A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN STUDENTS WITH SANGUINE AND PHLEGMATIC PERSONALITY ON THEIR ACHIEVEMENT IN SPEAKING SKILL (A Survey Study at the Seventh Semester of English Education Department UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta)
By Arina Muntazah NIM. 108014000067
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATION FACULTY OF TARBIYAH AND TEACHERS’ TRAINING SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY JAKARTA 2015
ABSTRACT ARINA MUNTAZAH, 108014000067. A Comparative Analysis between Students with Sanguine and Phlegmatic Personality on Their Achievement in Speaking Skill; A Survey Study at the Seventh Semester of English Education Department UIN Jakarta. Skripsi of English Education Department, Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teachers’ Training, State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, 2015. This research is generally attempted to know and describe the difference between sanguine students and phlegmatic students in their achievement in speaking skill at the seventh semester of English Education Department UIN Jakarta. The method use in this research is quantitative research and comparative analysis technique. This research is started by collecting theory. After wards, giving the students personality test taken from standardized test by Florence Littauer, and then classifying the sanguine student and phlegmatic student. Then, after classifying students’ personality, the writer took the students last speaking score in fifth semester in order to design compare both students’ personality with their speaking score achievement. In analyzing the data, first step is finding average of sanguine and phlegmatic students’ speaking score and deviation standard to do homogeneity test. After doing homogeneity test, t-test is used to prove the significant data. And the last step to do is answering hypothesis of the research. The result of analysis data between variable X1 and X2 using t-test formula showed that the value of to (t-observation) was 1.71. In the t-table, score degree of freedom of 5% is 2.07 and score degree of freedom of 1% is 2.81. It can be concluded that to is lower than t-table (2.07 > 1.71 <2.81). Based on statistic calculation, it could be concluded that sanguine and phlegmatic students have no difference in English speaking skill achievement.
v
ABSTRAK ARINA MUNTAZAH, 108014000067. Analisis Perbandingan antara Siswa yang
Berkepribadaian
Sanguinis
dan
Plegmatis
dalam
Pencapaian
Ketrampilan Berbicara Mereka. Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Fakultas Ilmu Tarbiyah dan Keguruan, Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, 2015. Penelitian ini bertujuan mengetahui dan menjelaskan tentang perbedaan antara mahasiswa yang berkepribadian sanguinis dan mahasiswa yang berkepribadian plegmatis dalam pencapaian nilai ketrampilan berbicara mereka pada mahasiswa semester tujuh Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris UIN Jakarta. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode penelitian kuantitatif dan tehnik analisis perbandingan. Penelitian ini dimulai dengan mengumpulkan teori pendukung. Kemudian memberikan tes kepribadian kepada mahasiswa yang diambil dari tes standar personality oleh Florence Littauer, selanjutnya mahasiwa dikelompokan berdasarkan kecenderungan kepribadian sanguinis dan plegmatis. Setelah mahasiswa dikelompokan berdasarkan kepribadian sanguinis dan plegmatis, nilai akhir ketrampilan berbicara bahasa inggris mereka diambil untuk membandingkan perolehan nilai antara mahasiswa sanguinis dan plegmatis. Dalam menganalisis data, langkah pertama yaitu menemukan rata-rata nilai speaking dari mahasiswa sanguinis dan plegmatis dan standar deviasi untuk melakukan uji homogenitas. Setelah melakukan uji homogenitas, t-tes digunakan untuk membuktikan data yang signifikan. Dan langkah terakhir yang dilakukan yaitu menjawab hipotesis penelitian. Hasil analisis data dari kedua variable tersebut (variabel X1 dan X2) dengan menggunakan rumus t-test menunjukan bahwa nilai to adalah 1.71 dan tingkat kesalahan 5% adalah 2.07 dan tingkat kesalahan 1% adalah 2.81. Maka to lebih rendah disbanding dengan nilai t-table (2.07 > 1.71 <2.81). Berdasarkan hasil perhitungan statistik dapat disimpulkan bahwa mahasiswa sanguinis dan mahasiswa plegmatis tidak memiliki perbedaan pada pencapaian mereka dalam keterampilan berbicara
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENT In the name of Allah, the Beneficent the Most Merciful All praise is only for Allah, the Lord of the world, the Creator of everything in this universe, who has giving the blessing upon the researcher in finishing this research paper. Peace and blessing be upon to our beloved prophet Muhammad SAW, his families, companions, and all his followers. The researcher sends her best regard to her beloved parents H. Abunashir, BA and Hj. Farikha. They always give many things as in learning a lot of aspects in life in order to be better with their abundant loves and care including their helps during “skripsi” writing until she could finish her study at Department of English Education UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta. In this occasion, the gratitude is addressed to her advisors, Drs. Nasifuddin Jalil, M.Ag., and Zaharil Anasy, M.Hum., for their patiently guidance in development during the “skripsi” writing. There are many suggestions, valuable advices, constructive corrections and comments the researcher had got from them. Moreover, the researcher’s effort in doing this “skripsi” may not be separated from the involvement and contribution of others, so that the researcher would like to express her deep appreciation and gratitude to: 1.
Nurlena Rifa’I, M.A., Ph.D., the dean of Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teachers’ Training,
2.
The chairman of English Education Departmnet, Drs. Syauki, M.Pd. and his secretary, Zaharil Anasy, M.Hum., for their outstanding deducacy,
3.
All the honorable lectures who have taught her new knowledge and have given her gorgeous experiences in study,
4.
Her beloved brother and sister, and all best friend who have always been in the researcher side in facing all the laughter and tears during the study, especially for Husni Mubarok for anything given, Sopiah, Lia Nuramaliah, Ayu Fitriana, and Siti Apriyanti,
vii
5.
All her beloved friends of English Education Department Class B for academic year 2008 who always motivate her in accomplishing this research paper. No words to say except a thousand of gratefulness to everyone that they
cannot be mention here. They are involved trough their prayer for this writing. Last word to say, may Allah always give His blessing to all of us. Amin.
Jakarta, 16 December 2014
The Writer
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COVER ........................................................................................................... i APPROVAL SHEET ...................................................................................... ii ENDORSEMENT SHEET .............................................................................. iii SURAT PERNYATAAN KARYA SENDIRI ................................................ iv ABSTRACT
................................................................................................ v
ABSTRAK
................................................................................................ vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ................................................................................. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................ ix LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................... xi CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION A. Background of the Research ............................................. 1 B. Identification of the Problem ............................................ 3 C. Limitation of the Research ................................................ 4 D. Formulation of the Research .............................................. 4 E. Objective of the Research ................................................. 4 F. Significance of the Research .............................................. 4
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 5 A. Personality ......................................................................... 5 1. The Definition of Personality ...................................... 5 2. Type of Personality ..................................................... 6 a. The Sanguine Personality ...................................... 7 b. The Phlegmatic Personality .................................. 8
ix
B. Speaking ............................................................................ 10 1. The Definition of Speaking ......................................... 10 2. The Element of Speaking ............................................ 12 C. Achievement ..................................................................... 14 D. Thinking Framework ......................................................... 15 E. Review of Previous Study Related to Research ................. 15 F. Hypothesis of the Research ............................................... 16 CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A. Location and Time of the Research .................................. 17 B. Method of the Research .................................................... 17 C. Population and Sample ...................................................... 18 D. Technique of Data Collection ........................................... 18 E. Technique of Data Analysis .............................................. 20 F. Statistical Hypotheses ....................................................... 22 CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION A. Research Finding 1. Data Description .......................................................... 23 2. Data Analysis .............................................................. 25 B. Interpretation ..................................................................... 32 CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION A. Conclusion ........................................................................ 33 B. Suggestion .......................................................................... 33 REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 35 APPENDICES ............................................................................................... 37
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 The Four Temperaments .............................................................. 11 Table 3.1 Personality Traits .......................................................................... 19 Table 4.1 The Sanguine Students of the Seventh Semester of English Education Department...................................................... 23 Table 4.2 The Phlegmatic Students of the Seventh Semester of English Education Department...................................................... 24 Table 4.3 Mean and Deviation Standard of the Two Variables .................... 27 Table 4.4 The Statistic Descriptive of the Research ..................................... 29 Table 4.5 The calculation Result of the Hypotheses .................................... 31
xi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Research English speaking skill becomes the most important skill in the era of globalization. In education speaking also become the important skills that should be mastered by students. Speaking is the activity of giving speeches and talks. As the tool of communication, English speaking skill becomes an important component for the students since it makes their social intercourse becomes wider. It means learning English is not only learning about the theory, but also learning how to practice it in a real communication. So it cannot be denied that in the competitive era of globalization, the ability to speak in English is very important. Moreover, this skill is very important for the students of English education department who are prepared to be professional English teacher. To teach English of course they have to know how to speak it correctly. However, because English is not the students’ first language and as English has difference in the way it written with the way it pronounce, it is not easy to be mastered particularly speaking skill. In speaking, student needs more effort not only how to arrange the words, but also how to pronounce them well. Thus, students need more practice to speak English fluently. In the class all students are required to practice speaking. Some students do it well, but not with some others. They keep quite is not because they are not able to speak English, but they are worried will do mistake or they feel anxiety. Some students are very active, they do not think too much about will do mistake. They have full confidence. Meanwhile, other students are very passive; they will speak if they think they sure they will right. This is what the psychology called as a personality. According to Hippocrates, there are four kinds of personality. They are choleric, sanguine, melancholic and phlegmatic.1 Clearly, the choleric is
1
Jacques jouanna, Greek medicine from Hippocrates to Galen: Selected Papers, (Netherland: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2012), p. 340.
1
2
personality with strong principle, has good leadership, and good in speaking, the sanguine is the cheerful and skillful person who always want to be famous person, the melancholic is perfectionist personality and has analytical thinking, and the phlegmatic is obedient personality which has consistency in learning. In one class, certainly teachers face the different personality of their students. There is a passive and active student. The active students are named by sanguine personality and the passive students are named by phlegmatic personality. Of course the sanguine personality is more talkative than the phlegmatic personality who rather likes to keep silent. So, the teachers are required to understand the students’ personality. According to the researcher’s experience when she was in forth semester of her study, it was clearly seen that both type personality were found in one class. In teaching-learning process, the student with sanguine personality performed more confident than the students with phlegmatic personality. Because the comparative analysis is to do in this study, the difference between sanguine and phlegmatic personality which is one from extrovert and one from introvert is chosen to be studied. Based on the explanation above, the students with sanguine personality may have better ability in speaking than the phlegmatic personality especially in their fluency. In the other hand, the students with phlegmatic personality may also have better ability in speaking score because they will think deeper before they decide to speak up, then the students with phlegmatic personality may have better in accuracy when they speak up. To prove the theory, it needs to compare both personalities above with their competence in speaking ability and compare those personalities with their speaking score to measure which personality is better in speaking skill. Based on that reason, therefore, this “skripsi” is under the title “A Comparative Analysis between Students with Sanguine and Phlegmatic Personality on Their Achievement in Speaking Skill” (A Survey Study at the Seventh Semester of English Education Department State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta).
