, Juli 2011

Yang membuat pernyataan,

WIGATI MARTINA

2201407156
I choose not to believe in second chance because I don‟t want to regret my every move.

To my wonderful parents, my beloved family,

my lovely fiancée, all EDSers, and all my

fellows in English Department „07

 ABSTRACT

Martina, Wigati. 2011. The Use of Circle the Sage as A Strategy in Teaching Conditional
Sentence Type 2(An Experimental Research at The Eleventh Graders of SMK N 7
Semarang in the Academic Year 2010/2011). Final project, English Department,
Faculty of Languages and Arts, Semarang State University. First Advisor: Drs.
Suprapto, M.Hum., Second Advisor: Puji Astuti, S.Pd.,M.Pd.

Key words: circle the sage, cooperative learning, conditional sentence, grammar

Learning language cannot be separated from learning the grammar because without
grammar, meaning nuances can lose or cannot be submitted. Learning grammar is one of
the problems of EFL students. It is somehow difficult and boring. Therefore, teacher
should come up with creative strategies in teaching grammar. Cooperative learning could
be an effective in grammar teaching. One of the strategies derived from cooperative
learning is Circle the Sage strategy. Through this strategy, student can explore their
knowledge and get more chance to interact and share each other. Therefore, the learning
process would be more interesting and enjoyable.

The research is aimed to obtain the effectiveness of Circle the Sage as a strategy in
teaching conditional sentence type 2 at the eleventh graders of SMK N 7 Semarang in the
academic year of 2010/2011. The type of the research is quantitative experiment using
control group pre-test post-test design. The instrument used is an objective test in form of
multiple-choice and matching task. The instrument had been tried out to see its validity
and the reliability. The population of the research is 15 classes of the eleventh graders.
The samples are two classes; control group and experimental group. Because the ability
of the students in each class was quite different, I used purposive sampling technique by
ranking the classes and then choosing the classes in the middle rank with an assumption
that they had average ability. To determine the control group, the experimental group and
the try-out class, I chose them randomly by lottery.

The research result showed that the students who were taught using Circle the Sage
strategy gained significantly better achievement than those who were taught using
conventional teaching strategy. The average score of the students who were taught using
Circle the Sage strategy rose 13.45% from 74.71 to 88.16, while the average score of
those who were taught using conventional teaching strategy only rose 3.83% from 77.35
to 81.18. According to the t-test, both control group and experimental group were
considered equal before the treatment but, they had significant different results after the
treatment. Based on statistic calculation, the test of significance shows that the t-value
(6.081) is higher than the t-table (2.0483). It demonstrates that Circle the Sage is an
effective strategy to teach grammar, specifically conditional sentence type 2.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, I want to give my greatest gratitude to Allah SWT the

Almighty for the blessing and mercy that have allowed me to finish this final project.

My sincere gratitude is addressed to Drs. Suprapto, M.Hum., my first advisor, for

his patience , useful suggestion and continuous guidance during the process of writing

this final project. I also want to extend my deepest gratitude to Mrs. Puji Astuti, S.Pd.,

M.Pd., my second advisor, for her guidance and encouragement in improving my final

project. My biggest appreciation is also addressed to all the lecturers and the officers of

English Department for all lesson and knowledge that I got during my study at UNNES.

I would also like to thank to the headmaster and teachers of SMK N 7 Semarang

who had given me chance to conduct my experiment. Thanks to all kindness and help.

My last gratitude goes to my family and all my friends in English Department for

all support and giving me valuable and meaningful time studying at UNNES.

Finally, I realize that this final project still needs a lot of improvement but

hopefully it would be useful for further research.

Semarang, July 2011

Wigati Martina
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract .................................................................................................................... v

Acknowledgement .................................................................................................vi

Table of Contents ................................................................................................. vii

List of Tables .........................................................................................................xi

List of Figures ...................................................................................................... xii

List of Appendices .............................................................................................. xiii

Chapter

I INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1

1.1 General Background of the Research .......................................................... 1

1.2 Reason for Choosing the Topic ................................................................... 5

1.3 Statements of the Problem .......................................................................... 6

1.4 Objectives of the Research .......................................................................... 7

1.5 Significance of the Research ........................................................................ 7

1.6 Outline of the Report .................................................................................. 7

II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...................................................... 9

2.1 Grammar Teaching in EFL Context ............................................................ 9

2.1.1 General Concept of Grammar ..................................................................... 9

2.1.2 Common Problems of Grammar Teaching and

Learning in EFL Context .......................................................................... 11

2.1.3 Methods of Grammar Teaching ................................................................ 12

2.2 General Concept of Cooperative Learning ............................................... 16

2.2.1 Definition of Cooperative Learning .......................................................... 16

2.2.2 Kagan‟s Cooperative Learning Principles ................................................ 18

2.2.3 Cooperative Learning Structures .............................................................. 20

2.2.4 Circle the Sage Strategy ............................................................................ 23

2.3 Previous Research ..................................................................................... 28

2.4 Circle the Sage Strategy in Teaching Conditional Sentence Type 2 ........ 30

III METHOD OF INVESTIGATION ...................................................................... 33

3.1 Subject of the Research ............................................................................. 33

3.1.1 Population ................................................................................................. 33

3.1.2 Samples ..................................................................................................... 34

3.2 Experimental Design ................................................................................. 35

3.3 Procedure of Experiment ......................................................................... 35

3.3.1 Try-out ..................................................................................................... 35

3.3.2 Pre-test ....................................................................................................... 36

3.3.3 Treatment .................................................................................................. 37

3.3.4 Post-test ...................................................................................................... 38

3.3.5 Data Administration .................................................................................. 39

3.4 Variables ................................................................................................... 39

3.5 Research Instrument .................................................................................. 40

3.6 Condition of the Test ............................................................................... 40

3.6.1 Validity ..................................................................................................... 41

3.6.2 Reliability .................................................................................................. 42

3.6.3 Practicality ................................................................................................ 43

3.7 Item Analysis ............................................................................................ 44

3.7.1 Difficulty Level ......................................................................................... 44

3.7.2 Discriminating Power ............................................................................... 45

3.8 Data Processing ......................................................................................... 46

3.8.1 Test of Normality ...................................................................................... 46

3.8.2 Test of Homogeneity ................................................................................. 47

3.8.3 Test of Significance .................................................................................. 47

IV RESULT OF THE RESEARCH ........................................................................ 49

4.1 Try-out Finding ......................................................................................... 49

4.1.1 Validity ..................................................................................................... 49

4.1.2 Reliability .................................................................................................. 50

4.1.3 Difficulty Level ......................................................................................... 51

4.1.4 Discriminating Power ............................................................................... 51

4.2 Result of The Test ..................................................................................... 53

4.2.1 Test of Normality ...................................................................................... 53

4.2.2 Test of Homogeneity ................................................................................. 58

4.2.3 t-table Value .............................................................................................. 59

4.2.4 Pre-test Finding ......................................................................................... 60

4.2.5 Post-test Finding ....................................................................................... 62

4.3 Test of Significance .................................................................................. 63

4.4 Achievement of the Experiment ............................................................... 65

4.4.1 Achievement of Conventional Teaching Strategy .................................... 65

4.4.2 Achievement of Circle the Sage Strategy ................................................. 66

V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION .......................................................... 67

5.1 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 67

5.2 Suggestion ................................................................................................ 69

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................. 70

APPENDICES ...................................................................................................... 73
 LIST OF TABLES

Tables Page

3.1 Suharno‟s Criterion of Difficulty Level ......................................................... 44

3.2 Suharno‟s Criterion of Discriminating Power ............................................... 45

4.1 Test of Normality of Control Group Pre-test .................................................. 53

4.2 Test of Normality of Experimental Group Pre-test ........................................ 54

4.3 Test of Normality of Control Group Post-test ............................................... 55

4.4 Test of Normality of Experimental Group Post-test ...................................... 56

4.5 Test of Homogeneity of the Pre-test .............................................................. 58

4.6 Test of Homogeneity of the Post-test ............................................................. 58

4.7 The t-test of the Pre-test ................................................................................. 61

4.8 The t-test of the Post-test ............................................................................... 62

 LIST OF CHARTS

Charts Page

4.1 Normality Chart of Control Group Pre-test .................................................... 54

4.2 Normality Chart of Experimental Group Pre-test ........................................... 55

4.3 Normality Chart of Control Group Post-test ................................................... 56

4.4 Normality Chart of Experimental Group Post-test ......................................... 57

4.5 The Chart of The Achievement of Conventional Teaching Strategy ............. 65

4.6 The Chart of The Achievement of Circle the Sage Strategy ........................... 66
 LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendices Page

1. Items Distribution of the Instrument ................................................................ 73

2. The Instrument ............................................................................................... 74

3. The Answer Key ............................................................................................. 82

4. The Try-out Items Analysis ........................................................................... 83

5. Control Group Pre-test Result ........................................................................ 87

6. Experimental Group Pre-test Result .............................................................. 88

7. Control Group Post-test Result ...................................................................... 89

8. Experimental Group Post-test Result ............................................................. 90

9. Control Group Score Distribution .................................................................. 91

10. Experimental Group Score Distribution ........................................................ 92

11. The Research Schedule .................................................................................. 93

12. The Lesson Plans ........................................................................................... 94

 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The first chapter presents general background of the research, reason for choosing

the topic, statements of the problem, objectives of the research, significance of the

research and outline of the report.

1.1 General Background of the Research

World is changing and is developing in many aspects. Relationship among nations

is now opened widely. Many kinds of information are now easier to access.

