TASK-BASED LEARNING APPROACH IN ACTION: READING FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES CLASS (A Result of Classroom Action Research)

by

Noer Doddy Irmawati, Dr.

Ahmad Dahlan University Yogyakarta

ABSTRACT

English achievement of the students of Faculty of Letters Ahmad Dahlan University Yogyakarta is low. The indicator is the English ability of the students, because English has an important role as an International language in the world. Besides the result of learning RAP of the students shows in average scores of 56-65 (C). The problems which are discussed in this research are: 1) the effort of how to improve the achievement of RAP by using TBL and 2) the evidence that shows as the English achievement of the students in studying RAP. TBL, which is used in the treatment is done into 3 cycles: the first cycle has been done by 4 meetings, the second cycle has been done by 4 meetings, and the third cycle has been done by 4 meetings. All the teaching–learning process of RAP is done by collaboration and creativity in preparing materials.

It is a result of CAR which is done in Reading Class A Faculty of Letters UAD Yogyakarta from June up to December 2008. There are planning, preventative steps of performance, observation, and reflection. The data are taken from the real condition that the result of learning process of RAP of the students is low. To get the data the researcher does an observation, an interview, besides asking the students to fulfilling the form, giving test, and analyzing document. Data validity investigation technique which is used in this research is Data Resource Triangulation and Method Triangulation. Informant Review is also used in Data Validity Test. Reliability Estimation to guarantee the reliability of Data are found by Test and Observation. To analyze the data the researcher uses the result of observation that is reflected and the learning result of the students that is achievement. The technique of analyzing the data is Descriptive Statistic Technique and Critical Analysis to know the improvement of the situation in detail and precisely according to the improving of the treatment in each cycle that is the improvement of the 1st, the 2nd, and the 3rd cycles.

After having the preventative steps of performance by using TBL in RAP which have been done in the first, in the second, and in the third cycles, there is a significant result. It shows that more than 75% of the students who have got good grade with more than 65 scores. There are 20 of 27 students get good scores: 10 students (37,04%) get the score between 66-79 (B); and 12 students (44,44%) get the score between 80-88 (A), and 5 students (18,52%) get C (56-65). It means that there is a significant improvement of English achievement by using TBL in teaching RAP. The Affective Aspect and the Psychomotor Aspect are also significantly increased, because according to the result of Paired Sample Test, the correlation significant shows below 0,05 (<0,05). The Evaluation Result of TBL Implementation of the 1st Cycle, the 2nd Cycle, and the 3rd Cycle show significantly increased. From 28 Items of the Instrument, the total scale shows in the average 3,36 (1st cycle), 4,29 (2nd cycle), and 4,71 (3rd cycle). The Observation Result of TBL Implementation shows increased, it is proven by the total scale in the average 4,36 (1st cycle), 4,5 (2nd cycle), and 4,79 (3rd cycle). It shows that the

using of TBL is successfully succeed and it can increase the achievement of RAP of the students. The significantly increased of the achievement is approved by the Result of Learning Process of the students from the 1st up to the 3rd cycle. The improvement of Cognitive Aspect is shown by the result of the test (Pre-Test and Post-Test) that shown: 1st cycle is in the average of 67,41 and 75,22. The 2nd cycle is 72,41 and 76,27. The 3rd cycle shows The result of Pre-Test is 76,62 and Post-Test is 85,30. It means that there is a significant achievement of the ability of students in RAP by using TBL.

Key Words: TBL = Task-Based Learning, RAP = Reading for Academic Purposes, CAR = Class Action Research, UAD = Ahmad Dahlan University

INTRODUCTION

In English Department Faculty of Letters Ahmad Dahlan University Yogyakarta, Reading is a compulsory subject that must be followed by the students from the first semester up to the fifth semester. The purpose of this subject is that the students have the reading for academic purposes (RAP) ability and communicative ability. It means that they have to master the aspect of RAP, the aspect of English: vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation, and the ability on speaking, listening, reading, and writing. This communicative ability is very important in the term of working and studying. In related to the job, there is no opportunity without English as the requirements, it is also for study’s necessity. All applications must be completed by English competence, actively or passively. In related to the study in the university, English communicative ability is very important because students are faced by many sources/books written in English.