3
The object of study should be specific; therefore the students on the seventh semester of English Education Department State Islamic University (UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta) are selected. Speaking is one of the subjects in English major which has levels. Only the students who already succeed in passing the basic level can take the next level. To do the research in this major is decided because speaking in English major in university becomes a specific subject of the study and of course it has specific score rather than in school which only has English subject in general. So it is more reliable to accomplish the research.
B. Identification of the Problem Problem clearly appear because students with different personality are in one class. There is a group with active and talkative students and other group is the group of passive students who really love to keep silent when they are learning. The active students in speaking are named by sanguine personality and the passive belong to phlegmatic personality. The related problems that can be identified to the sanguine personality and phlegmatic personality of student are such the example below: 1.
Some students are difficult to practice their speaking in the class.
2.
Other students are eager to practice speaking but they miss grammatical structure.
3.
Some lectures do not really put attention about students’ personality.
4.
The teaching strategy used in the class did not consider students’ personality.
C. Limitation of the Problem Based on the identification of the problem above, it could be limited only on the differences between sanguine students and phlegmatic student in their learning process in speaking skill.
4
D. Formulation of the Research Based on the limitation of the problem, the research question of this “skripsi” can be formulated as follows: “Did the sanguine students have differences speaking score with the phlegmatic students?”
E. Objective of the Research The objective of the study was to known and describe the difference score of speaking skill for the students with sanguine and phlegmatic personality.
F. Significance of the Research The result of this research was expected to make a deep understanding about students’ personality and give significance not only theoretically but also practically to: 1. Students The result of this research is expected to help students to recognize their personalities and minimize their weakness. 2. Institutions This research can contribute to all educational institutions to consider students’ personality and determine the best strategy in teaching learning process to minimize students’ gap and maximize their potential in speaking skill. 3. Further Researchers The result of this study is expected to be used as consideration or preview for the next researchers in doing the same field of the study.
CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK This chapter is going to explain theoretical description that consists of personality including the sanguine and phlegmatic personality; speaking that consist of understanding of speaking and the element of speaking; achievement; thinking framework; review of previous study to research; and hypotheses of the research.
A. Personality 1. The Definition of Personality The word „personality‟ originally comes from the Latin persona. It refers to the masks worn by actors in ancient Greek dramas in order to develop a role or false appearance. But according to psychologists the word „personality‟ is more than the role people play.1 Psychologists have different view about personality. Golden Allport described personality is something real within an individual that leads to characteristic behavior and thought. For Carl Roger, personality or „self‟ is an organized, consistent pattern of perception of the „I‟ or „me‟ that lies at the hearth of an individual‟s experiences. Whereas according to B. F. Skinner, the word personality was unnecessary. Skinner did not believe that it is necessary or desirable to use a concept such as self or personality to understand human behavior. For Sigmund Freud, personality is largely unconscious, hidden and unknown.2 In addition, in the book Personality Psychology, Larsen defines personality as “the set of psychological traits and mechanisms within the individual that are
1
Jess Feist and Gregory J. Feist, Theories of Personality, (New York: McGraw Hill, 2009), p.
3. 2
Barbara Engler, Personality Theories, 8th Ed., (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company: 2009), p. 2.
5
6
organized and relatively enduring and that influence his or her interaction with, and adaption to, the intrapsychic, physical, and social environment.”3 According to Lawrence “In psychology, the field of personality is concerned not only with the total individual but also with individual differences. While recognizing that all people are similar in some ways, those interested in personality are particularly concerned with the ways people differ from one another.”4 From the various definitions above, it could be synthesized that many different definitions are possible. Personality can be defined as a set of characteristics in the psychological behavior and thoughts, perception, and individual differences.
2. Types of Personality The study of personality is broad and varied in psychology, one the topic is type of personality. There are two types of personality. They are extrovert and introvert. On this discussion, the writer only concentrates on Hippocrates‟s theory of personality traits which is grouped into big four temperament, they are sanguine, choleric, phlegmatic, and melancholic.5 In relation to the statement above, it can be classified that sanguine and choleric are extrovert while phlegmatic and melancholic are introvert. In addition, according to Hippocrates in the book Pathology Student’s Library written by Ghozenko, he offered the first constitutional classification. He focused his attention on the differences of existing in various people reflected in temperament and social behavior. These observations were assumed by Hippocrates as the basic of his classification. According to his terminology, this ancient typology, the choleric, sanguine, phlegmatic and melancholic exist up to the present time. The choleric personality is impetuous, easily irritated and 3
Randy J. Larsen and David M. Buss, Personality Psychology, 2nd Ed., (New York: GrawHill, 2005), p. 4. 4 Lawrence A. Pervin, Personality Theory, Assessment and Research, (New York: John Willey & Sons, Inc, 1980), p. 4. 5 Thomas Chamorro-Premuzic and Adrian Furnham, Personality and Intellectual Competence, (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publisher, 2005), p. 4.
7
angered, sometimes uncontrollable. His work ability is high, but not constant. While sanguine personality is communicable, vivacious, lively, active and emotional. In other hand, phlegmatic personality is calm, apathetic, unexcitable, but stable. Moreover, melancholic personality is unsociable, sometime depressed, and hesitating.6 a.
The Sanguine Personality “The sanguine personality described enthusiastic, positive, and cheerful
individuals, satisfied with life and generally enjoying good mental as well as physical health.”7 He tends to be cooperative and caring. Characteristic of sanguine person are sociable, outgoing, talkative, responsive, easygoing, lively, carefree, leadership.8 Sanguine personality also is one of the personalities type. Its characteristic is creative, fun-loving, enjoy with people, and seek out adventure sometimes result in label of superficiality and frivolity, more joyful place because of the inspiration, enthusiasm, and fellowship he provides.9 According to Eysenck, the sanguine person is carefree and full of hope, pleasant and friendly to help others, sociable, given to pranks, contended, does not take anything very seriously, and has many friends. Unfortunately he is bad debtor, he asks for time to pay, and does not really sure to keep his promise. He is not vicious but difficult to convert from his sins; he may feel sorry for a bad thing he did but then he forget so soon; he is easily fatigued and bored by work but enjoyed mere games that constant change, and persistence is not his forte.10
6
A.I Gozhenko et al, Pathology Medical Student’s Library, (Radom: Radomska Szkola Wyisza Zubrzyckiego, 2009), p. 56. 7 Thomas Chamoro-Premuzic and Adrian Furham, loc. cit. 8 Walter Mischel et al., introduction to personality, 7th Ed., (New York: John Willey & Sons, Inc., 2004), p. 52. 9 Art Bennet, LMFT and Laraine Bennet, The Temperament God Gave You, (Manchester, New Hampshire: Shopia Institute Press, 2005), p. 37. 10 Hans, Eysenck, Fact and Fiction in Psychology, (Baltimore: Penguins Book, 1965), p. 56.
8
1) The Strength of Sanguine The points below are from the book of „Personality Plus‟ authored by Florence Littaure, they are traits (characters) which appear in variety of quantity. Animated Playful Sociable Convincing Refreshing Spirited Promoter Spontaneous Optimistic Funny
Delightful Cheerful Inspiring Demonstrative Mixes-easily Talker Lively Cute Popular Bouncy11
2) The weakness of Sanguine Traits below are the negative of the sanguine in some ways of the student type when he interacts in school environment. Florence Littaure mentioned the traits as follow: Brassy Undisciplined Repetitious Forgetful Interrupts Haphazard Permissive Angered easily Naïve b.
Wants Credits Talkative Disorganized Inconsistent Messy Loud Scatter brained Restless Changeable12
The Phlegmatic Personality “Phlegmatic is a personality type based on the ancient Greek humors
discussed by Hippocrates and Galen in which one is apathetic and conforming on the outside but tense and distraught on the inside.” He is lethargic, takes away from others; somewhat passive. Characteristic of phlegmatic person are
11
Florence Littaure, Personality Plus, (Michigan: Fleming H. Revell, 1997), pp. 16—18. Ibid.
12
9
passive, careful, thoughtful, peaceful, controlled, reliable, even-tempered, and calm.13 Phlegmatic are reserved or quite person, prudent, sensible, reflective, respectful, and dependable. They are not easily insulted or provoked to anger, even they do not like exaggeration in speech. They are loyal and committed, tolerant and supportive. They also have excellent quality, very discipline, and excel in profession where being calm under pressure, moreover they are agreeable people, they often hide their will even ignore it.14 1)
The strength of Phlegmatic Adaptable Peaceful Submissive Controlled Reserved Satisfied Patient Shy Obliging Friendly
Diplomatic Consistent Inoffensive Dry Humor Mediator Tolerant Listener Contented Pleasant Balanced15
2) The weakness of Phlegmatic Numerous traits below are the simple descriptions to know about the weakness of the phlegmatic personality. Florence Littaure mentioned that traits: Blank Unenthusiastic Reticent Fearful Indecisive Uninvolved Hesitant Plain Aimless Nonchalant 13
Walter Mishel et al., loc. cit.
14
Bennet, op. cit, p. 40. Littaure, loc. cit. 16 Littaure, loc. cit. 15
Worrier Timid Doubtful Indifferent Mumbles Slow Lazy Sluggish Reluctant Compromising16
10
The table below describes the personality characteristics which differ between one and others by Christian in Astrology and Personality Testing book written by Martin and Deidre Bobgan:17 Table 2.1 The Four Temperaments Sanguine Cheerful Friendly Talk active Lively Restless Self-centered Undependable
Choleric Optimistic Active Confidence Strong-willed Quick to anger Aggressive Inconsiderate
Melancholic Melancholy Sensitive Analytical Perfectionist Unsociable Moody Rigid
Phlegmatic Calm Dependable Efficient Easy Going Passive Stubborn Lazy
Based on the table above it can be concluded that phlegmatic personality is also called as introvert person. He is talkative less than sanguine personality because phlegmatic personality is passive. In characteristic, phlegmatic student likes to avoid the wrongness, and student who has this personality will be more keep silent than try to speak. In other hand, sanguine personality or extrovert person is more active. In this case, the student with sanguine personality is talkative more and he does not worry anymore about making a mistake in their speaking.