Worldwide communication happens every time since human is social being who

cannot be separated from others. Thus, to communicate we need language.

Mastering international language is one of the ways to face the changing and the

development of the world to follow the dynamic of the world especially in social

life.

There are many definitions of language that have been defined by

linguists. Brown (2000:5) states that language is a system of arbitrary

conventionalized vocal, written or gestural symbols that enable members of given

community to communicate intelligibly with one another. Language is systematic

and a set of arbitrary symbols. The symbols are primarily vocal, but may also be

visual. They have conventionalized meanings to which they refer.

 It is in line with the statement from Ramelan (1992:10) confirms that

language is an arbitrary system of speech sound which is used in an interpersonal

communication by an aggregation of human being, and which rather exhaustively

catalogs things, processes and events in human environment. It can be concluded

that human will always deal with language.

English is the international language. In its role as a global language,

English has become one of the most important academic and professional tools.

English is designated language of wider communication for the country. It is the

language used in International socio-political and scientific contacts and

commerce. Richards et al in Meizaliana (2009:2) says that English is the language

of globalization, international communication, commerce and trade, the media and

pop culture, different motivation for learning it come in to play. English is no

longer viewed as the property of the English-speaking countries, but it is an

international commodity sometimes referred to as World English or English as an

International language.

In Indonesia, English is the first foreign language. It has been given a

special attention. English is now thought in all levels of education; from

elementary to tertiary education. It is taught differently in different levels of

education based on the curriculum that has been designed for each level.

Learning language can‟t be separated from learning the grammar because

without grammar, meaning nuances can lose or cannot be submitted. It is quite

difficult for EFL learners to create text with correct grammatical structure.
Therefore, learning grammar is very important for language learners. It makes

students know how to produce good sentences and to express ideas and feelings in

correct way. It is in line with the statement of Leech, Deuchar and Hoogenraad

(1982:3) explain that grammar is the mechanism according to which language

works when it is used to communicate. It means learning grammar is learning the

structure of the language in used.”

Students often feel that learning grammar is boring and difficult because

the grammatical structure of Bahasa Indonesia is different from that of English. It

is also obvious that when the students are learning grammar, they become passive,

afraid of making mistakes and shy. It is even worse when the teacher keeps on

talking all the time and the students keep on taking note all the time. Therefore,

teacher need better strategy in teaching grammar.

Conditional sentences type 2 is specific grammar point that is learned by

eleventh graders of vocational high school. Just like learning other specific

grammar points, to learn conditional sentence, students need to pay attention to

the function and structure. Conditional sentence is one that shows something

depending on something else. Sometimes such sentences can confuse the

ESL/EFL learners. They are also must carefully choose the correct tense and verb.

Therefore, teacher needs good strategies to cope with this problem.

Cooperative learning is a learning method that has been developed since

1970s by some researchers such as Robert E. Slavin, Johnson, Madden and Dr.

Spencer Kagan. Robert E. Slavin from Johns Hopkins University and friends
developed some cooperative learning strategies. Some of them are developed by

Slavin (1983:429) which are Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD),

Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT), and Team Assisted Individualization (TAI).

Besides designing strategies, Slavin also conducted some researches about

cooperative learning strategies. One of his research in 1983 proved that

cooperative learning has positive correlation to the students‟ achievement.

Cooperative learning is actually very possible to be developed into many

structures or strategies. Many new cooperative learning structures are developed

by Dr. Spencer Kagan. Dr. Spencer Kagan is an internationally acclaimed

researcher, presenter and author of over 80 books, chapters, and scientific journal

articles. He is the principal author of the single most comprehensive book for

educators in each of four fields: cooperative learning, multiple intelligences,

classroom discipline, and classroom energizers. He provides workshops and

keynotes in twenty countries and his books are translated into many languages.

Dr. Kagan developed the concept of structures; his popular cooperative learning

and multiple intelligences that are about 56 structures. Some of them are rally

robin, three steps interview, talking chips, circle the sage and many others. Dr.

Kagan has been featured in the leading educational magazines including

Educational Leadership, Instructor, Learning Magazine, and Video Journal. He is

in high demand as a keynote speaker at national and international conferences.

For that reason, this research focuses more on cooperative learning developed by

Dr. Spencer Kagan.

 Although a lot of cooperative learning structures have been developed,

conventional teaching is still more popular in Indonesia. Some teacher asks the

students to discuss and present but not in structural and attractive method of

cooperative learning. Whereas, creating attractive and interesting atmosphere in

learning process is important to keep the students‟ attention to the lesson.

Circle the Sage is one of cooperative learning structures developed by Dr.

Spencer Kagan. This structure promotes all principles of cooperative learning

which are positive interdependence, individual accountability, equal participation

and simultaneous interaction. The strategy is expected to help students to

comprehend grammar better, specifically conditional sentences.

1.2 Reason for Choosing the Topic

The topic of this research is basically about the use of Circle the Sage strategy in

teaching conditional sentence type 2. My concern in this study are Circle the Sage

as the strategy and conditional sentence type 2 as the grammar point.

I choose one of cooperative learning structures, in this case is Circle the

Sage strategy because:

1. Conventional teaching is still more popular than cooperative learning

structures. Therefore, although cooperative learning methods has been

developed since 30 years ago, they are rarely applied especially in

Indonesia,

2. This structure promotes positive aspects of cooperative learning that are

 positive interdependence, individual accountability, equal participation

and simultaneous interaction which make the students can be more

actively learning.

3. With more active learning, the student can get better comprehension in

learning grammar.

4. Circle the Sage strategy is relatively applicable in any condition of the

class.

5. Circle the Sage strategy is relatively applicable in any topics of learning so

it may give more benefits in teaching English in general.

I choose conditional sentences as the focused point because:

1. Most students found it difficult to learn grammar, specifically conditional

sentences.

2. Most students need better strategies to comprehend conditional sentences.

1.3 Statements of the Problem

Specifically the research questions posed in this study are as follows:

1. How will Circle the Sage as strategy affect the students‟ achievement in

conditional sentence type 2?

2. Are there any significant differences in the results of teaching conditional

sentence type 2 using Circle the Sage strategy and conventional one?
1.4 Objectives of the Research

In accordance with the formulation of the problem, the objectives or the aims of

the research are:

1. To show the effect of Circle the Sage for teaching conditional sentence

type 2 in the eleventh graders of SMK N 7 Semarang.

2. To show the significant difference between the results of teaching

conditional sentence type 2 using Circle the Sage strategy and using

conventional teaching strategy.

1.5 Significance of the Research

The significances of the research are:

1. This research will be useful in the area of English teaching especially

grammar teaching.

2. This research will give an input to the teacher to develop his/her strategies

in teaching and learning process.

3. This research will inspire the readers to develop cooperative learning

structures in teaching and learning process.

1.6 Outline of the Report

This research report consists of five chapters. Chapter I covers general

background of the research, reason for choosing the topic, statement of the
problem, objectives of the research, significance of the research and outline of the

report. Chapter II presents review of related literature. It includes grammar

teaching in EFL context, general concept of cooperative learning, previous

research and Circle the Sage strategy in teaching conditional sentence type 2.

Chapter III presents method of investigation. The subchapters present subject of

the research, experimental design, procedure of experiment, variables, instrument,

condition of the text, item analysis, and data processing. Chapter IV describes

result of the research. It covers tryout findings, result of the test, test of

significance and achievements of the experiment. The last chapter presents the

conclusion and offers some suggestions.

 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter presents related literature which supports this research. It includes

grammar teaching in EFL context, cooperative learning, previous researches and

Circle the Sage strategy in teaching conditional sentence type 2.

2.1 Grammar Teaching in EFL Context

Grammar teaching has been the major issue of language learning in EFL context.

There are several points dealing with grammar teaching in EFL context. This

subchapter presents the literature related to grammar teaching in EFL context.

2.1.1 General Concept of Grammar

When we hear the word „grammar‟, we may think about rules of language. Leech,

Deuchar and Hoogenraad (1986:5) in their book confirm that the term grammar is

used in reference to the mechanism according to which language works when it is

used to communicate with other people. One way in describing this mechanism is

as a set of rules which allow us to put the words together in certain ways, but do

not allow others.”

Halliday in Meizaliana (2009:16) states that structure is, of course, a

unifying relation. The parts of a sentence or a clause obviously „cohere‟ with each
other, by virtue of the structure. Hence they also display texture; the elements of

any structure have, by definition, an internal unity which ensures that they all

express part of a text. Furthermore it is also emphasized that in general, any unit,

which is structured hangs together to form text. All grammatical units: sentences,

clauses groups, words are internally „cohesive‟ simple because they are structured.

The same applies to the phonological units, the tone groups, foot and syllable.

Structure is one means of expressing texture.

Richards et al in Meizaliana (2009:51) defines that grammar is a

description of the structure of language and the way in which linguistic units such

as words and phrases are combined to produce sentences in the language. It

usually takes into account the meaning and functions these sentences have in the

overall system of the language. It may or may not include the description of the

sounds a language (phonology, phonemics also morphology, semantic and

syntax). Furthermore, it is stated that in generative transformational theory,

grammar is of rules and lexicon, which describes the knowledge (competence)

which a speaker has of his or her language.

Grammar plays important role in language. Grammar is the central part of

language which relates sound and meaning. In communication, words must be put

together according to grammatical rules and then conveyed by sound unless the

words won‟t be meaningful or may be have different meaning. So, it can be said

that grammar relates to two components. The first is phonology which deals with

system of sound in a language and the other is semantic which deals with system
of meaning. These three components: grammar, phonology and semantic,

represent how language works.