The purpose of studying Reading is that the students are mastering the four abilities in English: speaking, listening, reading, and writing, especially RAP. The emphasize is on RAP because in studying Reading, English has an important role as long as the students study in English Letters Department Faculty of Letters UAD Yogyakarta. The most important role is reading because they have to understand some references which are written in English. RAP is different from reading in general, because in understanding the information from reading some references, students need to master

reading ability in high level such as to write Paraphrase, Summary, Generalizations, Hypotheses, Transcoding, etc. In related to this statement, Halliday and Hasan (1976: 226-267) said that:

RAP is an advanced course in reading designed to help tertiary-level students familiarize themselves with particular aspects of academic reading such as definitions, generalizations, hypotheses, claims, and evidence. In addition, it familiarizes students with certain aspects of academic discourse. These include syntactic sequences and words that are frequently used in academic discourse, especially sentence-initial grammatical sequences such as: This study attempts to .., The findings of this study state that …, and there is considerable evidence to support that …, and logical connectors and conjunction.

The real condition shows that the achievement of Reading is low. The average

score of the students shows in 2,431=C+ (AY.2005/2006), 2,937=C+ (AY.2006/ 2007), and 3,126=B (AY.2007/2008). It is caused by five factors, they are (1) the low of input quality, (2) the weakness of English basic ability, (3) the un-relevan syllabus, (4) the conventional of method of teaching and learning, and (5) the difficult of students’ attitude toward English. The following is the exposition of each factor.

The first factor is the low input quality of the students. According to the result of selection test when they enter the university is low. They get the score between 55-64 from the scale of 100. Score in between 55-64 is not enough to be used to improve the ability of English especially the ability of RAP.

The second factor is the low of basic ability of students toward English. Based on class observation it can be found that there are many students who make mistake in their basic stucture such as in the using of to be (is, are, am), pronoun (I, me, us/he, his, him/she, her, hers/they, them, their). They are also weak in arranging simple English sentences. It may also be the effect of their study in Junior and Senior High Schools.

The third factor is the un-relevan syllabus. The syllabus is not relevan to the need of the students. Lecturer tends to teach by emphazising on the stucture and vocabulary rather than on the other aspect of English. If the teacher teach reading, the texts of

reading are taken from general English. The reading materials are not relevan to RAP. So that the teaching learning Reading in UAD is as the same as the process when the students learn in Senior and Junior High Schools. Actually there must be a course that relates to the university level which proves the need of the students.

The fourth factor is the conventional method of teaching and learning. According to the result of the discussion among lecturers, it can be seen that there are some methods used by them which are called conventional methods. Lecturers ask students to read some reading materials, to understand the vocabulary, to answer questions. They never ask students to read some academic reading materials and to be active in the classroom, so that the students become passive.

The fifth factor is the difficult of students’ attitude toward English. All students say that English is difficult. The following is the result of an interview with one of them, he says:

”Belajar bahasa Inggris itu susah Bu. Saya selalu takut kalau mau ngomong, saya merasa kurang menguasai kosakata, setiap saya ingat grammar dan structure batallah saya mengucapkan kalimat bahasa Inggris. Kalau sudah begitu Bu, yang ada hanya rasa bosan, malas, dan takut salah. Bagaimana ya Bu?”

Start from the reality, the fact, the problem and the causes, the writer purposes a solution, that is teaching RAP by TBL. According to Halliday and Hasan, RAP

“is an advanced course in reading designed to help tertiary-level students familiarize themselves with particular aspects of academic reading such as definitions, generalizations, hypotheses, and claims with or without evidence. In addition, it familiarizes students with certain aspects of academic discourse. These include syntactic sequences and words that are frequently used in academic discourse, especially sentence-initial grammatical sequences …” (1976: 226-267).

A course in RAP usually includes activities to help students consolidate academic language skills as well as activities to help them discover the main aspects in reading. The Aspects of Academic Reading in RAP is 1) Thesis sentence, 2) Main Idea, 3) Main Idea and supporting details, 4) Reference, 5) Inference/implication, 6) Comparison/

contrast, 7) Analogy/simile, 8) Definition, 9) Nonlinguistic Information, 10) Generalization, 11) Classification, 12) Description, 13) Hypothesis, 14) Claim + evidence, 15) Argument and its sequencing, 16) Writer’s approach/opinion/intention, 17) Textual Cohesion (Cunningsworth, 1984: 27) and (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 259).