B. Speaking 1. The Definition of Speaking Speaking is one of the language production skills used for communication. It is the most natural way to communicate. In communication people do not only to respond to other people, but also to express their ideas, feeling, thought, etc. Thus, speaking is very significant to the quality of people‟s living processes and experiences. The ability to which people develops an efficient and effective
17
Martin and Deidre Bobgan, Astrology and Personality Testing, (California, 1992), p. 9.
11
communicative is by the way to speak. Without speaking, people might be hard to socialize even it can be isolated from any kind of society. The speaking is used actively by a person to communicate with others in order to express ideas, feeling, as well as opinion to achieve a particular goal. Speaking is an interactive process of constructing meaning that involves producing and receiving and processing information. In addition, Nunan defined speaking as “the ability to carry out a conversation in the language.”18 It can be said that in the conversation, people need special skill to take part in dialog. They need to know what language is appropriate and understanding what the other speaker means to the topic that is discussing. As Littlewood said that “When we speak, we are constantly estimating the hearer‟s knowledge and assumptions, in order to select language that will be interpreted in accordance with our intended meaning.”19Further he explained that “…one factor determining the speaker‟s choice of language is the knowledge that he assumes the hearer to process. A further important factor is his interpretation of the social situation in which communication is taking place: language carries not only function meaning, it also carries social meaning”.20 In relation to the statement above, Jo McDonough and Christopher Shaw satated “Speaking is not the oral production of written language, but involves learners in the mastery of a wide range sub-skill which added together, consitute an overall competence in the spoken language”.21 It means that speaking is nor merely to transform written language by speaking it. Speaking involves the ability to integrate sub-skill, such as grammar, vocabulary, and sound. In speaking, speaker needs to know how to produce a sound, the rules to produce an infinite numbers of sentences, and to understand of what language is appropriate in certain situation. In fact that one skill can not be performed without others.
18
David Nunan, Language Teaching Methodology. A Textbook for Teachers, (Edinburgh: Longman Pearson Education, 1998), p. 39. 19 William Littlewood, Communicative Language Teaching, an Introduction, (Landon: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 3. 20 Ibid., p. 4. 21 Jo McDonough, and Christopher Shaw, Materials and Methods in ELT: A Teacher’s Guide, (Cambridge: Blackwell Publisher, 1993), p. 151.
12
Based on the definitions above, it can be synthesized that speaking is the process of responding and expressing ideas, opinions, feeling or thought with the other people. As human beings, especially social creature need to express their thoughts, opinions, or feelings in appropriate way in order to have a good social life.
2. The Element of Speaking Speaking a language is especially difficult for foreign language because effective oral communication requires the ability to use the language appropriately in social interaction. Speaking foreign language requires more than knowing its grammatical and semantic rules. It also acquires the knowledge of how native speaker use the language structurally, such as pitch, stress, and intonation or known as pronunciation, body language, fluency, control of idiomatic expression, and understanding of cultural pragmatics are required.22 a. Pronunciation As one of the speaking element, pronunciation plays an important role to make sure that the productions of the words do not obscure the meaning. People need to acquire the words in the correct way. It is also often judged people by the way they speak, and so learners with poor pronunciation may be judged as incompetent or lack of knowledge, they make the meaning of words not clear. As stated on the article of AMEP Research Centre, “pronunciation refers to the production of sounds that we use to make meaning.”23 Pronunciation is the way for speakers‟ produce clearer language when they speak. The speaker must be able to articulate the words, and create the physical sounds that carry meaning. b. Grammar Jeremy Harmer states that the grammar of a language is the description of rules which allows someone to generate language itself.24 For most people, the 22
Marianne Celce-Murcia (ed.), Teaching English as Second or Foreign Language, 2nd Ed, (Boston: Heinle &Heinle Publishers, 1991), p. 204. 23 Adult Migrant English Program Research Centre, Fact Sheet – What is pronunciation?, AMEP Research Centre, October 2002, 2014, p. 1. 24 Jeremy Harmer, ´The Practice of English Language Teaching, (New York: Longman Publishing, 1991), p. 12.
13
essence of language lies in grammar. It enables people to make statements about how to use their language. In brief, grammar represent one‟s linguistic competence; therefore it includes many aspects of linguistic knowledge: the sound system (phonology), the system of meaning (semantics), the rules of word formation (morphology), the rules of sentence (syntax), and the vocabulary of words (lexicon). “Language without grammar would be chaotic; countless words without indispensable guidance for how they can be ordered and modified. A study of grammar (syntax and morphology) reveals a structure and regularity, which lies at the basic of language and enables us to talk of the language system.”25 c. Vocabulary Vocabulary is single words, set phrases, variable phrases, phrasal verbs and idioms.26 Vocabulary has a significance role in speaking, without many sources of vocabulary, some people may have difficulty in their speech. Some people define vocabulary as words. Words are perceived as the building blocks upon which knowledge of a second language can be built. However a new item of vocabulary may be more than a single word. For example, „police man‟ and „father-in-law‟ which are made up of two or three words but express a single idea. There are also multi word idioms like „call it a day‟, where the meaning of phrase cannot be deduced from an analysis of the word component.27 d. Fluency Fluency can be reached with practice. Fluency is the ability to talk accurately, quickly, and use the expression properly. It means speaking a language without hesitation or producing some errors. It refers to the ability to talk with normal levels of continuity, rate and effort and to link ideas and language together to form coherent and connected speech. The key indicators of fluency are speech rate and 25
Norbert Pachler (ed.), Teaching Modern Foreign Language (London: Routledge, 1999), p
.94.
26
Keith S. Folse, Vocabulary Myths: Applying Second Language Research to Classroom Teaching, (Michigan: University of Michigan, 2004), p. 2. 27 Penny Ur, A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory, (London: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 60.
14
continuity.28 In fluency practice, the speakers‟ attention is on the information they are communicating than on the language itself. e. Comprehension The last element of speaking is comprehension. As stated by Laura in her article, comprehension is a complex process that has been understood and explained in a number of ways.29 Comprehension means the ability to understand meaning which is spoken. Comprehension takes part in some situations for example discussing work or problems, making arrangements, chatting at social gathering, watching a film, and being interviewed.
C. Achievement According to Simpson and Weiner as quoted by Yusuf achievement is defined as measurable behavior in a standardized series of tests. They contended that achievement test intends to measure systematic education and training in school occupation towards a conventionally accepted pattern of skills or knowledge. Several subjects may be combined into an achievement battery for measuring general school proficiency either in point score or achievement age and perhaps achievement quotient. According to Bruce and Neville (1979) educational achievement is measured in relation to what is attained at the end of a course, since it is the accomplishment of medium or long term objective of education. In the same occasion, Yusuf described that achievement is regarded as action of completing or attaining by exertion. It subsumes anything won by exertion, a feat, a distinguished and successful action.30 From the explanation above, it can be said that achievement is used to describe the status or level of person's learning and his ability to apply what he has learnt. In educational view, achievement is to measure how much has been 28
Paul Davis and Eric Pearse, Success in English Teaching, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 57. 29 Laura S. Pardo, What Every Teacher Needs to Know about Comprehension, International Reading Association: 2004, 2014, p. 1. 30 Yusuf, Inter-Relationship among Academic Performance, Academic Achievement and Learning Outcomes. P. 6—7.
15
learned in a subject and what specific abilities or skills have been developed. So, the term denotes to the performance of students, which is determined at the end of a course. Students‟ achievement in this research refers to achievement in learning English. The achievement is reflected by students‟ scores after following the lesson and through the test. However, students‟ achievement was influenced by certain factors; one of them was students‟ personality.
D. Thinking Framework Many people think that some factors which initiate problem in the teaching or learning speaking skill are the students‟ lake of practice to speak English. The teachers seldom expose them to speak English, and the method used by the teachers does not build students‟ interest. However, the problems are not only those things; there is also a factor which influences students‟ performance in speaking. It is personality. Every student has different personality; as stated in previous chapter that the sanguine personality is dominating in speaking than the phlegmatic personality. This statement will prove that sanguine student will have better score in speaking than the phlegmatic one. Therefore, the writer is interested in analyzing whether the students who have sanguine and phlegmatic personality are influence their achievement in speaking skill score. The first step in doing this research is giving the personality test that consist of 40 numbers of traits list of personality in order to determine whether the students are sanguine or phlegmatic. After students have been classified into sanguine and phlegmatic, the next step is comparing the student speaking score with those two personalities. This aimed to answer the research question.
E. Review of Previous Study Related to Research The writer found the similar research written by Nadiyah (2010) which the title is “Comparative Analysis on Choleric Students and Melancholic Students Concerning Their English Speaking Skill.” Nadiyah compared the students‟
16
personality of the second grade students SMA Muhammadiyah 25 Pamulang with students‟ achievement in speaking score. Based on her opinion, different personality of the student would make different result in students‟ speaking ability. In her research showed that there are no significantly differences between students‟ difference personality with their achievement in speaking score. The relationship between Nadiyah‟s research with the writer‟s research is the variable used. Nadiyah used choleric and melancholic students as variables. However, the writer in this “skripsi” has different focus. The writer focuses on two other types of personality, they are sanguine and phlegmatic personality and will do the research in seventh semester of English Education Department State Islamic University (UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta). Another previous study related to research is from Lidya Catrunnada Ira Puspitawati with her paper research entitled “Prokrastinasi Task Differences on Thesis Introvert and Extrovert Personality”. The result of this quantitative research showed that personality differences have statistically different to the students‟ prokratinasi on doing their thesis task. It was noted that, the students with extrovert personality have prokrastinasi more than the introvert one. The relationship between this research and the writer‟s research is the use of dependent variable; however the writer used speaking as dependent variable, and the writer used sanguine and phlegmatic as independent variables. Sanguine is one of the categories of extrovert personality, and phlegmatic is one of categories of in introvert personality.
F. Theoretical Hypothesis Based on the theories which were described above, it can be posed a theoretical hypothesis that the sanguine students have better score that the phlegmatic students in speaking skill.