2.1.2 Common Problems of Grammar Teaching and Learning in

EFL Context

Willis in Allen (2005:113) states that one of the most frustrating things for

teachers of English as a Foreign Language is that no matter how hard we try, no

matter how much time we spend, or how much drilling we do, our students never

seem to remember all of the grammar we teach them, and some aspects of

grammar, they just simply never seem to get .As foreign language, English

grammar is quite difficult to learn. Students often make error. According to Ellis

(2003:16), in second language acquisition, learners may make error in

grammatical structure because they are influenced by the grammatical structure of

their first language or mother tongue. Therefore, the way they communicate in

English is somehow influenced by the way they communicate in their daily life.

They may omit, add or change some words in using English. That is why they do

need to pay attention to the function and pattern of each grammatical structure

before they ready to use it to communicate.

The English teacher is often portrayed by Baron in Al-Mekhlafi (2011:69)

as an "unattractive grammar monger whose only pleasure in life is to point out the

faults of others" Most students think that „grammar‟ is a kind of big evil in

studying English. Grammar is considered difficult. Therefore, they feel that

learning grammar is threatening. This paradigm only can decrease their

willingness in learning grammar. It is because since the first time they have

learned English, they have been experienced difficulties in learning grammar and

it continues on and on. Teacher must change this paradigm by providing teaching

methods which provide comfortable situation for the students in learning

grammar.

Most teachers in Indonesia teach grammar through presentation.

Presentation may play important role in teaching grammar especially about forms

and rules. However, teacher presentation tends to be boring and not attractive.

This monotonous method oftentimes does not come to understanding but

confusion on the part of the students. Students find it difficult to always

concentrate to the explanation of the teacher for such a long time. Therefore, the

variation is needed to make the learning process more interesting.

The next problem lies on the practical level. Students always feel that

making mistake in the grammar while speaking in English is a disaster. Because

of that, they prefer silence to speaking. Students need encouragement from the

teacher in this situation. Giving them chance to speak and tolerating the errors and

mistakes they make, can be the solution of this problem.

2.1.3 Methods in Grammar Teaching

Teaching grammar in ESL and EFL context has been for decades a major issue for

students and teachers. Some teachers of L2 learners believe that teaching grammar
is teaching a set of forms and rules. They teach grammar by explaining the forms

and rules and then drill them. As a result, it may make the students do well in a

test but keep on making mistakes in every day conversation.

Some others, who believe that children acquire their first language without

overt grammar instruction, expect the same thing will happen to the second

language acquisition. They tend not to teach grammar at all. They assume that

students will absorb grammar rules as they hear, read, and use the language in

communication activities. These two extremes should be balance. Teacher should

be able to determine how to teach grammar in better way because overt grammar

instruction helps students to acquire the language more effectively.

In the context of EFL, teaching grammar has traditionally been dominated

by a grammar-translation method where the use of mother tongue is clearly

important to elicit the meaning of target language by translating the target

language into native languages. For example, according to Larsen-Freeman in

Widodo (2006:123), in such a method learners are required to learn about

grammar rules and vocabulary of the target language. In the case of grammar, it is

deductively taught; that is, learners are provided the grammar rules and examples,

are told to memorize them, and then are asked to apply the rules to other

examples. Broadly speaking, in teaching grammar, there are two approaches that

can be applied: deductive and inductive.

A deductive approach is derived from the notion that deductive reasoning

works from the general to the specific. In this case, rules, principles, concepts, or
theories are presented first, and then their applications are treated. In conclusion,

when we use deduction, we reason from general to specific principles.

Dealing with the grammar teaching, the deductive approach can also be

called rule-driven learning. In such an approach, a grammar rule is explicitly

presented to students and followed by practice applying the rule. The deductive

approach maintains that a teacher teaches grammar by presenting grammatical

rules, and then examples of sentences are presented. Once learners understand

rules, they are told to apply the rules given to various examples of sentences.

Giving the grammatical rules means no more than directing learners‟ attention to

the problem discussed. Eisenstein Widodo (2006:127) suggests that with the

deductive approach, learners be in control during practice and have less fear of

drawing an incorrect conclusion related to how the target language is functioning.

Felder & Henriques in Widodo (2009:127) describe that an inductive

approach comes from inductive reasoning stating that a reasoning progression

proceeds from particulars (that is, observations, measurements, or data) to

generalities (for example, rules, laws, concepts or theories) In short, when we use

induction, we observe a number of specific instances and from them infer a

general principle or concept.

In the case of pedagogical grammar, most experts argue that the inductive

approach can also be called rule-discovery learning. It suggests that a teacher

teach grammar starting with presenting some examples of sentences. In this sense,

learners understand grammatical rules from the examples. This approach attempts
to highlight grammatical rules implicitly in which the learners are encouraged to

conclude the rules given by the teacher.

Teaching grammar is always within those two methods however, the

implementation may be different among teachers. Whichever method, deductive

or inductive, teachers need to package the learning process in interesting

strategies. Seeing the common problems of teaching grammar in Indonesia, there

are several things that need to be concerned about. First, it is ineffective to have

teacher as the focus of the class and dominating the learning process. It is better to

explore the knowledge of the students while learning. It can be done by giving

chance to the students to explore themselves when they are learning. Teacher‟s

role is as the facilitator and guide.

Besides providing space for the students to explore themselves, well

managing the class is also important. For the sake of the time efficiency and the

effectiveness of the strategy, teacher must pay attention to the steps and the details

of the activities in the class. It is to ensure that the goal of the learning process can

be achieved effectively.

Then, teachers must be innovative in providing various activities in the

class. Variation is important to maintain the courage and willingness of the

students to learn grammar. When the students are provided with monotonous

method, they start to get bored soon. The combination of the three aspects will

create an interesting strategy for the students to learn grammar.

 Learning grammar is not merely learning the pattern. We need to learn

when, where and how to use it. The students need to comprehend these things.

Teacher needs strategy to make the students comprehend the grammar point.

Cooperative learning can be useful to build better comprehension. Discussion

with partner is more effective than learning by oneself. Moreover, when the

strategy is arranged systematically so that the students can enjoy learning

grammar.

2.2 General Concept of Cooperative Learning

Kessler in Tsailing (2002:1) explains that the application of cooperative learning

to classroom teaching finds its root in the 1970s when Israel and the United States

began to design and study cooperative learning models for classroom context.

Now cooperative learning is applied in almost all school content areas and,

increasingly, in college and university contexts all over the world. The followings

are the related literature about cooperative learning.

2.1.1 Definition of Cooperative Learning

Some experts give their definition about cooperative learning. The followings are

the definitions given by them. Eventually, their definitions come to similar

understanding. However, this research focused on cooperative learning developed

by Kagan.
 Richards and Rodgers in Tsailing (2001: 2) define cooperative learning as

an approach to teaching that makes maximum use of cooperative activities

involving pairs and small groups of learners in the classroom. Furthermore,

according to Johnson in Jacobs (n.d), cooperative learning is a successful teaching

strategy in which small teams, each with students of different levels of ability, use

a variety of learning activities to improve their understanding of a subject. Each

student is responsible not only for improving his or her own understanding of the

given material, but also for helping other students or group members achieve it.

Johnson & Johnson in Jacobs (n.d) also give a definition about cooperative

learning. They said that cooperative learning is “the instructional use of small

groups so that students work together to maximize their own and each other‟s

learning.” In addition, they state that cooperative learning is “principles and

techniques for helping students work together more effectively.”

In 2004, Dr Spencer Kagan developed cooperative learning. He defines

cooperative learning as a teaching arrangement that refers to small, heterogeneous

groups of students working together to achieve a common goal. Students work

together to learn and are responsible for their teammates' learning as well as their

own.

From the definitions, it can be concluded that cooperative learning is a set

of teaching method which allows students to work in small group so that they can

improve their understanding about material and achieve the goal in learning as

individual and as a group as well.

2.1.2 Kagan’s Cooperative Learning Principles

In developing Cooperative Learning Structures, Kagan employs four basic

principles of cooperative learning which are in line with the principles concluded

by the other cooperative learning researchers, PIES. It stands for:

P = Positive Interdependence

I = Individual Accountability

E = Equal Participation

S = Simultaneous Interaction

The followings are the explanation of PIES:

1. Positive interdependence

Positive interdependence is stated by Kagan as „sink or swim together‟. This

means each member of the group feels that what helps any member in the group

helps every member of the group. To achieve positive interdependence, there have

to be goals, rewards, roles, resources and identity. Common goal will make them

work together to achieve it because each of them need to. Group rewards will be

very effective to appreciate every contribution of each member in the group.

Specific role and resource will give specific responsibility to every member so

that they will need each other to work. The last supporting element is identity

which means that the group shares common identity to encourage the relationship
among members, for example name, flag or shake hand. We can see that positive

interdependence plays important role in cooperative learning.

2. Individual accountability

This principle requires each student in the group to give contribution to their team.

Students will work in group but they have individual responsibility to share what

they know or what becomes their responsibility to do. This principle also means

that every group member has a role in a group.

3. Equal participation

In the traditional strategy of group work, the typical problem that occurs is the

domination of the group members who have higher ability to those who have

lower ability. This condition will discourage the group work. In cooperative

learning, every group member shares equal responsibility, input and contribution.

Cooperative learning sets the strategies in which every group member will have

relatively equal role and responsibility so the domination will be minimized.

4. Simultaneous Interaction

In working together, students will be interacting each other. They will share many

information and knowledge. Cooperative learning employs discussion process.