Talking about TBL, Nunan said that TBL means:

a piece of classroom work which involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language while their attention is principally focused on meaning rather than form. The task should also have a sense of completeness, being able to stand alone as a communicative act in its own right (1989a:10).

His definition consists of pedagogy perspective. Task is followed by the using of communicative language and the activities tent to the meaning than to the form of the language. Further, Nunan (2004: 3,9) said:

“A pedagogical task is a piece of classroom work that involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language while their attention is focused on mobilizing their grammatical knowledge in order to express meaning, and in which the intension is to convey meaning rather than to manipulate form. The task can develop skills and strategies for using language to communicate meaning as effectively as possible in concrete situasions. It can improve the ability of the students in comprehending as high a degree as possible of linguistic competence”.

Richards, Platt, dan Weber (1986: 289) said that task is:

“an activity or action, which is carried out as the result of processing or understanding language (i.e. as a response). For example: drawing a map while listening to a tape, listening to an instruction and performing a command, may be referred to as tasks. Tasks may or may not involve the production of language. A task usually requires the teacher to specify what will be regarded as successful completion of the task”.

Task in this case relates to task which is given to the students and it must be done

during the activity in the classroom. Every task is followed by the activity to produce outcome or product.

Breen (1987: 23) said that task is:

“… any structured language learning endeavor which has a particular objective, appropriate content, a specified working procedure, and a range of outcomes for those who undertake the task, ‘Task’ is therefore assumed to refer to a range of work plans

which have the overall purpose of facilitating language learning – from the simple and brief exercise type, to more complex and lengthy activities such as group problemsolving or simulations a decision making”.

In related to TBL, Mark McKinnon dan Nicky Rigby (http://www. onestopenglish. com_taskbased.htm/p.1) said that:

“Task-based learning offers the students an opportunity to do exactly this. The primary focus of classroom activity is the task and language is the instrument which the students use to complete it. The task is an activity in which students use language to achieve a specific outcome. The activity reflects real life and learner’s focus on meaning, they are free to use any language they want”.

Krashen (http://www.onestopenglish.com_taskbased.htm/p.2) said that:

… in the task-based lessons included below our aim is to create a need to learning and using language. The tasks will generate their own language and create an opportunity for language acquisition. If we can take the focus away from form and structures we can develop our students’ ability to do things in English. That is not to say that there will be no attention paid to accuracy, work on language is included in each task and feedback and language focus have their places in the lesson plans.

Scrivener classifies the way of learning using TBL is as an authentic (asli) followed by a structure of task/penugasan which is proposed by Willis (http://www.onestopenglish.com_taskbased.htm/p.2). Every task will be conducted by: (1) Pre-task activity an introduction to topic and task, maksudnya diberikan tugas awal sebagai perkenalan terhadap topik dan task; (2) Task cycle: Task > Planning > Report; dan (3) Language Focus and Feedback. So the balance between the smoothness toward the task given and the accuracy toward the feedback of the given task must be noticed.

A task is an activity which suggests and asks students to use the language with the emphazise on the meaning to get the aim or the purpose (Bygate, Skehan, dan Swain, 2001: 11). From the teaching—learning point of view, a task is an activity, “susceptible to brief or extended pedagogic intervention”, which asks and motivates students to use the language actively.

TBL is used in this research because TBL can make students using English to do tasks which are given by the lecturers. By using TBL, language input can be intensive.

TBL here follows meaningful principle that learning will improve if the subject is relevan to the need of the students. Beside that, by using TBL, students will actively involve in the process of learning, because they have to finish the tasks given. They will do the tasks in groups or individually. By using the language actively the improvement of achievement of reading for academic purposes of the students will increase.

Task is given to the students by means of treatment into three cycles. Each cycle has four meetings. In giving the task there is an activity that should be done by the students. Task, which is given to the students will notice three aspects: (1) fluency, (2) accuracy, and (3) complexity. TBL consists of classifying, predicting, inducing, taking note, concept mapping, questioning, personalizing, brainstorming, reflecting, and authentic assessment.