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This chapter consists of the location and time of the research, the method of the research, the population and sample, the technique of data collecting, the technique of data analysis, and the theoretical hypothesis.
A. Location and Time of the Research The research was conducted at English Education Department State Islamic University (UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta) which is located on Jalan Ir. H. Juanda No.95 Ciputat. The research was successfully conducted on 20th of November 2014.
B. Method of the Research The method of this research is comparative analysis. It can be used to test hypotheses concerning about whether there is differences or not between variable tested. This is aimed to know whether the personality of students especially sanguine and phlegmatic students has difference achievement in speaking skill score. This research is quantitative non-experimental research which describe things that have occurred and examine relationship between things without any direct manipulation of condition.1 The first step in doing this research was giving questionnaire to the students of the seventh semester to get the data about their personality, and then got their score from Department of English Education to compared students’ speaking score with their personality.
1
James H. McMillan and Sally Schummacher, Research in Education: Evidence-Based Inquiry, 6th Ed.,, (Boston: Person Education, Inc., 2006), p. 24.
17
18
C. Population and Sample 1.
Population The population target in this research was all students from the seventh
semester of English Education Department State Islamic University (UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta) which consist of three classes with 128 students; VII. A, VII. B, and VII. C. 2.
Sample The sample used in this research was purposive sample by classified only
sanguine and phlegmatic students, and those became the sample. There are 21 students from the sanguine personality and 27 students from the phlegmatic personality.
D. Technique of Data Collection The techniques of data collection in this research were questionnaire of personality test taken from standardized assessment written by Frolence Littauer. It identifies students’ personality by examining their personality based on the list of traits. There were 40 question numbers of test from the four personality types; sanguine, choleric, phlegmatic and melancholic. Then, the paper tests were given to the students in order to determine their type of personality.
Table 3.1 Personality Traits STRENGNESS 1.
--- Adventurous
--- Adaptable
--- Animated
--- Analytical
2.
--- Persistent
--- Playful
--- Persuasive
--- Peaceful
3.
--- Submissive
---
--- Sociable
--- Strong-willed
Self-
Sacrificing 4.
--- Considerate
--- Controlled
--- Competitive
--- Convincing
5.
--- Refreshing
--- Respectful
--- Reserved
--- Resourceful
6.
--- Satisfied
--- Sensitive
--- Self-reliant
--- Spirited
7.
--- Planner
--- Patient
--- Positive
--- Promoter
19
8.
--- Sure
--- Spontaneous
--- Scheduled
--- Shy
9.
--- Orderly
--- Obliging
--- Outspoken
--- Optimistic
10. --- Friendly
--- Faithful
--- Funny
--- Forceful
11. --- Daring
--- Delightful
--- Diplomatic
--- Detail
12. --- Cheerful
--- Consistent
--- Cultured
--- Confident
13. --- Idealistic
--- Independent
--- Inoffensive
--- Inspiring
14. --- Demonstrative --- Decisive
--- Dry Humor
--- Deep
15. --- Mixes Easily
--- Mover
--- Musical
--- Mediator
16. --- Thoughtful
--- Tenacious
--- Talker
--- Tolerant
17. --- Listener
--- Loyal
--- Leader
--- Lively
18. --- Contented
--- Chief
--- Chart maker
--- Cute
19. --- Perfectionist
--- Pleasant
--- Productive
--- Popular
20. --- Bouncy
--- Bold
--- Behaved
--- Balanced
21. --- Blank
--- Bashful
--- Brassy
--- Bossy
22. --- Undisciplined
--- Unsympathetic
--- Unenthusiastic
--- Unforgiving
23. --- Reticent
--- Resentful
--- Resistant
--- Repetitious
24. --- Fussy
--- Fearful
--- Forgetful
--- Frank
25. --- Impatient
--- Insecure
--- Indecisive
--- Interrupts
26. --- Unpopular
--- Uninvolved
--- Unpredictable
--- Unaffectionate
27. --- Headstrong
--- Haphazard
--- Hard to please
--- Hesitant
28. --- Plain
--- Pessimistic
--- Proud
--- Permissive
29. ---Angered easily
--- Aimless
--- Argumentative
--- Alienated
30. --- Naïve
---
WEAKNESS
Negative --- Nervy
--- Nonchalant
attitude 31. --- Worrier
--- Withdrawn
--- Workaholic
--- Wants credit
32. --- Too Sensitive
--- Tactless
--- Timid
--- Talkative
33. --- Doubtful
--- Disorganized
--- Domineering
--- Depressed
34. --- Inconsistent
--- Introvert
--- Intolerant
--- Indifferent
20
35. --- Messy
--- Moody
--- Mumbles
--- Manipulative
36. --- Slow
--- Stubborn
--- Show-off
--- Skeptical
37. --- Loner
--- Lord over others
--- Lazy
--- Loud
38. --- Sluggish
--- Suspicious
--- Short-tempered
--- Scatterbrained
39. --- Revengeful
--- Restless
--- Reluctant
--- Rash
40. ---Compromising
--- Critical
--- Crafty
--- Changeable
The questionnaire has 40 numbers. Every number of items consists of traits from the four personality types. To do the test the students were asked to choose some traits which reflect themselves. The students were asked to put a check list (v) to the four traits options on entirely items numbers. The answer represents their traits that fit them best. Then the check list test paper that have been done by the students are matched to the indicators table above. For example: Number 1 (C)
Adventurous
(P)
Adaptable
V (S)
Animated
( M ) Analytical Each symbol means: C
: is for Choleric
S
: is for Sanguine
M
: is for Melancholic
P
: is for Phlegmatic By seeing the checklist, the students answer “animated” for items number 1.
It means the item number 1 will be counted as sanguine students. The same way is applied to the next numbers until the last one. The way of personality judgment is by seeing the highest result that appears on the total questions.
21
E. Technique of the Data Analysis First of all, the students were given questionnaire to determine students’ personality types, and then calculate the speaking score of both personalities with statistic count. The two groups; the sanguine and phlegmatic students and each score of English speaking are clearly distributed as the single data distribution into two tables. Because the research is non-experimental research, it used data information to measure the hypotheses, and the result will explain how the results either support or refuse the hypothesis or answer the research question.
In this research the writer used the formula:
∑
Mean of Variable X1
∑
Mean of Variable X2
Standard Deviation of Variable XI
S
Standard Deviation of Variable X2
S
t-test √
Note: X1
= The
total scores of sanguine students
X2
= The
total scores of phlegmatic students
N1
= The
number of sanguine students
N2
= The
number of phlegmatic students
1
= Mean
of sanguine students
=√ =√
∑
∑
22
2
= Mean
of phlegmatic students
S1
= Standard
deviation of sanguine students
S2
= Standard
deviation of phlegmatic students
to
= t-
test
F. Statistical Hypotheses Significant critical value: 0.05 and 0.01 Criteria : If to > t-table means there is influence and Ha is accepted, while Ho
is
rejected. If to < t-table means there is no influence and Ha is rejected, while Ho is accepted.
The Hypotheses of the research describes how the research must be answered. Ho = There is no significantly difference between sanguine and phlegmatic students’ on their achievement in speaking score. Ha = There is significantly differencesbetween sanguine and phlegmatic students’ on their achievement in speaking score.
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION This chapter consists of the data description, the data analysis, the data interpretation and the statistic interpretation.
A. Research Findings 1. Data Description The following two tables are the students who have been categorized into the sanguine and the phlegmatic personality. They were sample which had been chosen by purposive sampling and the following are their En glish speaking score taken from English Education Department. Table 4.1 The Sanguine Students The Seventh Semester of English Education Department No
Name
Speaking Score
1
Student 1
80.00
2
Student 2
70.40
3
Student 3
68.00
4
Student 4
80.00
5
Student 5
73.40
6
Student 6
71.80
7
Student 7
75.70
8
Student 8
76.00
9
Student 9
70.70
10
Student 10
70.70
11
Student 11
76.00
12
Student 12
78.50
13
Student 13
78.20
14
Student 14
80.00
23
24
No
Name
Speaking Score
15
Student 15
80.90
16
Student 16
72.70
17
Student 17
80.00
18
Student 18
78.30
19
Student 19
77.70
20
Student 20
77.80
21
Student 21
80.00
Table 4.2 The Phlegmatic Students The Seventh Semester of English Education Department No
Name
Speaking Score
1
Students 1
74.40
2
Students 2
70.00
3
Students 3
80.30
4
Students 4
75.30
5
Students 5
80.00
6
Students 6
70.10
7
Students 7
74.70
8
Students 8
71.20
9
Students 9
70.60
10
Students 10
71.50
11
Students 11
80.00
12
Students 12
70.40
13
Students 13
74.50
14
Students 14
74.50
15
Students 15
72.10
16
Students 16
73.10
17
Students 17
78.80
25
No
Name
Speaking Score
18
Students 18
80.30
19
Students 19
77.40
20
Students 20
74.80
21
Students 21
80.30
22
Students 22
78.30
23
Students 23
77.30
24
Students 24
77.40
25
Students 25
77.80
26
Students 26
71.30
27
Students 27
73.10
The 48 students are the sanguine and the phlegmatic students. From the total number of students of the seventh semester, only 73 students who participated to fill the questionnaire of personality test. The other 25 students belong to the other personalities; they are neither the sanguine students nor the phlegmatic students. 2. Data Analysis To begin the data analysis, first step is finding the average of the sanguine and phlegmatic students. The way to find the average of the sanguine and phlegmatic students’ score is by the following calculation. The average in statistics is known by mean (M). The pattern of Mean is ∑
Description: : the total of students’ score : a number of students
26
This pattern is to find Mean from single data of which scores are more than one frequency; whether they are for some data or whole of them. The following is the calculation for x1 or the sanguine students. ∑
= 76.04 After having the first Mean, and the next step is forward to the second Mean. It is for the phlegmatic students. The calculation is as follows: ∑
= 75.17 Next step is finding the Deviation Standard of the sanguine and the phlegmatic students. Deviation Standard of sanguine students is as follows: S
=√
∑
=√
=√
=√
= 4.01
Deviation Standard of phlegmatic students is as follows: S
=√
∑
=√
=√
=√
= 1.89
The calculation and the results of the mean and deviation standard were explained on the following tables.