For example in Circle the Sage strategy, in the sage the students will discuss the

material and then in the home group they will discuss the disagreement that may

occur during the previous discussion in the sage.

The interaction will happen simultaneously during the learning process because

they are in the process of achieving the common goal. They will keep on

discussing the disagreement and sharing information until they achieve the

common goal.

2.1.3 Cooperative Learning Structures

Kagan uses structural approach to cooperative learning. The structural approach to

cooperative learning is based on the creation, analysis, and the systematic

application of structure, or content-free ways of organizing social interaction in

the classroom. Structure usually involves a series of steps, with proscribed

behavior at each step. The following part presents some popular strategies of

cooperative learning developed by Kagan (2001:4):

1. Carousel Brainstorming: Post charts on the wall with key questions or ideas

at the top. Groups are formed and one person scribes for the group and adds

to the chart as they brainstorm. Groups move to a new chart, read other

groups‟ responses and then add to the chart. Teams may use a different color

of pen.

2. Card Sort: Students or teacher can prepare cards with terms on one color and

definitions on the other. Students work in teams to find matches.

3. Four Corners: Teacher poses a question and gives four potential responses

and points. Then, teacher attaches the potential responses and points on the
 wall in the four corners of the room. Students decide which they agree with

or would like to discuss move to that corner. They discuss the topic with

those who also move to that corner.

4. Gallery Walk: After teams have generated ideas on a topic using a piece of

chart paper, they appoint a “docent” to stay with their work. Teams rotate

around examining other team‟s ideas and ask questions of the docent. Teams

then meet together to discuss and add to their information so the docent also

can learn from other teams.

5. Jigsaw: “Home groups” with a small number of students are formed. Each

group member is assigned a number. Students with the same number form

new groups which are called “experts groups”. They work on the same sub-

section get together to decide what is important and how to teach it. After

practice in these "experts" return to the home group and each expert teaches

their section of material.

6. Inside/Outside Circle: Divide class in half. One group forms a circle facing

outward, the others find one person in the circle to stand opposite, so there

are two circles of people facing each other. Information can be shared and

reviewed, and outer circle can move easily to generate more responses or

discuss new information.

7. Number Heads Together: Students sit in groups and each group member is

given a number. The teacher poses a problem and all four students discuss.
 The teacher calls a number and that student is responsible for sharing for the

group.

8. Pass a Problem: Teacher creates problems for teams to solve and writes or

attaches them to envelopes. Teams read the problems, place their solutions

in the envelope and then exchange with another team to check their solution

and to determine if they solved the problem in a different way.

9. Round Robin Brainstorming: Class is divided into small groups with one

person appointed as the recorder. An open-ended question is posed and

students are given time to think about answers individually. Next, members

of the team share responses with one another, round robin style. The

recorder writes down the answers of the group members.

10. Say and Switch: Partners take turns responding to topics at signaled times.

The times will be unpredictable and the person listening must pick up from

their partner‟s train of thought before adding new ideas.

11. Send a Problem: Students write a review problem on a card and ask

teammates to solve their problem. Teammates solve and the question-writer

determines if they have come up with a good solution. Other team members

repeat the process.

12. Team-Pair-Solo: Students do problems first as a team, then with a partner,

and finally on their own. By allowing them to work on problems they could
 not do alone, first as a team and then with a partner, they progress to a point

they can do alone that which at first they could do only with help.

13. Think Pad Brainstorming: Requires students to individually brainstorm and

write down their answers on a sheet of paper. Once they are all done they

are to share their information with a partner or team.

14. Three Stay, One Stray: In a group of four (or could be more), students solve

a problem. While they work, they send one member to “stray” to another

group to compare teams‟ solutions.

We can employ the structures as many as we need. We can fit them to the

material and the class condition. With various strategies, cooperative learning can

encourage students to be more motivated in learning because they will not be

easily to get bored with the learning process. The structures are like games and

students are typically like games so they will enjoy their learning.

2.1.4 Circle the Sage Strategy

Circle the Sage is one of cooperative learning strategies developed by Kagan

(2001: 5). Here are the procedures of Circle the Sage:

1. Teacher crates heterogeneous groups called home groups in the class

which consists of 4 or 5 students.

2. The teacher polls the class to see which students have a special knowledge

to share or those who have been given prior knowledge. For example the
 teacher may ask who in the class are able to solve a difficult math

homework question or who understand particular material.

3. Those students (the sages) stand and spread out in the room. The teacher

then has the rest of the classmates each surround a sage, with no two

members of the same home group going to the same sage.

4. The sage explains what they know while the classmates listen, ask

questions, and take notes.

5. All students then return to their teams. Each in turn, explains what they

learned. Because each one has gone to a different sage, they compare

notes.

6. If there is disagreement, they stand up as a team.

7. The disagreements are discussed as a class and resolved.

In this structure, there are three times of discussions about a topic. The

first discussion is when the students surround the sages and get input from the

sages. The second discussion is when the students back to their home groups and

comparing notes with their teammates. The last discussion is when the teacher

reviews the materials with the whole class.

Kagan (2001) employs some theories in developing cooperative learning

structure especially in Circle the Sage strategy. The theories are as follows:
1. Cooperative Learning Theory

In Kagan (2001) says that cooperative learning theory posits that students learn

best when they can encourage and tutor each other, when they are held

individually accountable, when they all participate about equally, and when there

is a great deal of active, interactive engagement.

In Circle the Sage strategy, the students tutor each other. In the step of circling the

sage, the students who become the sages act as the source of the information.

They tutor their friends about particular material. Then in the next step, the

students come back to their home group and discuss the disagreement that may

appear during the previous discussion. In this step, students also tutor each other

to get the conclusion.

During the home group discussion, every individual shares what they get

from the sage. In this step, there are individual accountability and equal

participation. Students also actively interact each other to find the final result of

the discussion.

2. Multiple Intelligences Theory

According to the theory of multiple intelligences as set forth by Howard Gardner

in Kagan (2001), each student has his or her own unique pattern of intelligences.

These intelligences all can be developed, and students learn best when at least part

of the time they have access to the curriculum through their preferred intelligence

or intelligences. Every time the students engage to their preferred intelligence in

the learning process, it strengthens their intelligence. They will understand more

their strength and their weaknesses and also that of their friends.

In Circle the Sage strategy, students with different intelligence will be

gathered. They will help each other to understand and solve the problem. One

student may be good in particular part of the material and another student may be

good in some other part of the material. When different intelligences are

combined, there will be positive interdependence which means better learning

process.

3. Expectation Theory

This theory concludes that holding high expectation lead to better gains. Kagan

(2001) believes that teacher and peer expectations rise when cooperative learning

and multiple intelligences structures are used on a regular basis. During the

cooperative learning process, students will be more motivated in mastering the

material or solving the problem. By having cooperative learning they will be more

confident because they are working in a solid group. They, together in their group

will explore their ability and knowledge. This condition can increase their

expectation in learning.

4. Learned Optimism Theory

Sometimes students feel that what they have done doesn‟t bring any significant

improvement. More over when they repeatedly fail. This condition makes them

fall into helplessness. Of course it discourages their motivation in learning.

Optimism, the opposite of helplessness can be learned. Kagan bases his structures

on this theory. He says “once learned, optimism predicts not only academic

success but success across many life endeavors.” Because the structures scaffold

for success and, in fact, produce a greater rate of success, they dramatically

decrease the probability of helplessness among students. Students see that what

they do makes a difference, becoming more optimistic and resilient. This ongoing

experience of learned optimism generalizes. As a result, students are far more

likely to persist in the face of failure and become more successful academically

and in their relations with others.

5. Vygotsky's Theory

Circle the Sage strategy adopt the Vygotsky‟s theory especially from the major

theme The More Knowledgeable Other (MKO). The MKO refers to anyone who

has better understanding or a higher ability level than the learner. The MKO is

done not only by teacher, coach, or older adult, but also by peers a younger

person, or even computer. In circle the sage strategy, there is peer teaching.

Students who have special ability or knowledge will act as the sages to teach and

share what they know. In this case, students can do more things that they cannot

do it alone.

6. Behavior Theory

One of the principles of behavior theory is the existence of feedback and

reinforcement that can encourage better learning. Learning certain behavior can
be increased by giving reinforcement and feedback. The result will be much better

if the feedback and the reinforcement are in immediate action. In traditional

teaching, the feedback and the reinforcement are given in delay by the teacher.

But in cooperative learning, both are given more immediately and frequently. For

instance in circle the sage strategy, the feedback and the reinforcement are given

during the discussion in the group when they discuss the disagreements among

members. Because they get information from different sages, when they sit in a

group, they are set to conclude one conclusion. They will correct each other and

supporting each other. Kagan also says that for many students, the peer

reinforcement is more powerful than a grade from a teacher.

2.3 Previous Researches

Cooperative learning is one of the most remarkable areas of theory, research, and

practice in education. It occurs when students work together to accomplish shared

learning goals (Johnson & Johnson in Seng, 2006: 27). A synthesis of research on

cooperative learning strategies found out that these strategies improve the

achievement of students and their interpersonal relationships. Researchers found

out that among the 67 studies of the achievement effects of cooperative learning,

61% found greater achievement in cooperative than in traditionally taught control

groups. Positive effects were found in all grade levels, in urban, rural, and

suburban schools .In a meta-analysis of 158 studies, it is stated that current

research findings prove that cooperative learning methods are likely to produce

positive achievement results. The achievement levels are found to be higher when
cooperative learning methods were used as compared to individualistic or

competitive methods of learning.