Students, in doing the tasks are claimed by active participation, diligent, hardworking, able to communicate, brave to propose opinion, and brave to speak English. The more serious of the students in doing the tasks, the more active they use the language. All the activities give influence to the students in improving the ability of RAP in the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor aspects.

The result of this research will be benefit for the students, the lecturers, and the department. The using of TBL can solve some problems of teaching–learning English especially RAP. It can be used to improve the ability of the students in RAP and to improve the ability in listening, speaking, and writing skills. TBL can improve the bravery of the students in learning English, especially in speaking. The improvement of the ability in RAP means the improvement of the other skills in English. TBL can be used as an alternative model in teaching–learning English. TBL can be used as a mean in overcoming the problems of learning English especially in improvement the achievement of reading skill such as in RAP.

METHODOLOGY

This research is a classroom action research (CAR) which aims to find the solution of the problems in education and teaching in the classroom/field. CAR is used to improve the quality of teaching–learning that is the reading achievement by using tasks-based learning (TBL). The plot of the research follows the action research spiral model of Kemmis and Mc Taggart (1990: 11), which consists of four processes: planning, acting, observing, and reflecting.

The focus of this research is the effort to change the real condition in this time to the prospect condition by recycling principle. The action of the research is done by following three cycles which consists of four meetings for each. Every cycle using evaluation and reflection to find the specialty and the weakness that can be used as the base solution of the following action in the following cycle. Beside that naturalistic approach using participant-observation from the ethnography is also used followed by collaborative, and case methodology characteristics (Belanger, 1992: 37).

CAR has three characteristics, they are beginning, process from cycle to cycle up to the end, in order that there will be the sight effects. The essence of CAR is solving the problems faced in the teaching–learning process and to repair/to correct the system, in order there is some changes, such as improving the low reading achievement of the students of English Letters Department Faculty of Letters Ahmad Dahlan University Yogyakarta.

This research is CAR which has three cycles as a whole consists of analysis, fact findings, conceptualize, planning, acting, fact finding addition, evaluating, and reflecting as Sanford (1970: 4) said that:

”Analysis, fact finding, conceptualization, planning, execution, more fact finding or evaluation; and then verification of this whole circle or activities; indeed, a spiral of such circles”.

The method of this research is chosen based on Problems and Purpose of this research which demand some informations and the following action based on recycle principle. It needs others opinion and some reflections that can be used to repair/to correct the teaching–learning process in the classroom.

This research is done in English Letters Department Faculty of Letters Ahmad Dahlan University Jln. Pramuka No. 42 Yogyakarta, Indonesia. It is done from August 2005 up to July 2009. It means that the researcher starts the research from academic year 2005/2006, because she takes the data of the research start at that time.

The subject of this research is the students of English Letters Department Faculty of Letters Ahmad Dahlan University Yogyakarta, Class A = 27 students, who have some different backgound. They come from different part of Indonesia.

The researcher is helped by some English lecturers, partner, observer, the Head of the department, administration laborers, and the Dean of the Faculty, who work together in this research start from doing the planning, acting, observing, and reflecting from the first cycle up to the third cycle by four meetings each. Steps of the Research: 1) Preparation, 2) Planning, 3) Acting, 4) Observing, and 5) Reflecting.

The data of this research are Quantitative ang qualitative. The quantitative data are taken from test result, pre-test of the first cycle, the second cycle, and the trird cycle. While the qualitative data are taken from the attitude of the students and the learning intensity. The source of the data is from event, informants, and documents. Event means the process of teaching–learning academic reading by using TBL. Informants here are the students, the lecturers, observer, the Head of the department, the Dean of Faculty of Letters, and the administration laborers. While the docoments are taken from the last score, sheet of paper, administration of the faculty, students’ work/paper, teachig materials, and syllabus.

To get the data of this research the researcher uses observation which is done during the teaching–learning process in the class (12 times); interview which is given to 2 lecturers, 5 students, the Head of the Department, 2 administration laborers; questionaire is given to the students before and after the actions given; test (pre-test and post-test) and document is used to get the data of Reading achievement of the students.