27
Table 4.3 Mean and Deviation Standard of the Two Variables No
The Sanguine Students
The Phlegmatic Students )2
Students
Score
1
1
80.00
3.96
2
2
70.40
3
3
4
(
-
Students
Score
15.68
1
74.40
-0.77
0.59
-5.64
31.81
2
70.00
-5.17
26.73
68.00
-8.04
64.64
3
80.30
5.13
26.32
4
80.00
3.96
15.68
4
75.30
0.13
0.02
5
5
73.40
-2.64
6.97
5
80.00
4.83
23.33
6
6
71.80
-4.24
17.98
6
70.10
-5.07
25.70
7
7
75.70
-0.34
0.17
7
74.70
-0.47
0.22
8
8
76.00
-0.04
0.002
8
71.20
-3.97
15.76
9
9
70.70
-5.34
36.48
9
70.60
-4.57
20.88
10
10
70.70
-5.34
28.52
10
71.50
-3.67
13.47
11
11
76.00
-0.04
0.002
11
80.00
4.83
23.33
12
12
78.50
2.46
6.05
12
70.40
-4.77
22.75
13
13
78.20
2.16
4.67
13
74.50
-0.67
0.45
14
14
80.00
3.96
15.68
14
74.50
-0.67
0.45
)2
28
The Sanguine Students No
The Phlegmatic Students )2
Students
Score
16
16
72.70
-3.34
17
17
80.00
18
18
19
(
)2
-
Students
Score
11.16
16
73.10
-2.07
4.28
3.96
15.68
17
78.80
3.63
13.18
78.30
2.26
5.11
18
80.30
5.13
26.32
19
77.70
1.66
2.76
19
77.40
2.23
4.97
20
20
77.80
1.76
3.10
20
74.80
-0.37
0.14
21
21
80.00
3.96
15.68
21
80.30
5.13
26.32
22
22
78.30
3.13
9.80
23
23
77.30
2.13
4.54
24
24
77.40
2.23
4.97
24
25
77.80
2.63
6.92
26
26
71.30
-3.87
14.98
27
27
73.10
-2.07
4.28
N=27
2029.5
N=21
1596.8
321.444
∑
= 76.04
∑
330.12
∑
S
=√
=√
√
=√
= 4.01
=
= 75.17
∑
S
=√
=√
√
=√
= 1.89
=
29
The next table concluded the result of the calculation above. Table 4.4 The Statistic Descriptive of the Research Statistic The Highest Score
Sanguine Students 80.90
Phlegmatic Students 80.30
The Lowest Score
68.00
70.00
Mean
76.04
75.15
Standard Deviation
4.01
1.89
The tables above described that the Mean of the sanguine students’ score was 76.04, while the Mean of the phlegmatic students’ score was 75.15 and the Deviation Standard of the sanguine students was 4.01, while the Deviation Standard of the phlegmatic students was 1.89. Looking on the Table 4.4, there were differences both the result of the Mean and Deviation Standard. The sanguine students were fine superior of 0.89 on Mean and 2.12 on Deviation Standard from phlegmatic students. After analyzing the data and counting the formula, it has been found the result of the Means and the Deviation Standard of students speaking achievement from both personality, and finally gave interpretation of ‘to’.
a. Statistical Test (t-test) In analyzing the data from the result above, it used statistical calculation of the t-test formula written by Sugiyono. As seen on the Table 4.4, it is suggested to measure the homogenity varian of both samples. It is the biggest varian divided by the smallest varian (the varian is taken from the deviation standard), and the result is compared to F table based on the result of the degree of freedom (DF) from both samples.
30
DF of this research is (N1 – 1) and (N2-1) = (21 – 1= 20) and (27 – 1= 26) The homogeneity varian is F=
= 2.12
The F tabel of the degree freedom of 5 % of 20 and 26 is 1.99 Based on the calculation presented above the result of F was higher than F table (2.12>1.99), thus, it can be interpreted that the varian was not homogen. Sugiyono further explained five procedures in determing the formula of comparing two groups of sample; if two groups of sample have different amount and the varian is not homogen, the Separated Varian formula is used. The Saparated Varian formula is as follows:
√
√
√ √ b. t-table The degrees of freedom (DF) determined the t-table. For DF of this research is (N1 -1) + (N2 -2) = (20-1) + (27-1) = 45 = 22.5 2
2
2
The degree of significance of 5% was 2.07, and the degree of significance of 1% was 2.81. To prove the hypothesis, the data obtained from both personalities was calculated by using the t-test formula with the assumption as follows:
31
to > ttable
: The alternative hypothesis (Ha) is accepted and the null hypothesis
(H0) is rejected. It means there is significance
difference between the sanguine students and the phlegmatic student on their speaking skill achievement. to < ttable
: The alternative hypothesis (Ha) is rejected and the null hypothesis (H0) is accepted. It means there is no significance difference between the sanguine and the phlegmatic students on their speaking skill achievement.1
Table 4.5 The Calculation Result of the Hypothesis Sample Sanguine Students Phlegmatic Students
Mean
21
76.04
Deviation Standard
DF
t-
ttable
ttable
Test
1%
5%
Ho is
4.01 22.5 1.71
27
75.17
Conclusion
2.81
2.07
1.89
accepted Ha is rejected
Based on the counting of the table above, it can be explained that: a) The means of English speaking scores of the sanguine students was 76.04, with the highest score was 80.90 and the lowest was 68.00. Meanwhile the means of English speaking score of the phlegmatic students was 75.17, with the highest score was 80.0 and the lowest was 70.00. b) The deviation standard of the sanguine students was 4.01, and the deviation standard of the phlegmatic students was 1.89. c) The result of t-test was 1.71. d) T-table for the degree of significance of 5% was 2.07, and the degree significance of 1% was 2.81.
1
Sugiyono, Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif Kualitatif dan R & D, (Bandung: Alfabeta, 2009), p. 196—199.
32
By comparing the values of t₀= 1.71 and ttable 2.81 and 2.07, the data calculated with statistical result shows that t₀ was smaller than t-table. So, the alternative hypothesis (Ha) was rejected and the null hypothesis (H₀) was accepted. It means there is no significance difference between the sanguine students and the phlegmatic students on their achievement in speaking skill.
B. Interpretation Based on the statistical calculation, it can be clarified that there was no significant difference between the sanguine students and the phlegmatic students in speaking skill achievement. The result of the t-test was 1.71, and it was smaller than t-table both in the degree of significance of 5% and 1% (2.07 > 1.71 < 2.81). So the null hypothesis (Ho) was accepted and the alternative hypothesis (Ha) was rejected. It can be interpreted that there is no significance difference between the sanguine students and the phlegmatic students on their speaking skill achievement. The sanguine students are assumed to have a good ability and better ability in speaking. In this research, their score of speaking was 76.04 in average. The phlegmatic students were estimated to be people who have less ability in speaking than sanguine students. However, the average of their speaking score was 75.17. Based on t-test calculation, it showed that there was no difference between sanguine and phlegmatic students in speaking score achievement because of their different average score was not too significant. In relation to this conclusion and looking at the previous research in chapter II that student with extrovert personality that was sanguine students had better in English speaking score, and now it have already been proved. The students with phlegmatic personality could also have better in their English speaking score.
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION This chapter presents conclusion and suggestion based on this research which has been done at Department of English Education State Islamic University Jakarta (UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta).
A. Conclusion This research showed that there was no significantly different between sanguine and phlegmatic student in their achievement in speaking skill. The data interpreted that sanguine students and phlegmatic students had no difference in their speaking score achievement. Even though the sanguine students had higher average of English speaking score and the phlegmatic students got lower average English speaking score, the t-test calculation showed that there was no significantly difference between students with sanguine and phlegmatic personality in their speaking score because the difference of their average is not too significant. Based on the result above it can be concluded that students’ personality both sanguine and phlegmatic did not have any effect on students’ achievement in speaking skill.
B. Suggestion Based on the conclusion of this research, it can be recommended some suggestions go to: 1. Students The result of this research is expected to help students to recognize their personalities and minimize their weakness, and students should not worry to have best score in speaking skill because personality is not significantly influence. 2. Institutions
33
34
This research can contribute to all educational institutions to consider students’ personality and determine the best strategy in teaching learning process to minimize students’ gap and maximize their potential in speaking skill. 3. Further Researchers The result of this study is expected to be used as consideration or preview for the next researchers in doing the same field of the study with the different object of the research.