Kagan in Seng (2006:27) pointed out that the grouping is essential for

cooperative learning. The students are usually formed in heterogeneous groups,

including a mix-ability of students a high, two middle, a low achieving student

and having a mix gender that reflect the classroom population. The main reason

for forming the heterogeneous group but not the homogeneous group is because it

produces the greatest chances for peer tutoring and support as well as improving

racial integration.

Tsailing (2002) had a research about cooperative learning and second

language acquisition. Liang adopted some structures developed by Slavin, Sharan

and Kagan such as STAD, Learning Together and Inside-Outside Circle. Liang

also investigated how cooperative learning affected the grammar learning. The

result showed that the experimental group gained significant improvement in the

grammar learning than those who were taught in conventional method.

In Indonesia, Meizaliana (2009) did a research about teaching grammar

using games in MAN 1 Kepahiang Bengkulu. The games she used include

cooperative learning structures such as Numbered Head Together and Think-Pair-

Share. The structures were implemented to some grammar focuses such as simple

present tense, simple past tense and conjunction. The result shows that there was

significant difference between the control group and the experimental group. The
experimental group which was taught using cooperative learning structure could

gain more achievement than that which was taught using conventional teaching.

In incorporating cooperative learning strategies into the classroom

curriculum, two factors have been found to contribute to positive achievement

effects: group goals and individual accountability (Slavin, 1991). Group goals are

necessary to motivate students to help each other learn by giving them a stake in

one another‟s success. Individual accountability, in turn, deters the likelihood that

one or two group members will do all the work. If the group‟s success depends on

the individual learning of each group member, then group members are more

motivated to engage every member in mastering the material being studied.

2.4 Circle the Sage Strategy in Teaching Conditional Sentence

Type 2

Cooperation is not assigning a job to a group of students where one student does

all the work and the others put their names on the paper. It is not having students

sit side by side at the same table to talk with each other as they do their individual

assignments as well. It is not having students do a task individually with

instructions that the ones who finish first are to help the slower students. On the

contrary, cooperative learning is a teaching strategy in which small teams, each

with students of different levels of ability, use a variety of learning activities to

improve their understanding of a subject. Each member of a team is responsible

not only for learning what is being taught but also for helping teammates learn,
thus creating an atmosphere of achievement. Students work through the

assignment until all group members successfully understand and complete it.

In learning grammar, students are required to internalize the aspects of the

particular grammar subject, starting from the rules, component, structure of the

sentence and the function. In fact, the prior knowledge and the ability of the

students to internalize the particular grammar point is not the same. The principle

of cooperative learning about heterogeneous group fits this problem. Mixing them

in the small heterogeneous groups can open chance for them to have peer teaching

and helping each other to meet the final understanding about the material.

Circle the Sage strategy points out the role heterogeneous group and peer-

teaching. As the steps I have explained earlier, Circle the Sage strategy employs

three steps of discussions and two times of peer-teaching. In this strategy, students

are provided with sufficient time and opportunity to explore their knowledge,

share their understanding, evaluate their understanding and help their teammates.

In this situation, the learning process can be done maximally.

Conditional sentence type 2 is one of many grammar materials that are

taught in the eleventh grade of SMK. It is considered more difficult than other

grammar points that are taught in the same grade because conditional sentence has

complexity in terms of function, rule and tense.

Conditional sentence is a grammar structure which expresses two clauses

that engage in one meaning. Some students may get confused because conditional

sentence sometimes reflects the truth, but sometimes does not. A condition is
something that has to be fulfilled before something else can happen. If, normally

meaning provided that, is sometimes followed by then. If then is not stated, it is

implied: If X happens, (then) Y follows.” There are three types of conditional

sentence. Each type has its own function and structure. Because of its complexity,

teacher should have smart strategy to teach it. Circle the Sage strategy may

become an effective way to teach conditional sentence type 2. The steps and the

activities of this strategy meet the need of opportunity to understand a complex

material. It is expected that by having cooperative learning with small group

discussion, the confusion can be reduced and the understanding can be achieved

more effectively.
 CHAPTER III

METHOD OF INVESTIGATION

This chapter discusses the subject of the research, the experimental design, the

procedure of the experiment, the condition of the test, the items analysis, and the

data processing.

3.1 Subject of the Research

This subchapter discusses the population and the samples of the research. It

includes sampling technique that was used in this research.

3.1.1 Population

Margono (2000:118) defines population as a complete set of individuals or

subjects having common observable characteristics. Brown (1998:81) states that a

population is any group of individuals that have one or more characteristic in

common that is of interest to the researchers. It can be concluded that population

is the group of interest to the researcher; the group to which she or he would like

the results of the study to be generalized.

In this research, the population was the eleventh graders of SMK Negeri 7

Semarang in the academic year 2010/2011. The total population was 536 students
who were divided into seven different programs and 15 different classes. There

were 34 to 36 students in each class.

3.1.2 Samples

According to Best (1981:8), a sample is a small proportion of selected population

for observation and analysis. While William Wiersma in Meizaliana (2009:73)

states that a sample, by definition is a subset of the population to which the

researcher intends to generalize the results.

Because the total population was 536 students, who are divided into seven

different programs and 15 different classes, purposive sampling technique was

used in this research. The ability of the students in each class was quite different

which was proven by the significant different average score of each class in their

final semester scores. Thus, purposive sampling was needed to get representative

samples.

To determine the samples, I took the samples based on the average scores

of each class of their last English final semester scores with assumption that the

classes with similar average score have similar ability. First, I ranked the 15

classes based on their average scores. Then, I took three classes which were in the

7th, 8th and the 9th ranks. Those three classes had less difference in their average

score compare to the other classes. There were chosen XI TKJ 1, XI TMP 2, XI

TAV. Next, I randomly determined the experimental group, the control group and

the tryout group. Finally, I got XI TKJ 1 as the experiment group, XI TMP 2 as

the control group and XI TAV as the tryout group.

3.2 Experimental Design

This research used pre-test – post-test control group design. The design of the

experiment adopted from Arikunto (2006:86) can be described as follows:

R 1 01 X 03

R2 02 04

Note:

R1 : Experimental group

R2 : Control Group

01 & 02 : Pre test

03 & 04 : Post test

X : Treatment using Circle the Sage strategy

3.3 Procedure of Experiment

There were several steps that I had done in conducting the research. It covered the

try-out test, the pre-test, the treatment, the post-test and the data processing.

3.3.1 Try-out

Try-out is very important to ensure the quality of the instrument that was going to

be used in the research. I did the try-out of the instrument on Wednesday, April 6,
2011 in XI TAV. The number of the students who took the try-out test was 34.

The number of the items was 50 which were separated into two different types;

multiple-choice test and matching tasks. The multiple-choice items were 38 and

the matching tasks were 12. The items were composed based on the observation to

the kinds of problem of conditional sentence type 2 found in the books used at

school and other grammar books. Appendix 1 provides the display of the items

distribution.

After obtaining the data, I analyzed each item to see its validity,

discriminating power and difficulty level. Besides analyzing each item, I also

analyzed the reliability of the test to make sure that the instrument I used was the

reliable one. The further details are provided in Appendix 5. Then, I filtered the

items based on the criteria above. I only used the qualified items based on that

analysis. For the instrument, I used 40 of 50 items which had been tried out with

composition 30 multiple-choice items and 10 matching tasks. Appendix 2 presents

the display of the items.

3.3.2 Pre-Test

After getting qualified instrument, I did the pre-test. The pre-test was taken by

both control group and experimental group. The pre-test is aimed to see the

condition of the two groups before the treatment. The two groups are supposed to

be in equal condition before the treatment so, after conducting the tests and
administering the scores, I calculated the t-value of the pre-test results of the two

groups. I calculated it using the following formula (Arikunto, 2006:306):

1 − 2
�=
�� 2
�� 2
1
− 2
1−1 2 −1

Note:

1 : The mean of the control group

2 : The mean of the experimental group

�� 1 : The standard deviation of the control group

�� 2 : The standard deviation of the experimental group

N1 : Number of students in the control group

N1 : Number of students in the experimental group

After obtaining the t-value I consulted it to the t-table to see whether the

result has significant difference.

3.3.3 Treatment

I gave different treatment to the control group and the experimental group. I did

conventional teaching in which teacher presentation mode was used in the control

group. In the experimental group, I used Circle the Sage strategy. Both groups
were given three times treatment with the same material. The detail schedule is

presented in Appendix 11.

Before the treatment, I conducted pre-treatment meeting to the

experimental group. The pre-treatment meeting was aimed to form the home

groups and to explain the procedure of Circle the Sage strategy. The home groups

were formed randomly using pictures. There were formed 6 groups with 5 to 6

members in each home group. To make it interesting, the home groups were

named after favorite cartoons which were Naruto, Avatar, Spongebob, Ninja Boy,

One Piece, and Jimmy Neutron. After that, I chose randomly which group would

be the first sages in the first treatment. The group chosen had a prior meeting

before the treatment to get and consult the material that was going to be used. I

conducted the same procedure to choose the next sages for the next treatments.

The treatment was conducted three times. Each meeting covered some

activities. It covered peer teaching, sage group discussion, home group

discussions and exercises. The details can be seen on the lesson plans in Appendix

12.

3.3.4 Post-test

There should be the way to measure the result of the treatment. After giving the

treatment, I conducted the post-test to the two groups. Then I administered the

scores. To see the significant difference between the result of the control group

and the experimental group, I calculated the t-value of the post-test results of both
control group and experimental group using the same formula I used to calculate

the t value of the pre-test results. Then, I consulted it to the t-table to see whether

there was significant difference.