Techniques of data validity which are used in this research are participation which is done by twelve times meetings in three cycles toward the teaching–learning process, nine times interview with the lecturers, three times interview with the Head of the Department, six times interview with the students; persistence observation which is reflected in the field note which portrait the phenomenon and objective condition in the field of teaching–learning process; trianggulation which is used in this research is investigation triangulation, data source triangulation and data collecting method triangulation; key informant review which is done unformally without schedule; validity: democratic validity, process validity, outcome validity, catalytic validity and dialogic validity; and reliability which supports the validity.

Descriptive statistic (for the quantitative data) and critical analysis (for the qualitative data) are used in this research. Descriptive is used to describe the reading achievement in every stage of each cycle. While statistic is used to scratch the central tendency, so the Mean (M), Median (Md), Modus (Mo), and principal informal/simpangan baku (SB) will be found. Critical analysis is done by comparing the reality in the field of teaching–learning process with the relevant and suitable theories in order that every mistake can be found.

Working Indicator in this research is the result of evaluation and the succeed assessment of the action. Analysis result and interpretation of doing the action become

the basic of doing the evaluation, determining the succeed or reaching the purpose of the action.

The evaluation step is 1) Teaching–learning implementation and evaluation of every action, 2) Evaluation which is done to know the result of the study before and after the action. Based on the result of the evaluation, modification and well planned of the following cycle are done, 3) The last step is post-action consists of arranging the last draft of the result of the research, final arrangement, copying the paper, seminar the result of the research, and revising the report.

The success of this action research can be seen from the result of teaching– learning process before and after the action given. The changing of learning condition is definited by a clear criteria. There are two kinds of criteria: normative and absolute. The success of this research using normative criteria which consists of 1) Giving intention toward the quality improvement of teaching–learning after the action that is comparing the learning process quality before and after the actions. If after the action, 75% of the students show the good criteria as the same as the indicator, the students are more active and skillful in following the teaching–learning, means that the action is done successfully, 2) Giving meaning to the improvement of the students achievement after the treatment by comparing the improvement of reading achievement and with the minimal standard which is fixed (66). If the result of the achievement above the standard, so it shows that the action is successfully done.

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

A. Research Findings

ASPECTS

1st Cycle

2nd Cycle

3rd Cycle

1. The result of the application of TBL to RAP

Academic Reading Achievement improves 7,81 point (Pre-Test 67,41 Post-Test 75,22)

Academic Reading Achievement improves 3,86 point (Pre-Test 72,41 Post-Test 76,27), to achieve B level.

Academic Reading Achievement improves 8,68 point (Pre-Test 76,62 Post-Test 85,30)

2. The stage of Students’ Learning Intensity

The attitude of the students becomes better, such as in their performance, responsibility, leadership toward the improvement of Academic Reading Achievement.

Beside what is reached in the 1st cycle, there are some improvements in the other dimensions: understanding the aspects of RAP, the ability of collaboration , cooperation, socialization, and language aspects.

It is added by the improvement of other dimensions, such as: sharing ideas & opinion, giving suggestion, discipline, to appreciate time, own self, and others.

3.Specialty/Benefit

TBL can be used in Improving Reading for Academic Achievement, Understanding the aspect of RAP & Language.

TBL can be used in Improving other dimensions, such as: English Speaking ability, professionalism & Motivation.

TBL can be used as a means in emotional therapy which will give effect to correct the condition & situation of the success of teaching learning process.

4. Weaknesses

All targets of mastering the aspects of RAP and Language could not be reached yet.

There is pro-contra from the students because of their different opinion when they study RAP.

There is still influence upon their bad habits, feeling ashamed, afraid and confused in learning RAP.

5. The way to solve the weaknesses

Improving self discipline, good communication, hard working, and their responsibility in the process of teaching learning. RAP.

Equalizing perception, opinion, and understanding toward the teaching learning RAP by using TBL.

Trying hard to change the bad habits to be better, to avoid ashamed, afraid, and lazy in learning RAP by using TBL. .

B.


Discussion


CAR is done in English Letters Department Faculty of Letters Ahmad Dahlan University Yogyakarta, Jln. Pramuka No. 42. The students are from class A, consist of 27 students with different background. They come from several places and cities around Java and Indonesia.