REFERENCES
Baststone, Paul. Grammar, New York: Oxford University Press, 1950. Bennet, Art., and Bennet, Laraine. The Temperament God Gave You, Manchester, New Hampshire: Shopia Institute Press, 2005. Brudden, Philip M. Effective English Teaching, 2nd Ed, New York: The Bob’s Merrill Company, 1995. Catrunnada, Lidya., and Puspitawati, Ira. Prokrastinasi Task Differences on Thesis Introvert and Extrovert Personality, Thesis of Undergraduate Program, Faculty of Psychology, Gunadarma University, 2008. Celce-Murcia, Marianne (Ed.). Teaching English as Second or Foreign Language, 2nd Ed, Boston: Heinle &Heinle Publishers, 1991. Chamorro-Premuzic, Thomas., and Furnham, Adrian. Personality and Intellectual Competence, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publisher, 2005. Davis, Paul., and Pearse, Eric. Success in English Teaching, New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Engler, Barbara. Personality Theories, 8th Ed, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2009. Eysenck, Hans. Fact and Fiction in Psychology, Baltimore: Penguins Book, 1965. Feis, Jess., and Feist, Gregory J. Theories of Personality, New York: Mc Graw Hill, 2009. Folse, Keith S. Vocabulary Myths: Applying Second Language Research to Classroom Teaching, Michigan: University of Michigan, 2004. Friedman, Howard S., and Schustack, Miriam W. Personality: Classic Theories and Modern Research, 4th Ed, Boston: Pearson Higher Education, 2009. Gozhenko, A.l., et al., Pathology Medical Student’s Library, Radom: Radomska Szkola Wyisza Zubrzyckiego, 2009. Harmer, Jeremy. ´The Practice of English Language Teaching, New York: Longman Publishing, 1991. Hewings, Martin. Pronunciation, London: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Larsen, Randy J., and Buss, David M. Personality Psychology, 2nd Ed, New York: Graw-Hill, 2005. Littaure, Florrence. Personality Plus, Michigan: Fleming H. Revell, 1997. 35
36
Littlewood, Wlliam. Communicative Language Teaching, an Introduction, Landon: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Martin., and Bobgan, Deidre. Astrology and Personality Testing, California, 1992. McDonough, Jo., and Shaw, Christopher. Materials and Methods in ELT: A Teacher’s Guide, Cambridge: Blackwell Publisher, 1993. McMillan, James H., and Schummacher, Sally. Research in Education: EvidenceBased Inquiry, 6th Ed, Boston: Person Education, Inc., 2006. Mischel, Walter., et al., Introduction to Personality, 7th Ed, New York: John Willey & Sons, Inc., 2004. Nunan, David. Language Teaching Methodology. A Textbook for Teachers, Edinburgh: Longman Pearson Education, 1998. Pardon, Laura S. What every teacher needs to know about comprehension, International Reading Association: 2004, 2014. Pervin, Lawrence A., and John, Oliver P. Personality: Theory and Research, 7th Ed, New York: John Willey & Son, Inc., 1997. Pervin, Lawrence A. Personality Theory, Assessment and Research, New York: John Willey & Sons, Inc, 1980, Schmitt, Cornald J. Invitation to Language, Foreign Language Explanatory Program, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998. Sugiyono. Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif Kualitatif dan R & D, Bandung: Alfabeta, 2009. Ur, Penny. A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory, London: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
QUESTIONNAIRE The Purpose and Guidance: 1. This questionnaire is proposed in order to finish “skripsi” in Department of English Education, Faculty and Tarbiyah and Teachers’ Training 2. The questionnaire conducted to identify kind of students’ personality 3. Please kindly help for answering by choosing each traits based on your personality by putting cross (x) in a, b, c or d. 4. Thank you very much for your kindly participation. Respondent Identity Name NIM Class
: : : The Personality Test Of Florence Littauer The Four Personality Assessment STRENGTHS
1. a. Adventurous, Orang yang mau melakukan suatu hal yang baru dan berani dengan tekad untuk menguasainya. b. Adaptable, mudah menyesuaikan diri dan senang dalam setiap situasi. c. Animated, penuh kehidupan, sering menggunakan isyarat tangan, lengan dan wajah secara hidup. d. Analytical, suka menyelidiki bagian-bagian hubungan yang logis dan semestinya. 2. a. Persistent, melakukan sesuatu sampai selesai sebelum memulai lainnya. b. Playful, penuh kesenangan dan selera humor yang baik. c. Persuasive, meyakinkan orang dengan logika dan fakta, bukanya pesona atau kekuasaan. d. Peaceful, tampak tidak terganggu dan tenang serta menghindari setiap bentuk kekacauan. 3. a. Submissive, dengan mudah menerima pandangan atau keinginan orang lain tanpa banyak perlu mengemukakan pendapatnya sendiri. b. Self-sacrificing, bersedia mengorbankan dirinya demi atau untuk memenuhi kebutuhan orang lain. c. Sociable, orang yang memandang bersama orang lain sebagai kesempatan untuk bersikap manis dan menghibur, bukannya sebagai tantangan atau kesempatan bisnis. d. Strong-willed, orang yang yakin akan caranya sendiri. 4. a. Considerate, menghargai keperluan dan perasaan orang lain. b. Controlled, mempunyai perasaan emosional tetapi jarang meperlihatkannya. c. Competitive, mengubah setiap situasi, kejadian atau permainan menjadi kontes dan selalu bermain untuk menang. d. Convincing, bisa merebut hati orang melalui pesona kepribadian. 5. a. Refreshing, memperbarui dan membantu atau membuat orang lain merasa senang. b. Respectful, memperlakukan orang lain dengan rasa segan, kehormatan dan penghargaan. c. Reserved, menahan diri dalam menunjukan emosi atau antusiasme.
d. Resourceful, bisa bertindak cepat dan efektif boleh dikata dalam semua situasi. 6. a. Satisfied, orang yang mudah menerima keadaan atau situasi apa saja. b. Sensitive, secara intensif memperhatikan orang lain dan apa yang terjadi. c. Self-reliant, orang mandiri yang bisa sepenuhnya mengandalkan kemampuan, penilainan dan sumber dayanya sendiri. d. Sprited, penuh kehidupan dan gairah. 7. a. Planer, memilih untuk mempersiapkan aturan-aturan yang terinci sebelumnya dalam menyelesaikan proyek atau target dan lebih menyukai keterlibatan dengan tahap-tahap perencanaan dan produk jadi, bukannya melaksanakan tugas. b. Patient, tidak terpengaruh oleh penundaan tetap tenang dan toleran. c. Positive, mengetahui segala-segalanya akan beres kalau dia /orang lain yang memimpin. d. Promoter, mendorong atau memaksa orang lain mengikuti, bergabung atau menanam investasi melalui pesaona kepribadiannya. 8. a. Sure, yakin, jarang ragu-ragu atau goyah. b. Spontaneous, memilih agar semua kehidupan merupakan kegiatan yang implusif, tidak dipikirkan lebih dulu dan tidak dihambat oleh rencana. c. Scheduled, membuat dan menghayati menurut rencana sehari-hari tidak menyukai rencananya terganggu. d. Shy, pendiam, tidak mudah terseret ke dalam percakapan. 9. a. b. c. d.
Orderly, orang yang mengatur segala-galanya secara metodis dan sistematis. Obliging, bisa menerima apa saja. orang yang cepat melakukanya dengan cara lain. Outspoken, bicara terang-terangan dan tanpa menahan diri. Optimistic, orang yang periang dan meyakinkan drinya dan orang lain bahwa segalagalanya akan beres.
10. a. Friendly, orang yang menanggapi dan bukan orang yang punya inisiatif, jarang memulai percakapan. b. Faithful, secara konsisten bisa diandalkan teguh setia dan mengabdi kadang-kadang tanpa alasan. c. Funny, punya rasa humor yang cemerlang dan bisa membuat cerita apa saja menjadi peristiwa yang menyenangkan. d. Forceful, kepribadian yang mendominasi dan menyebabkan orang lain ragu-ragu untuk melawanya. 11. a. b. c. d.
Daring, bersedia mengambil risikio tak kenal takut, berani. Delightful, orang yang menyenangkan sebagai teman. Diplomatic, berurusan dengan orang lain secara penuh siasat,perasa dan sabar. Detailed, melakukan segala-galanya secara berurutan dengan ingatan yang jernih tentang segala hal yang terjadi.
12. a. Cheerful, secara konsisten memiliki semangat tinggi dan mempromosikan kebahagian pada orang lain. b. Consistent, tetap memiliki keseimbangan secara emosional, menanggapi sebagaimana yang diharapkan orang lain. c. Cultured, orang yang perhatiannya melibatkan tujuan intelektual dan artistik seperti teater, simponi, balet. d. Confident, percaya diri dan yakin akan kemampuan dan suksesnya sendiri.
13. a. Idealistic, memvisualisasikan hal-hal dalam bentuk yang sempurna, dan perlu memuhi standard itu sendiri. b. Independent, memenuhi diri sendiri, mandiri, penuh kepercayaan diri dan rupanya tidak begitu memerlukan bantuan. c. Inoffensive, orang yang tidak pernah mengatakan atau menyebabkan apa pun yang tidak menyenangkan atau menimbulkan rasa keberatan. d. Inspiring, mendorong orang lain untuk bekerja,bergabung atau terlibat dan membuat seluruhnya menyenangkan. 14. a. Demonstrative, terang-terangan menyatakan emosi. Terutama rasa sayang dan tidak ragu-ragu menyentuh orang lain ketika bicara kepada mereka. b. Decisive, Orang yang mempunyai kemampuan membuat penilaian yang cepat dan tuntas c. Dry humor, Memperlihatkan “kepandaian bicara yang menggigit.” d. Deep, Intensif dan introspektif tanpa rasa senang kepada percakapan dan pengejaran yang pulasan. 15. a. Mediator, secara konsisten mencari peranan merukunkan pertikaian supaya bisa menghindari konflik. b. Musical, ikut serta atau punya apresiasi mendalam untuk musik, puya komitmen terhadap musik sebagai bentuk seni bukannya kesenangan pertunjukan. c. Mover, terdorong oleh keperluan untuk produktif, pemimpin yang diikuti orang lain, merasa sulit duduk diam-diam. d. Mixes easily, menyukai pesta dan tidak bisa menunggu untuk bertemu dengan setiap orang dalam ruangan, tidak pernah menganggap orang lain asing. 16. a. Thoughtful, orang yang tanggap dan mengingat kesempatan istimewa dan cepat memberikan isyarat yang baik. b. Tenacious, memegang teguh, dengan keras kepala, dan tidak mau melepaskan sampai tujuan tercapai. c. Talker, terus-menerus bicara biasanya mencritakan kisah lucu dan menghibur setiap oarang di seklilingnya, merasa perlu mengisi kesunyian supaya membuat orang lain merasa senang. d. Tolerant, mudah menerima pemikiran dan cara-cara orang lain tanpa perlu tidak menyetujui atau mengubahnya. 17. a. Listener, selalu bersedia utnuk mendengarkan. b. Loyal, setia kepada seseorang, mempertahankan gagasan atau pekerjaan. c. Leader, pemberi pengarahan karena pembawaan yang terdorong untuk memimpin dan sering merasa sulit mempercayai bahwa orang lain bisa melakukan pekerjaan dengan sama baiknya. d. Lively, penuh kehidupan, kuat,penuh semangat. 18. a. Contented, mudah puas dengan apa yang dimiliknya, jarang iri hati. b. Chief, memegang kepemimpinan dan mengaharapkan orang lain mengikutinya. c. Chartmaker, mengatur kehidupan, tugas dan pemecahan dengan membuat daftar, formulir atau grafik. d. Cute, tak ternilainya harganya, dicintai ,menjadi pusat perhatian. 19. a. Perfectionist, menempatkan standar tinggi pada dirinya, dan sering pada orang lain, menginginkan segala-galanya pada urutan yang semestinya sepanjang waktu.
b. Pleasant, mudah bergaul, bersifat terbuka,mudah diajak bicara. c. Productive, harus terus-menerus bekerja atau mencapai sesuatu, sering merasa sulit beristirahat. d. Popular,orang yang menghidupkan pesta dan denga demikian sangat diinginkan sebagai tamu pesta. 20. a. Bouncy, kepribadian yang hidup,berlebihan,penuh tenaga. b. Bold, tidak kenal takut,berani,terus terang, tidak takut akan risiko. c. Behaved, secara konsisten ingin membawa dirinya dalam batas-batas apa yang diarasakan semestinya. d. Balanced, kepribadian yang stabil dan mengambil tengah-tengah, tidak menjadi sasaran ketingginan atau kerendahan.