3.3.5 Data Administration

The data processing covered some administrations. First, I administered the try-

out test scores and then analyze it to get the instrument. Second, I administered

the result of the pre-test and the post-test of both control group and experimental

group. Then, I calculated the significance of the research to see the effect of Circle

the Sage strategy in teaching conditional sentence type 2.

3.4 Variables

A variable is something may vary of differ. It is an attribute of a person or from an

object (Brown, 1998:7). In this research, there were two kinds of variables;

independent variable and dependent variable.

Independent variable is a variable that is selected by the researcher to

determine the effect or relationship with the dependent variable (Brown, 1998:10).

It is the presume cause of the dependent variable. In this research, the independent

variable was the use of Circle the Sage strategy in teaching conditional sentence

type 2. While dependent variable is the presume effect of the independent variable

(Brown, 1998:10). In this research, the dependent variable was the students‟

grammar recognition ability especially conditional sentence type 2.

3.5 Research Instrument

In this research, test was used as the instruments. To obtain the data, that is the

students‟ grammar recognition ability especially conditional sentence type 2, the

combination of multiple choices and matching task were used. It was used

because this test is an objective test, and easy to score. It was also a proper

measurement to measure recognition ability.

Observation was needed before making the instrument. It was needed to

adjust the instrument with the teaching and learning process at the school.

Conditional sentence type 2 was taught in the second semester of eleventh grade,

so I observed the materials used in this grade. After observing the material, there

were found several common problems dealing with conditional sentence type 2.

They were supplying correct form of verb or to be, matching the if-clause and the

main clause, supplying missing sentence in a dialog with correct conditional

sentence, obtaining the real condition of a conditional sentence, omitting „If‟ and

choosing the correct conditional sentence based on an illustration. Appendix 1

presents the distribution of each problem.

3.6 Condition of the Test

All good tests possess three qualities: validity, reliability, and practicality (Harris,

1969:13). It means a good test must be appropriate to our objective, dependable in

the evidence and applicable in particular situation.

3.6.1 Validity

Harris (1969:18) states that validity refers to precisely measurements of the test.

There are three kinds of validity; content validity, empirical validity and face

validity. A test can be said to have content validity when a test can measure

particular skill area that should be measured. It means the test has passed several

analyses on which matter need to be tested and in what proportions. A test can be

said empirically valid when the evidence shows that there is high correlation

between test score and trustworthy external criterion, while face validity is the

way the test looks to the examinees, test administrators, educators, etc.

The main concern in this research is content validity since it is particularly

important for achievement test. In this research, Pearson Product Moment formula

was used to calculate the index validity of each item in the test. To obtain the

calculation of the validity of each item, I used the split-half technique then I

consulted it to the Pearson Product Moment. There were several steps in

measuring the validity. They are:

1. First, I administered the test and scored each student.

2. Next, I correlated the score of each item with the total score.

3. Then, I calculated the correlation using the following formula

(Arikunto,2006:275):

Σ −Σ Σ
� =
Σ 2− Σ 2 Σ 2− Σ 2
Note:

� : Coefficient of correlation between two halves or the validity of each item

N : Number of the students participating in the test

ΣX : The sum of score of each item

ΣX² : The sum of the square score of each item

ΣY : The sum of total score of each student

ΣY² : The sum of the square total score of each student

ΣXY : The sum of the test score with the total score in each item

3.6.2 Reliability

In his book, Brown (2004:20) confirms that a reliable test is consistent and

dependable. If the same test is given to the same student or matched students on

two different occasions, the test should yield similar result.

I estimated the reliability of the entire test with the Kunder and Richardson

21 formula in Arikunto (2006:189):

� �−
�11 = 1−
�−1 ���
Note:

�11 : The reliability of the instrument

k : Number of items
Vt : Total variance

M : Average score

3.6.3 Practicality

Brown (2004:31) emphasizes that practicality is determined by the teacher‟s and

the students‟ time constraints costs, and administrative details, and to some extent

by what occurs before and after the test. A test can be said practical when:

1. It is not excessively expensive.

2. It stays within appropriate time constraints.

3. It is relatively easy to administer.

4. It has scoring/evaluation procedure that is specific and time efficient.

This research employs multiple choices and matching task because they

are objective tests which are very practical, efficient in time and easy to

administer.
3.7 Item Analysis

Each item must pass the requirements of a good test. To see whether the item is

qualified, the items should be examined from the point of view of their difficulty

level and level of discrimination.

3.7.1 Difficulty Level

The index of difficulty shows whether the item is difficult for the students. It was

calculated using the following formula(Arikunto, 2006: 235):

�=
��
Note:

P : The value of the index of difficulty,

B : The number of the students who answer correctly,

JS : The total number of the students.

To know the criterion of each item, I consulted the Suharno‟s criterion of

difficulty level in Arikunto (2006:123) is displayed as follows:

Table 3.1 Suharno’s Criterion of Difficulty Level

Interval Criteria

0.0 < P < 0.30 Difficult

0.31 < P < 0.70 Medium

0.71 < P < 1.00 Easy

3.7.2 Discriminating Power

The discrimination index shows the extent to which the item discriminates among

testers and separating the more able testers to the less able testers. I calculated the

index of discrimination with the following formula:

�= −
� �
Note:

D : The discrimination index

BA : The number of the upper group who answer the item correctly

JA : The number of the students in the lower group who answer the item

correctly

BB : The number of students in the upper group

JB : The number of students in the lower group

After that, I consulted Suharno‟s criterion of discrimination index (Arikunto,

2006:123) in the following table:

Table 3.2 Suharno’s Criterion of Discrimination Index

Interval Criterion

D ≤ 0.20 Poor

0.21 < D ≤ 0.40 Satisfactory

0.41 < D ≤ 0.70 Good

0.71 < D ≤ 1.00 Excellent

3.8. Data Processing

There were several steps that I took to do the data processing. There were the test

of normality, homogeneity and significance.

3.8.1 The Test of Normality

A set of data must be in normal distribution before it is proceed to the next

calculation. To test the normality of a set of data, Arikunto (2006:314) provides

two ways; using probability chart and using Chi-square formula. The two methods

are also called assessing normality - graphically and numerically. I tested the

normality of the data graphically and numerically using SPSS computer program.

According to statistics method explained by Santoso (2008:56), to test the

normality of the data, I used the following steps:

1. I entered the 4 sets of data (the result of the pre-test and the post-test of both

control group and experimental group) to the input of SPSS program.

2. Then, I analyzed the normality of the data set by set.

3. Next, the output of the program showed the index of the normality, the

polygon, the normal chart and the probability chart as well.

4. I examined the index of normality and the probability chart. A set of data can

be considered normal if the normality index is more than 0.05 (significance

level: 5%) or the chart shows that the scores spread near the normal chart and

likely forming a straight line.

3.8.2 The Test of Homogeneity

Besides test of normality, test of homogeneity is also needed before

continuing the next steps of data processing. Test of homogeneity is aimed

to ensure that both experimental group and control group are statistically

proven from the same population. I did two tests of homogeneity; first, for

the pre-test results of both control group and experimental group, and

second for the results of the post-test of both groups. The followings are the

steps explained by Santoso (2008:60) to perform one-way ANOVA analysis of

homogeneity using SPSS computer program:

1. First, I entered the pre-test results of both groups to the input of SPSS

program.

2. Then, I analyzed the data using one-way ANOVA analysis of homogeneity

provided by SPSS program.

3. I did the same thing to the results of the post-test of both groups.

4. The output of the program performed the homogeneity indices of the data.

5. I examined the homogeneity indices. The two sets of data can be

considered homogenous if the homogeneity index is more than 0.05

(significance level: 5%).

3.8.3 The Test of Significance

T-test formula was applied to see whether there was a significant difference

between Circle the Sage strategy and conventional method in teaching grammar

especially conditional sentence type 2.

I used the t- test formula (Arikunto, 2006:311) as follows:

−
�=
Σx 2 + Σy 2 1 1
+
+ 2−2

Note:

t : t value

Mx : The average deviation of experimental group

My : The average deviation of control group

Nx : Number of student in control group

Ny : Number of student in experimental group

x : Deviation of pre-test and post-test of control group

y : Deviation of pre-test and post-test of experimental group

The source of the data in this calculation can be seen in Appendix 9 and 10.
 CHAPTER IV

RESULT OF THE RESEACH

This chapter presents the result of the research. It covers tryout findings, result of

the test, test of significance, and achievements of the experiment.

4.1 Try-out Finding

The instrument must be tried out first before it is used. It functions to know

whether it meets the standard of particular aspects. Those aspects are validity,

reliability and item analysis which contains level of difficulty and discriminating

power.

4.1.1 Validity

As mentioned in the previous chapter, validity refers to the precious measurement

of the test. In this research, item validity is used to know the index validity of the

test. After I calculated the index validity of item number 1 using Pearson Product

Moment, I found that it was 0.527. Afterwards, I compared the result with the

table of r product moment with n (number of students) = 34 with significance

level 5 % which is 0.339. Since the result of the computation was higher than the r

table, it was considered valid.

 I did the computation to all 50 items and compared them to the r table.

There were found 8 items which were invalid. They were items number 2, 3, 4,

13, 15, 18, 27 and 29. I used 40 of 42 items which were valid as the instrument to

make the administration easier. The detail of all items is performed in Appendix

4.