TBL is applied in teaching RAP. The purpose is to increase the reading achievement of the students. Beside that, the researcher wants to know the students’ intensity toward their study while the lecturer teaches them using TBL. Another aspects to be found: the specialty and the weaknesses of TBL which are implemented in teaching RAP. Based on TBL, students are brought to the reality in facing the real condition, the obstacles, creating the activity and active participation to the process of teaching–learning.

TBL is implemented to the 1st cycle, 2nd cycle, and 3rd cycle with four times meeting for each cycle. It is evaluated by using process evaluation, authentic assesment to the result of teaching–learning process. The result of Cognitive aspect, Affective aspect, and Psychomotoric aspect show that there is a significance improvement. In the process of teaching–learning shows that there is improvement in some aspects such as: students’ interest in studying, students’ participation in the group discussion, communication ability, English speaking ability, their bravery in sharing idea, their seriousness, time allotment, effective and efficient in their study. Students’ learning result is also increase which is shown by the result of the tests (pre-test and post-test).

TBL is done in Classroom Action Research by three cycles and 12 meetings, which can be discussed as follow:

  • 1.    The First Cycle

It was happened in the classroom on Tuesday, February 19th 2009 at 10.30–12.00.

Pre-test (60 minutes) was given to the students who followed reading subject. It was continued by giving explanation about the subject given. The second meeting was on Tuesday, February 26th 2009 at 10.30–12.00. The third meeting was on Tuesday, March 4th 2009 at 10.30–12.00. The fourth meeting happened on Tuesday, 11th March 2009 at 10.30–12.00 with the post-test.

The result of the test showed that the Mean score of 27 students was in the average of 47.26. XY correlation = 0.27. SB = 7.47. Reliability Test = 0.42. The material of the test was said to be valid and reliable.

The action in the first cycle was based on the criteria which were prepared in this research. It showed that the result of the observation was in between 3–4, meant that it was fine. The average score was 3,36. The result of TBL observation was in the average score 4,36 so it was good.

The material of the subject which was given to the students: introduction, the explanation of TBL, RAP, the purpose of studying reading by using TBL, the important of group discussion, some reading materials which were taken from reading sources. The concentration of the reading was on the aspect of main idea, main idea and supporting details, inference, reference.

The process evaluation of Affective aspect of Cycle one, the average result of 27 students showed: scale 3,68 for item of students’ interest in the group, scale 3,46 for item of students’ participation in the group, scale 3,05 for item of Communication ability, and the braveness of sharing idea was in the average scale 2,97. It could be concluded that the learning result of Affective aspect was in the fine criteria.

The evaluation of learning process of Psychomotoric aspect of cycle one. There were four items that were scored: The skill of using tools was in the average scale of 3,68; Serious in Study and Work was in the scale of 3,46; Using the time effectively was in the average score of 3,05; Working together was in the average score of 2,97. The conclusion is that the learning result of Psychomotoric aspect of the first cycle is in the fine criteria.

  • 2.    The Second Cycle

The material of the test was already prepared. It was given in the classroom on Tuesday, March 18th 2009 at 10.30–12.00. Pre-test (60 minutes) was given to the students who followed reading subject. It was continued by giving explanation about the subject given. The second meeting was on Tuesday, April 22nd 2009 at 10.30–12.00. The third meeting was on Tuesday, April 29th 2009 at 10.30–12.00. The fourth meeting was given on Tuesday, 6th May 2009 at 10.30–12.00 with the post-test.

The observation result of the 2nd action showed at the average scale 4,36. The result of evaluation was 4,29. Both of them were in between 4–5, so it was good. The material of teaching–learning subject is texts consist of aspects of comparison and contrast, analogy and simile, definition, and generalization.

The authentic assesment of cognitive aspect showed the lower score was 54 and the high score was 82. Total score for 27 students was 1956 with the average score 72,41 (B). While the final test showed that the lower score was 56 and the high score was 80. The total score for 27 students was 2059 with the average score 76,27 (B). It showed that there was an improvement of the students’ reading achievement.

The learning result of affective aspect showed the average score of students’ attention toward the learning was in the scale 3,97; for Students’ participation in the group was in the score 3,38; for communication ability and sharing ideas were in the

score 3,59. It means that the result is in the good position. It shows there is a significant improvement.