WEAKNESSES 21. a. Blank, orang yang memperlihatkan sedikit ekspresi wajah atau emosi. b. Bashful, menghindari perhatian, akibat rasa malu. c. Brassy, orang yang suka pamer, memperlihatkan apa yang gemerlap dan kuat, terlalu bersuara. d. Bossy, suka memerintah, mendominasi, kadang-kadang mengesalkan dalam hubungan antara orang dewasa. 22. a. Undisciplined, orang yang kurang keteraturannya mempengaruhi hampir semua bidang kehidupannya. b. Unsympathetic, merasa sulit mengenali masalah atau sakit hati atau perasaan orang lain. c. Unenthuasiastic, cenderung tidak bergairah, sering merasa bahwa bagaimanapun sesuatu tidak akan berhasil. d. Unforgiving, orang yang sulit memaafkan dan melupakan sakit hati atau ketidak adilan yang dilakukan kepada mereka, biasa menyimpan dendam. 23. a. Retuticent, tidak bersedia atau menolak ikut terlibat terutama kalau rumit. b. Resentful, sering memendam rasa tidak senang sebagai akibat merasa tersinggung oleh sesuatu yang sebenarnya atau sesuatu yang dibayangkan. c. Resistant, berjuang,melawan, atau ragu-ragu menerima cara lain yang bukan caranya sendiri. d. Repetitious, menceritakan kembali kisah atau insiden untuk menghibur, tanpa mengayadari anda sudah menceritakannya beberapa kali sebelumnya, terus-menerus memerlukan sesuatu untuk dikatakan. 24. a. Fussy, bersikeras tentang persoalan atau perincian sepele, minta perhatian besar kepada perincian yang tidak penting. b. Fearful, sering mengalami perasaan sangat khawatir,sedih atau gelisah. c. Forgetful, punya ingatan kurang kuat yang biasanya berkaitan dengan kurang disiplin dan tidak mau repot-repot mencatat secara mental hal-hal yang tidak menyenangkan. d. Frank, langsung,blak-blakan tidak sungkan-sungkan mengatakan kepadanya. 25. a. Impatient, orang yang merasa sulit bertahan untuk menghadapi kesalan atau menunggu orang lain. b. Insecure, orang yang merasa sedih atau kurang kepercayaan.
c. Indecisive, orang yang merasa sulit membuat keputusana apa saja. d. Interrupts, orang yang lebih banyak bicara dari pada mendengarkan, yang mulai bicara bahkan tanpa menyadari bahwa orang lain sudah bicara. 26. a. Unpopular, orang yang intensitas dan tuntutannya akan kesempurnaan bisa membuat orang lain menjauhinya. b. Uninvolved, tidak punya keinginan untuk mendengarkan atau tertarik kepada perkumpulan, kelompok, aktivitas atau kehidupan orang lain. c. Unpredictable, bisa bergairah sesaat dan sedih pada saat berikutnya, atau bersedia membantu tetapi kemudian menghilang atau berjanji akan datang tetapi kemudian lupa untuk muncul. d. Unaffectionate, merasa sulit secara lisan atau fisik memperlihatkan kasih sayang dengan terbuka. 27. a. Headstrong, bersikeras memaksakan caranya sendiri. b. Haphazard, tidak punya cara yang konsisten untuk melakukan banyak hal. c. Hard to please, orang yang standarnya ditetapkan begitu tinggi sehingga orang lain sulit memuaskannya. d. Hesitant, lambat dalam bergerak dan sulit ikut terlibat. 28. a. Plain, kepribadian tengah-tengah tanpa tinggi rendah dan tidak memperlihatkan banyak emosi. b. Pessimistic, sementara mengharapkan yang terbaik, orang ini biasanya melihat sisi buruk suatu situasi lebih dulu. c. Proud, orang yang punya harga diri tinggi dang menganggap dirinya selalu benar serta orang terbaik untuk pekerjaan. d. Permissive, memperbolehkan orang lain melakukan apa saja sesukanya untuk menghindari dirinya tidak disukai. 29. a. Angered easily, orang yang perangainya seperti anak-anak yang mengutarakan diri dengan ngambek dan berbuat berlebihan serta melupakannya hampir seketika. b. Aimless, bukan orang yang menetapkan tujuan dan tidak ingin menjadi orang yang seperti itu. c. Argumentative, mengobarkan perdebatan karena biasanya dia benar, tidak peduli bagaimana situasinya. d. Alienated, mudah merasa terasing dari orang lain, sering karena rasa tidak aman atau takut jangan-jangan orang lain tidak benar-benar senang bersmanya. 30. a. Naive, prespektif yang sederhana dan kekanak-kanakan,kurang bijaksana atau perngertian tentang tingkat kehidupan yang lebih mendalam. b. Negative attitude, orang yang sikapnya jarang positif dan sering hanya bisa melihat sisi buruk atau gelap dari setiap situasi. c. Nervy, penuh keyakinan, semangat,dan keberanian, sering dalam pengertian negatif. d. Nonchalant, mudah bergaul,tidak peduli, masa bodoh. 31. a. Worrier, secara konsisten merasa tidak tetap,terganggu atau resah. b. Withdrawn, orang yang menarik diri dan memerlukan banyak waktu untuk sendirian atau mengasingkan diri. c. Workaholic, orang yang menetapkan tujuan secara agresif serta harus terus-menerus produktif dan merasa bersalah kalau beristirahat, tidak terdorong oleh keperluan untuk sempurna atau tuntas tetapi kebutuhan untuk pencapaian dan imbalan.
d. Wants credit, merasa senang mendapat penghargaan atau persetujuan orang lain. Sebagai penghibur orang ini menyukai tepuk tangan,tertawa, dan atau penerimaan penonton. 32. a. Too sensitive, terlalu introspektif dan mudah tersunggung kalau disalahpahami. b. Tactless, kadang-kadang menyatakan dirinya dengan cara yang agak menyinggung perasaan dan kurang perimbangan. c. Timid, mundur dari situasi sulit. d. Talkative, pembicara yang menghibur dan memaksa diri yang merasa sulit mendengarkan. 33. a. Doubtful, mempunyai ciri khas selalu tidak tetap dan kurang keyakinan bahwa sesuatu hal akan berhasil. b. Disorganized, kurang kemampuan untuk membuat kehidupan teratur. c. Domineering, dengan memaksa mengambil kontrol atas situasi dan / atau orang lain, biasanya dengan mengatakan kepada orang lain apa yang harus mereka lakukan. d. Depressed, orang yang hampir sepanjang waktu merasa tertekan. 34. a. Inconsistent, tidak menentu,serba berlawanan, dengan tindakan dan emosi yang tidak berdasarkan logika. b. Intorvert, orang yang pemikiran dan perhatiannya ditujukan ke dalam , hidup di dalam dirinya sendri. c. Intolerant, tampaknya tidak bisa tahan atau menerima sikap ,pandangan, atau cara orang lain. d. Indifferent, orang yang merasa bahwa kebanyakan hal tidak penting dalam satu atau lain cara. 35. a. Messy, hidup dalam keadaan tidak teratur, tidak bisa menemukan banyak benda. b. Moody, tidak mempunyai emosi yang tinggi, tetapi biasanya semangatnya merosot sekali, sering kalau merasa tidak dihargai. c. Mumbles, bicara pelan kalau didesak, tidak mau repot-repot bicara jelas. d. Manipulative, mempengaruhi atau mengurus dengan cerdik atau penuh tipu muslihat demi keuntungannya sendiri, dan dengan suatu cara akan bisa memaksakan kehendaknya. 36. a. b. c. d.
Slow, tidak sering bertindak atau berpikir dengan cepat, sangat mengganggu. Stubborn, bertekad memaksakan kehendaknya, tidak mudah dibujuk, keras kepala. Show-offs, perlu menjadi pusat perhatian,ingin dilihat. Skeptical, tidak mudah percaya, mempertanyakan motif di balik kata-kata.
37. a. Loner, memerlukan banyak waktu pribadi dan cenderung menghindari orang lain. b. Lord over, tidak ragu-ragu mengatakan kepada diri anda bahwa dia benar atau memegang kendali. c. Lazy, menilai pekerjaan atau kegiatan dengan ukuran berapa banyak tenaga yang diperlukannya. d. Loud, orang yang tertawa atau suaranya bisa didengar diatas suara lain-lainnya dalam ruangan. 38. a. Sluggish, lambat untuk memulai ,perlu dorongan untuk termotivasi. b. Supicious, cenderung mencurigai atau tidak mempercayai gagasan atau orang lain
c. Short-tempered, punya kemarahan yang menuntut berdasarkan ketidaksabaran. Kemarahan dinyatakan ketika orang lain tidak bergerak cukup cepat atau tidak menyelesaikan apa yang diperintahkan kepada mereka. d. Scatterbained, tidak punya kekuatan untuk berkonsentrasi atau menaruh perhatian ,pikirannya berubah-ubah. 39. a. Revengeful, secara sadar atau tidak menyimpan dendam dan menghukum orang yang melanggar, sering dengan diam-diam menahan persahabatan atau kasih sayang. b. Retless, menyukai kegiatan baru terus menerus karena tidak merasa senang melakukan hal yang sama sepanjang waktu. c. Reluctant, tidak bersedia atau melawan keharusan ikut terlibat. d. Rash, bisa bertindak tergesa-tergesa, tanpa memikirkan dengan tuntas, biasanya karena ketidaksabaran. 40. a. Comprommising, sering mengendurkan pendiriannya, bahkan ketika dia benar, untuk menghindari konflik. b. Critical, selalu mengevaluasi dan membuat pernilaian, sering memikirkan atau menyatakan reaksi negatif. c. Crafty, cerdik, orang yang selalu bisa menemukan cara untuk mencapai tujuan yang diinginkan. d. Changeable, rentang perhatian yang kekanak-kanakan dan pendek yang memerlukan banyak perubahan dan variasi supaya tidak merasa bosan.
PROGRAM STUDI PENDIDIKAN BAHASA INGGRIS
UNIVERSITAS ISLAM NEGERI SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH JAKARTA DAFTAR NILAI
NO
KODE MK
: BHS 7133
MATA KULIAH
: PUBLIC SPEAKING
DOSEN 1
: Ummi Kultsum, M.Pd.