4.1.2 Reliability

I used K – R 21 formula to calculate the reliability of the test. The calculation of

the reliability is as follow:

� �−
�11 = 1−
�−1 ���
50 40,06 50−40,06
= 1−
50−1 50.19,3
398,196
= 1,02 1−
965

= 1,02 . 0,587
= 0,599

For alpha 5% and n=34, the r table= 0,339. Since the r11 > r table, the instrument
was considered reliable.
4.1.3 Difficulty Level

To see whether the items are difficult, medium or easy, we have to calculate the

level of difficulty of each item. As mentioned in chapter III, I used the following

formula:

�=
��

Note:

P : The value of the index of difficulty,

B : The number of the students who answer correctly,

JS : The total number of the students.

For example, item number 6, the calculation is as follow;

23
�=
34
= 0,676
I then, consulted the result to Suharno‟s criterion. It found that item

number 6 was considered medium. I did the same procedure to all items and I

found some items were considered easy, some of them were considered medium

and some others were difficult. The further detail can be seen in Appendix 4.

4.1.4 Discriminating Power

The discrimination index shows the extent to which the item discriminates among

testers and separating the more able testers to the less able testers. I calculated the

index of discrimination with the following formula;

 �= −
� �

Note:

D : The discrimination index

BA : The number of the upper group who answer the item correctly

JA : The number of the students in the lower group who answer the item

correctly

BB : The number of students in the upper group

JB : The number of students in the lower group

For example for item number 7, the calculation is as follow:

12 5
�= −
16 16

= 0,487
After that, I consulted the result of the computation to the Suharno‟s criterion. I

found that item number 7 was categorized good. I did the same procedure to the

rest items. The detail of the calculation of each item is presented in Appendix 4.
4.2 Result of the Tests

This subchapter discusses the test of normality, the test of homogeneity,

calculation of the t-table value for desired number of subjects, the pre-test finding,

the post-test finding and the test of significance.

4.2.1 Test of Normality

The test of normality is a requirement that has to be fulfilled to decide the

statistics method that is going to be used in the research (Arikunto, 2006:314).

Before calculating the t-value, the data must be normal first.

The calculation was done using SPSS program. The steps are provided in Chapter

III. The followings are the result of the calculation:

 The Pre-test of the Control Group

Table 4.1 Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

VAR00001 .184 34 .005 .940 34 .060
Note: a is Lilliefors Significance Correction
 Chart 4.1 Normality Chart

 The Pre-test of the Experimental Group

Table 4.2 Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
VAR00002 .135 34 .121 .939 34 .059
Note: a is Lilliefors Significance Correction
 Chart 4.2 Normality Chart

 The Post-test of the Control Group

Table 4.3 Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
VAR00003 .181 34 .006 .950 34 .122
Note: a is Lilliefors Significance Correction
 Chart 4.3 Normality Chart

 The Post-test of the Experimental Group

Table 4.4 Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
VAR00004 .141 34 .085 .966 34 .350
Note: a is Lilliefors Significance Correction
 Chart 4.4 Normality Chart

The tables of homogeneity test show that the indices of the normality

(0.06; 0.59; 0.122; 0.350) are all higher than the level of significant (0.05) so, it

can be concluded that the data above are normal or normally distributed. Then, the

probability charts show that the distributions spread near the normal line and

likely form straight lines so, it is concluded that the data are normally distributed

(Arikunto, 2006:317).
4.2.2 Test of Homogeneity

The test of homogeneity is used to statistically prove that the samples were taken

from the same population. The data of the control group and the experimental

group must be proven homogeny before conducting the test of significance. The

steps of the calculation are explained in Chapter III. Followings are the results of

the test of homogeneity which were calculated with SPSS program:

 The Pre-test

Table 4.5 Test of Homogeneity of Variances

VAR00001
Levene
Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
1.794 7 24 .135

 The Post-test

Table 4.6 Test of Homogeneity of Variances

VAR00003
Levene
Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
1.386 8 23 .255

From the tables of the Test of Homogeneity of Variances, it is shown that

the indices of the homogeneity (0.135 and 0.225) are both more than the
significance level (0.05). It can be assumed that both the pre-tests and the post-

tests are statistically proven homogenous.

4.2.3 t-table Value

To consult the critical value of the result of both the pre-test and the post-test, it is

needed to calculate the t table. For this experiment, I used the 5% alpha level of

significance as usually used in educational researches. The number of subjects in

this experiment for both control group and experimental group was 68 with the

degree of freedom (df) 66, that was Nx + Ny - 2, for 5% alpha level, there is no

definite critical value in the table, so it is necessary to find the definite value using

interpolation as follows:

t-table for 40 = 2.021

60 = 2.000

66 =?

2.021 – t 40 – 66
=
2.021-2.000 40 – 60

2.021 – t - 26
=
0.021 -20

-26
2.021 – t = x 0.021
-20
 2.021 – t = 0.0273
t = 0.0273 + 2.021
t = 2.0483

The definite critical value for this experiment is 2.0483.

4.2.4 Pre-test Finding

The pre-test is aimed to know the condition of the two groups before giving the

treatment. The pre-test of control group was conducted on Thursday, April 7,

2011 while the pre-test of experimental group was done on Friday, April 8, 2011.

After I administered the score of the pre-test, I found that the mean of the control

group was 77,35 with standard deviation 7,54 and the mean of the experimental

group was 74,71 with standard deviation 6,71. The data was based on the score

distribution displayed in Appendix 5 and 6.

Before the treatment, the control group and the experimental group are

supposed to have relatively equal condition or ability. To test whether there is

significant different condition between the control group and the experimental

group, I calculated the t-value of the two groups to see the significant difference.

To calculate it, used the following formula:

1 − 2
�=
�� 2
�� 2
1
− 2
1−1 2 −1
Note:
 1 : The mean of the control group

2 : The mean of the experimental group

�� 1 : The standard deviation of the control group

�� 2 : The standard deviation of the experimental group

N1 : Number of students in the control group

N1 : Number of students in the experimental group

After obtaining the t-value I consulted it to the t-table to see whether the

result has significant difference.

I did the computation of the t-value using Microsoft Excel, and the result

can be seen on the table below:

Table 4.7 The t-test of the Pre-test

Number of
Mean SD² students
Control Group 77.35 56.964 34
Experimental Group 74.71 45.134 34

t 1.501
t table 2.0483
criterion t < t table, it means there is no significant difference

From the table, it can be seen that the t-value of the two groups (1.501) is

lower than the t-table (2.0483). It can be concluded that there is no significant

different condition and ability between control group and experimental group
before the treatment. Therefore, it can be assumed that the result of the treatment

would not be affected by the condition of the students before the treatment.

4.2.5 Post-test Finding

Post-test is aimed to know the effect of the treatment. After giving two different

treatments for two different groups; conventional teaching strategy for control

group and Circle the Sage strategy for experimental group, I conducted the post-

test. The post-test of the control group was conducted on Thursday, April 28,

2011 while that of the experimental group was conducted on Friday, April 29,

2011.

After giving the treatment, the two groups are supposed to have significant

different result. It aims to know the different affect of the two different methods.

Thus, I compared the two means of the control group and the experimental group

using the same formula I used to calculate the t-value of the pre-test. I also did the

calculation using Microsoft Excel. The result of the calculation can be seen on the

table below:

Table 4.8 The t-test of Post-test

Mean SD² Number of students

Control Group 81.18 76.189 34
Experimental Group 88.16 40.922 34

t 3.705
t table 2.0483
criterion t > t table, it means there is significant difference
 From the table above it can be seen that the obtained t-value (3.705) is

higher than the t-table (2.0483) which means the two means have significant

different. It can be concluded that there is different effect between the two

strategies. It could be assumed that the two different strategies have given

different affect. To see the test of significant for the whole process, there would be

test of significant involving the pre-test result and the post-test result in the

computation in the next subchapter.

4.3 Test of Significance

To obtain the significance of the whole process of the research, the t-value has to

be calculated. To conduct the t-test, I calculated the deviation of the pre-test and

the post-test of each student from both control group and experimental group. The

detail distribution can be seen in Appendix 9 and 10. Then, I compared them

using the formula that I have written in the previous chapter. The computation

goes as follow:

−
�=
Σx 2 + Σy 2 1 1
+
+ 2−2

13,456 − 3,824
=
2140,441 + 675,184 1 1
+
34 + 34 − 2 34 34
 9,632
=
42,66098 .0,0588
9,632
=
1,58131
= 6,081
Note:

t : t value

Mx : The average deviation of experimental group

My : The average deviation of control group

Nx : Number of student in control group

Ny : Number of student in experimental group

x : Deviation of pre-test and post-test of control group

y : Deviation of pre-test and post-test of experimental group

The source of the data in this calculation can be seen in Appendix 9 and 10.

From the computation above, the t-value or the level of significant is 6.081

with alpha 5 % and degree of freedom 66. The t-value obtained is higher than the

t-table which is 2.0483. As stated by Brown (1988:169) if the t-value is higher

than the critical value (t-table), the difference is statistically significant. It can be

concluded that Circle the Sage strategy is significantly effective to teach

conditional sentence type 2.

4.4 Achievement of the Experiment

The score of both experimental and control class in percentage was calculated

using the formula below:

�= × 100%
�
Note:

P : Percentage achievement

F : Total score

N : Maximum score

4.4.1 Achievement of Conventional Teaching Strategy

The students‟ pre-test average score of the control group was 77,35% and the

post-test score of it was 81,18%. The conventional teaching strategy gained

3,83%. The result can be seen on the figure below.