The psychomotoric aspect showed the average score of: The skill of using tools was 4; Serious in Study & Work was 3,97; Using the time effectively was 3,05; working together was 3,59. The conclusion is that the learning result of Psychomotoric aspect of the second cycle is in the good criteria. There is a good improvement.

  • 3.    The Third Cycle

It was happened in the classroom on Tuesday, May 13th 2009 at 10.30–12.00.

Pre-test (60 minutes) was given to the students who followed reading subject. It was continued by giving explanation about the subject given. The second meeting is on Tuesday, May 27th 2009 at 10.30–12.00. The third meeting was on Tuesday, June 3rd 2009 at 10.30–12.00. The fourth meeting happened on Tuesday, 10th June 2009 at 10.30–12.00 with the post-test.

The action in the third cycle was based on the criteria which were prepared in this research. It showed that the result of the observation was in between 4–5, meant that it was good. The average score was 4,71. The result of TBL observation was in the average score 4,79 so it was very good. TBL improved the students’ reading achievement.

The material of the subject which was given to the students: Classification, Description, Hypothesis, Claim and Evidence, Argument and Its Sequencing, Textual Cohesion, dan Writer’s approach/opinion/intention.

The authentic assesment of cognitive aspect showed the lower score was 54 and the high score was 86. Total score for 27 students was 2069 with the average score 76,62 (B). While the final test showed that the lower score was 56 and the high score was 88. The total score for 27 students was 2303 with the average score 85,30 (A). It showed that there was a significant improvement of the students’ reading achievement.

The process evaluation of Affective aspect of Cycle three, the average result of 27 students shows: scale 4,46 for item of students’ interest in the group, scale 4,24 for item of students’ participation in the group, scale 3,95 for item Communication ability, and the braveness of sharing idea is in the average scale 3,81. It can be concluded that the learning result of Affective aspect is in the very good criteria.

The psychomotoric aspect shows the average score of: The skill of using tools is 4,46; Serious in Study & Work is 4,24; using the time effectively is 3,95; working together is 3,81. The conclusion is that the learning result of Psychomotoric aspect of the third cycle is in the exellent criteria. There is a significant and a good improvement.

CONCLUSION

The results show the application of TBL can improve the achievement of RAP of the students of English Letters Department of Faculty of Letters Ahmad Dahlan University Yogyakarta in some aspects and dimensions, such as 1) aspects of reading ability, 2) aspects of RAP, and 3) aspects of English: vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation, and improving the dimensions of 1) attitude, 2) professionalism, 3) motivation and interest, 4) communication, 5) ability of cooperation, collaboration, socialization, sharing ideas, opinion, and suggestion, 6) discipline and timing value ability, 7) reading analysis ability, 8) TBL and its processes can be used as an emotional medium.

How far is the improvement can be described as follow: the result of pre-test increased (1st cycle is 67,41, 2nd cycle is 72,41, and 3rd cycle is 76,62) and the result of post-test increased (1st cycle is 75,22, 2nd cycle is 76,27, and 3rd cycle is 85,30).

The result of learning also increased, Cognitive aspect is 89,19% (23 of 27

students got the score above 66). Affective aspect is also 89,19%. Psychomotoric aspect

is 91,89% (24 students got good score above 4).

The improvement of students learning intensity such as: 1) students interest in learning English, 2) learning enthusiasm, 3) responsibility toward doing the tasks, 4) learning result on cognitive, affective, and psychomotoric aspects, 5) speaking effort in English, 6) using time effectively, 7) professionalism awareness, 8) social attitude and socialization, 9) leadership, model, and moral value.

The weaknesses can be described that: 1) it needs a long time, 2) it must be done at the moment together, 3) the result of doing the tasks must be collected at the same time together, 4) it can make the weak students become lazy, bored, desperate, and mysterious passenger of success, 5) task is not well and right done, 6) all the answers are not well discussed, 7) egoism makes others emotional, 8) the use of dictionary confiscates learning time, 9) the difficulty of sharing idea becomes discussion blocks, (10) feeling ashamed becomes communication blocks, 11) it can make a bad atmosphere and the condition of teaching – learning process is not so relax.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Babbage, R., Byers, R., & Redding, H. 1999. Approaches to Teaching and Learning. London: David Fulton Publisher.

Bower, Gordon H. & Hilgard, Ernest R. 1994. Theories of Learning. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Brennan, Robert L. (Editor). 2006. Educational Measurement (Fourth Edition). USA: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.

Brown, H. Douglas. 2001. Teaching by Principles. An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Second Edition. New York: A.W. Longman, Inc.

Bygate, M; Skehan, P; and Swain, M. 2001. Introduction. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, and M. Swain (Eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks (pp.1-20). Harlow: Pearson Education.

Burns, A. 1999. Collaborative Action Research for English Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carroll, J. B. 1993. Human Cognitive Abilities. New York: Cambridge.

Crookes, G. 1986. Task Classification: a Cross-disciplinary Review. Technical Report No. 4, Department of ESL, University of Hawai at Manoa.

Cunningsworth. 1984. Evaluating and Selecting EFL Teaching Materials. London: Heinemann.

Ellis, R. 2000. Task-based Research and Language Pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 193-220.

Farrell, Thomas S. C. 2002. Planning Lessons for a Reading Class. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

Galton. Dkk. Classroom Management. Diakses pada tanggal 27 Juni 2005 dari http://osi.fsn.edu/waveseries/htmlversions/wave11.htm

Grellet. 1981. Academic Reading – an alternative (p.14-16). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Halliday and R. Hasan. 1976. Reading for Academic Purposes (p.226-267). London: Cambridge University Press.

Kemmis, S. and Mc Taggart, R. 1988. The Action Research Planner. Third Edition. Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Landsheere, Viviane De. 1977. Evaluation in Education, International Progress – An International Review-Series. Oxford, New York: Pergamon Press.

Lazear, David. 1991. Seven Ways of Teaching. The Artistry of Teaching with Multiple Intelligence. Australia: Hawker Brownlow Education.

Long, M. H. 1983b. Native Speaker / Non-native Speaker Conversation in the Second Language Classroom. In M. A. Clarke & J. Handscombe (Eds.), On Tesol '82: Pacific Perspectives on Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 207-228). Washington D. C.: Tesol.

. 1985a. A Role for Instruction in Second Language Acquisition: Task-Based Language Teaching. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and Assessing Second Language Acquisition (pp.77-99). Avon: Multilingual Matters.

Martyn. 1996. The Effect of Task Variables. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McKinnon, Mark & Nicky Rigby. 2005. Task-Based Learning (methodology plus).

Tersedia pada http://www.onestopenglish.com/news/magazine/Archive/elt_ taskbased.htm Diakses pada tanggal 22 Mei 2005.

Mikulecky, Beatrice S. & Linda Jeffries. 1997. Basic Reading Power: Pleasure Reading, Comprehension Skills, Vocabulary Building, Thinking Skills. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Miles, M.B & Huberman, A.M. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publication.

Nunan, D. 1989a. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.

. 2004. Task-Based Language Teaching. A comprehensively revised edition of Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. 1993. Choosing and Using Communication Tasks for Second Language Instruction. In G. Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice (pp. 9-34). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

Porter. 1983. Effects of Tasks on Language Production. New York: Prentice Hall.

Richards, Jack C. dan Rogers, Theodore S. 1997. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Robinson. 1995. The Type of Tasks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sanford. 1970. Concept of Evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Scrivener. 2005. Task-Based Learning (methodology plus). Tersedia pada http//www.onestopenglish.com/news/magazine/Archive/taskbased.htm. Diakses pada tanggal 13 September 2005.

Skehan, P. 1996. A Framework for the Implementation of Task-Based Instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38-62. London: Longman.

Taggart, McRobin. 1991. Action Research a Short Modern History. Gelong Victoria Australia 3217: Deakin University Press.

Thomas, R.M. 1974. Evaluation the Teaching Materials in Use, Course for Writers of InstructionalDesign. New York: McGraw-Hill Books, Co.,Inc.

Wallace, J.M. 1998. Action Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Willis, Jane. 1996. A Framework for Task-Based Learning. Tersedia pada http//www.onestopenglish.com/news/magazine/Archive/taskbased.htm. Diakses pada tanggal 12 September 2005.

Yin, Robert K. 1987. Case Study Research: Design and Method. London: Sage Publication.

21