90

85

80

75

70

65

60
Pre-test Post-test

Chart 4.5 The Achievement of Conventional Teaching Strategy

 We can see on the chart that the students‟ achievement only rose 3,83%. In

teaching grammar using conventional teaching, the teacher usually just explains

and the students just listen. There is no active interaction among students and

between students and teacher so they cannot share their understanding about the

materials and they do not have chance to explore their knowledge.

4.4.2 Achievement of Circle the Sage Strategy

The students‟ pre-test score of the experimental group was 74,71% and the post-

test score was 88,16%. Circle the Sage strategy gained 13,45%. The result can be

seen on the figure below:

92
88
84
80
76
72
68
64
60
Pre-test Post-test

Chart 4.6 The Achievement of Circle the Sage Strategy

From the chart we can see that the students‟ achievement rose 13,45 %.

The gain is higher than that using conventional teaching strategy. By using Circle

the Sage Strategy, students can explore and share their knowledge with others so

they can gain more understanding than only listening to what the teacher say.
 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

This chapter presents the conclusion of the research and the suggestions for the

involved parties.

5.1. Conclusion

Learning language cannot be separated from learning grammar. For ESL or EFL

students, learning grammar is somehow boring because the teacher usually

teaches them by doing presentation in front of the class all the time. There is no

chance for the students to interact each other to explore and share their

knowledge. However, to get better understanding, there should be active

interaction among students and between students and teacher so that the class will

not be boring and the students can get better atmosphere in the learning process.

Therefore, teacher must find better strategy to make the learning process better.

In the context of the present study, I focus on Circle the Sage strategy. I

conducted an experimental research about the use of Circle the Sage Strategy in

teaching conditional sentence type 2. I used pre-test post-test control group design

and t-test with alpha level 5% to analyze the data. Based on the result of the

research, I come to the following conclusion:

 Circle the Sage strategy could be an effective strategy in teaching

grammar especially conditional sentence type 2. It can be stated that way

 because the result of the research shows that the students who were taught

using Circle the Sage strategy gained significantly better achievement than

those who were taught using conventional teaching strategy. The students

who were taught using Circle the Sage strategy gained 13.45% from 74.71

to 88.16, while those who were taught using conventional teaching

strategy only gained 3.85% from 77.35 to 81.18. According to the t-test,

both control group and experimental group were considered equal before

the treatment, but they had significant different result after the treatment. It

was proven by the result of the pre-tests which had insignificant difference

and the result of the post-tests which had significant difference. Therefore,

it strengthens the premise that Circle the Sage strategy is an effective way

in teaching grammar, especially conditional sentence type 2. The test of

significance also shows that the t-value (6.081) is higher than the t-table

(2.0483). It emphasizes that Circle the Sage strategy is an effective way to

teach grammar especially conditional sentence type 2.

 By applying Circle the Sage strategy, the students were more enthusiastic

in learning. They more enjoyed the learning process since they were given

chance to actively interact each other and shared what they knew about the

material. Besides, Circle the Sage strategy made the students more

motivated to learn because they were arranged to teach each other and

discuss in a team.
5.2. Suggestion

Based on the result of the experiment, I would like to offer some suggestions

concerning about English learning, specifically grammar learning.

 English teacher should have various ways in teaching grammar so that the

learning process will not be boring.

 English teacher should make the learning process student-centered so that the

students will be more active in learning. Teacher should only be the facilitator

and the guide for the students when they get barrier in the learning process.

Students should be given sufficient chance to explore themselves in learning

process.

 Teacher can use various structures of cooperative learning which fit the

teaching situation. One of them has been proven effective in this research.

 Further research is needed to obtain the better strategies to teach English,

particularly its grammar points.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, C.B. 2005. Some Ideas for Teaching Grammar More Effectively in an EFL
Context. Indonesian Journal for English Language Teaching (October 2005,
Volume 1, Number 2). Retrieved from
http://indonesianjelt.org/com_download.php?file=pdf_51.pdf [accessed on
07/06/2011]
Al-Mekhlafi, Abdu M. 2011. Difficulties in Teaching and Learning Grammar In
An EFL Context. International Journal of Instruction. Retrieved from
http://www.e-iji.net/dosyalar/iji_2011_2_5.pdf [accessed on 07/04/2011]

Arikunto, S. 2006. Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktek (6th Ed).

Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Azar, Betty Schrampfer.1989.Understanding and Using English Grammar (2nd

Ed).New Jersey:Prentice Hall regents.

Ball, Jessica. 2000. Learning Cooperative Learning Via Cooperative

Learning.Canada: University of Victoria.

Best, J. W. 1981. Education in Research (4th.Ed). New York: Prentice-hall, Inc.

Brown, D.J. 1998. Understanding Researches in Second Language Learning.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, H. D. 2000. Principles Language Learning and Teaching. San Francisco:

Longman Inc.

Brown, H.D. 2004. Language Assesment Principles and Classroom Practices.

United States of America. Pearson Education.

Creswell, J. W. 2003. Research Design, Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed

Methods Approaches (2nd Edition). California: Sage Publication.

Ellis, Rodd. 2000. Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Frank, Marcella. 1972. Modern English. New Jersey: Prentice Hall INC.

George, Jacobs. (nd). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Principles, and

Techniques.Online. Retrieved from
www.georgrjacobs.net/cooperative_learning.php [accessed on 03/23/2011]
Gerot, L. and P. Wignel. 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Australia:
Antepodean Educational Enterprises.

Givon, T. 1995. Functionalism and Grammar. Philadelphia. John Benjamins

Publishing Company.
Harris, D.P. 1969. Testing English as a Second Language. New York : McGraw-
Hill
Hornby, A.S. 1974. Guide to Pattern and Usage in English. London: ELBS and
Oxford University Press.
Jacobs, George. (n.d). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Principles, and Techniques.
JF New Paradigm Education. Retrieved from www.georgejacobs.net
[accessed on 07/01/2001]

Johnson, Roger. (n.d). Cooperative Learning. Retrieved from

http://www.clcrc.com/pages/cl.html[accessed on 03/23/2011]

Kagan, S.1985. Cooperative Learning Resources for Teachers. Riverside, CA:

University of California at riverside.

Kagan, Spencer.2001. Reseach and Rationale. Retrieved from

http://www.kaganonline.com/free_articles/dr_spencer_kagan/research_rationa
le.php [accessed on 03/23/2011]

Kagan, Spencer. 2001. Kagan Structures for Emotional Intelligence. Kagan

Online Magazine 4(4). Retrieved from
http://www.kaganonline.com/Newsletter/index.html [accessed on 07/06/2011]

Kagan, Spencer . 2003. A Brief History of Kagan Structure. Retrieved from

http://www.kaganonline.com/free_articles/dr_spencer_kagan/ASK20.php
[accessed on 03/23/2011]

Kagan, Spencer. 2008. Kagan Structures Simply Put. Retrieved from

http://www.kaganonline.com/free_articles/dr_spencer_kagan/ASK38.php
[accessed on 03/23/2011]

Kagan, Spencer. (nd). The Structural Approach to Cooperative Learning.

Retrieved from
http://faculty.brenau.edu/rchristian/Courses/Articles/CoopStruct.pdf [accessed
on 07/06/2011]

Leech, G., M. Deuchar, and R. Hoogenraad. 1986. English Grammar for Today.
London: Macmillan Education LTD.
Margono. 2000. MetodologiPenelitian Pendidikan. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Meizaliana. 2009. Teaching structure through games to the Students of MAN 1

Kepahiang, Bengkulu. Magister Sastra Universitas Diponegoro. Unpublished
Thesis.

Ramelan.1992. Introduction to Linguistics Analysis. Semarang: IKIP Semarang

Press

Saleh, Mursid. 2001. Prosedur Penelitian Bahasa. Semarang: IKIP Semarang

Press.

Santoso, Singgih. 2008. Panduan Lengkap Menguasai SPSS 16. Jakarta : Elex
Media Komputindo.
Seng, Tok Hoon. 2006. Cooperative Learning and Achievement in English
Language Acquisition in a Literature Class in a Secondary School. University
of Technology Malaysia. Retrieved from
http://www.bu.ac.th/knowledgecenter/epaper/july_dec2005/saovapa.pdf
[accessed on 07/06/2011]

Sharon, S and Y. Sharon. 1992. Group Investigation: Expanding Cooperative

Learning. New York: Teacher‟s College Press.

Slavin, Robert E. 1983. When Does Cooperative Learning Increase Students'

Achievement. Psychological Bulletin, (429-445).

Slavin, Robert E. 1991. Synthesis of Research on Cooperative Learning.

Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_199102_slavin.pdf
[accessed on 07/06/2011]

Tim MGMP Bahasa Inggris. 2009.A New Approach to Learn English (Revised
Ed.). Bandung: Berhikmad Untuk Ilmu

Tsailing, Liang. 2002. Implementing Cooperative Learning in EFL Teaching:

Process and Effect. Asian EFL Journal. Retrieved from http://www.asian-efl-
journal.com/Thesis_Liang_Tsailing.pdf [accessed on 07/06/2011]
Wechadee, S. (nd). The Effects of Cooperative Learning on English Reading
Skills and Attitudes of the First-Year Students at Bangkok University.
Bangkok University. Retrieved from
http://www.bu.ac.th/knowledgecenter/epaper/july_dec2005/saovapa.pdf
[accessed on 07/06/2011]
Widodo, H.P. 2006. Approaches and Procedures for Teaching Grammar. English
Teaching: Practice and Critique (May 2006, Volume 5, Number 1). Retrieved
from
http://eslboard.3web.me/Tips%20%26%20methodology/teaching%20gramma
r.pdf [accessed on 07/06/2011]