DOSEN 2
:
KELAS
: 5A
NOMOR POKOK
NAMA
Formatif 30.0%
UTS 30.0%
UAS 40.0%
NILAI AKHIR ANGKA
HURUF
1
109014000160
NUR AINI ERVIAN
68,00
81,00
67,00
71,50
B
2
1110014000042
DHIYA MAWADDAH
67,00
81,00
66,00
70,80
B
3
1110014000086
UMUL MUFFARROKHATI
70,00
81,00
70,00
73,30
B
4
1110014000100
FITRIANA PUTRI KURNIA
68,00
81,00
70,00
72,70
B
5
1110014000118
FANI DWI SAPITRI
70,00
81,00
68,00
72,50
B
6
1110014000125
RINDA NURAINI
75,00
81,00
70,00
74,80
B
7
1111014000003
SARAH ASLAMIYAH
77,00
81,00
76,00
77,80
B
8
1111014000004
FARAH AINY
78,00
80,00
77,00
78,20
B
9
1111014000005
EKA FITRIYANI
80,00
80,00
77,00
78,80
B
10 1111014000007
ROSYA KURNIATI
81,00
80,00
80,00
80,30
A
11 1111014000008
HARRY DERMAWAN
80,00
80,00
76,00
78,40
B
12 1111014000009
UTUL AZKIYA
78,00
80,00
75,00
77,40
B
13 1111014000010
FAWZIA FIRDAUSYA
76,00
80,00
70,00
74,80
B
14 1111014000011
ANNISA RANTIKA
80,00
81,00
80,00
80,30
A
15 1111014000014
KHILDA SHOPIA
80,00
81,00
80,00
80,30
A
16 1111014000015
MUTIARA JUNITA
80,00
80,00
80,00
80,00
A
17 1111014000016
FITRI IMAS MUFIDAH
80,00
80,00
81,00
80,40
A
18 1111014000017
DARA SABILA
78,00
81,00
74,00
77,30
B
19 1111014000018
SELASTIA RILLA D
78,00
83,00
77,00
79,10
B
20 1111014000019
IMAM ACHMAD D
83,00
80,00
78,00
80,10
A
21 1111014000020
EVA NURLAELA
77,00
80,00
78,00
78,30
B
22 1111014000021
DEWI NURPITRIYANI
80,00
83,00
80,00
80,90
A
23 1111014000022
HAYZUN AMALIA
75,00
80,00
77,00
77,30
B
24 1111014000023
INDRA WIRA SWASONO
67,00
80,00
70,00
72,10
B
25 1111014000024
IKROMUL KHAIRUL KHABIBI
80,00
80,00
77,00
78,80
B
26 1111014000025
UTARI WAHYUNINGSIH
70,00
83,00
67,00
72,70
B
27 1111014000026
YUDHISTIRA ADI N
76,00
80,00
70,00
74,80
B
NO
NOMOR POKOK
NAMA
Formatif 30.0%
UTS 30.0%
UAS 40.0%
NILAI AKHIR ANGKA
HURUF
28 1111014000027
NISA HASANAH
78,00
83,00
80,00
80,30
A
29 1111014000028
MIRYANTI
78,00
80,00
75,00
77,40
B
30 1111014000029
HAQIM HASAN ALBANA
78,00
80,00
76,00
77,80
B
31 1111014000030
SYNTHIA DIAN S
70,00
81,00
65,00
71,30
B
32 1111014000031
NURINA AYUNINGTYAS
80,00
80,00
80,00
80,00
A
33 1111014000032
RISMALIA NUR FEBRIANI
81,00
80,00
75,00
78,30
B
34 1111014000033
AKHMAD FURQON
77,00
80,00
70,00
75,10
B
35 1111014000035
NOVIAN CHINTIAMI
75,00
80,00
67,00
73,30
B
36 1111014000036
ACHMAD FAKHRY R
80,00
80,00
80,00
80,00
A
37 1111014000037
RIZKY ANTHONI
75,00
81,00
71,00
75,20
B
38 1111014000039
FARRAS LABIEB AHMAD
80,00
83,00
72,00
77,70
B
39 1111014000040
MEGA ANJAR SARI
70,00
83,00
68,00
73,10
B
40 1111014000041
NURUL FATMAWATI
78,00
80,00
76,00
77,80
B
41 1111014000042
NURAINA GITA AYUNINGTYAS
80,00
80,00
80,00
80,00
A
42 1111014000043
ADE MAULINA FAZRIN
74,00
80,00
70,00
74,20
B
43 1111014000088
KURNIA FIRDAUSI NUZULA
Dosen 2
Jakarta, 19 November 2014 Dosen1
Ummi Kultsum, M.Pd. NIP.
NIP.197908112009122001
PROGRAM STUDI PENDIDIKAN BAHASA INGGRIS
UNIVERSITAS ISLAM NEGERI SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH JAKARTA DAFTAR NILAI
NO
KODE MK
: BHS 7133
MATA KULIAH
: PUBLIC SPEAKING
DOSEN 1
: Ummi Kultsum, M.Pd.
DOSEN 2
:
KELAS
: 5B
NOMOR POKOK
NAMA
Formatif 30.0%
UTS 30.0%
UAS 40.0%
NILAI AKHIR ANGKA
HURUF
1
1111014000045
RANI DESITA
73,00
77,00
67,00
71,80
B
2
1111014000046
AFNI AMALIA
76,00
77,00
68,00
73,10
B
3
1111014000047
FUJI HERAWATI
70,00
77,00
70,00
72,10
B
4
1111014000048
SYIFA FAUZIAH
68,00
80,00
67,00
71,20
B
5
1111014000049
WURRY APRIANTY
80,00
77,00
65,00
73,10
B
6
1111014000050
KARIMA DESTI ANNISAA
71,00
80,00
66,00
71,70
B
7
1111014000051
NUNIK KURNIAWATI
77,00
80,00
70,00
75,10
B
8
1111014000052
ELIN ERMASARI
80,00
75,00
80,00
78,50
B
9
1111014000053
NADYA KARIMAH
67,00
80,00
77,00
74,90
B
10 1111014000054
NOVIKA RAHAYU N
76,00
75,00
68,00
72,50
B
11 1111014000055
AYATIKA ADAWIYAH
80,00
80,00
70,00
76,00
B
12 1111014000056
RAFIQA IRZA AMIROT
70,00
77,00
70,00
72,10
B
13 1111014000057
KUMALA DEWI
72,00
77,00
65,00
70,70
B
14 1111014000059
NADIA KARIMAH
75,00
80,00
70,00
74,50
B
15 1111014000060
USWATUN KHASANAH
80,00
77,00
80,00
79,10
B
16 1111014000061
AMI RAHMA DANIA
78,00
77,00
70,00
74,50
B
17 1111014000062
ERVI NUR AZIZAH
72,00
77,00
67,00
71,50
B
18 1111014000063
SITI KHAFIDOH
78,00
80,00
72,00
76,20
B
19 1111014000064
RACHMANITA OKTAVIANI
71,00
77,00
65,00
70,40
B
20 1111014000065
NURITA WULANDARI
70,00
80,00
70,00
73,00
B
21 1111014000066
ARI ARMADI
80,00
80,00
80,00
80,00
A
22 1111014000067
FIRDA AMELIA
70,00
77,00
70,00
72,10
B
23 1111014000069
TITIN SUPARTINI Y
70,00
83,00
66,00
72,30
B
24 1111014000070
SITI APIAH YUSTIANI
65,00
80,00
70,00
71,50
B
25 1111014000071
SALSABIL FIRDAUS
83,00
77,00
80,00
80,00
A
26 1111014000072
NOFIANATUL HASANAH
82,00
75,00
83,00
80,30
A
27 1111014000073
ABID CHOIRUL FIKRI
78,00
77,00
77,00
77,30
B
NO
NOMOR POKOK
NAMA
Formatif 30.0%
UTS 30.0%
UAS 40.0%
NILAI AKHIR ANGKA
HURUF
28 1111014000074
SITI RAUDOTUL FUSHIAH
70,00
75,00
70,00
71,50
B
29 1111014000075
FARHAN
80,00
75,00
80,00
78,50
B
30 1111014000076
TRI HANIFAH AGUSTINA
74,00
75,00
65,00
70,70
B
31 1111014000077
LULU WALIDAINI
78,00
75,00
75,00
75,90
B
32 1111014000078
SAFITRI OKTAVIANI
71,00
75,00
67,00
70,60
B
33 1111014000079
AGUNG PRASETIA
67,00
75,00
42,60
E
34 1111014000080
FAUZIAH PUTRI ROSALINA
70,00
75,00
67,00
70,30
B
35 1111014000081
NICKY DWININGRUM
75,00
83,00
70,00
75,40
B
36 1111014000082
YULIANTI SARI
77,00
83,00
70,00
76,00
B
37 1111014000083
AUDREY NINGTYAS
65,00
83,00
67,00
71,20
B
38 1111014000084
UTAMI FAUZIYAH
80,00
75,00
77,00
77,30
B
39 1111014000085
PUTIK DELIMA
76,00
83,00
70,00
75,70
B
40 1111014000086
SELINDA FEBRIANI
66,00
83,00
67,00
71,50
B
41 1111014000130
JUMAYEVA AYGOZEL
65,00
77,00
63,00
67,80
C
42 1111014000132
MAHMUDOVA AYNA
60,00
75,00
62,00
65,30
C
43 1111014000135
FARZONA JURAKHON
60,00
83,00
65,00
68,90
C
Dosen 2
Jakarta, 19 November 2014 Dosen1
Ummi Kultsum, M.Pd. NIP.
NIP.197908112009122001
PROGRAM STUDI PENDIDIKAN BAHASA INGGRIS
UNIVERSITAS ISLAM NEGERI SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH JAKARTA DAFTAR NILAI
NO
KODE MK
: BHS 7133
MATA KULIAH
: PUBLIC SPEAKING
DOSEN 1
: Ummi Kultsum, M.Pd.
DOSEN 2
:
KELAS
: 5C
NOMOR POKOK
NAMA
Formatif 30.0%
UTS 30.0%
UAS 40.0%
NILAI AKHIR ANGKA
HURUF
1
1111014000087
FUAD HASAN
75,00
80,00
73,00
75,70
B
2
1111014000089
RAHMI RABBANI
70,00
77,00
73,00
73,30
B
3
1111014000090
AMINAH SITI ROHANAH
65,00
81,00
60,00
67,80
C
4
1111014000092
DITTA FIDIA ANGGIARINI
73,00
80,00
72,00
74,70
B
5
1111014000093
BAGAS FEBRIANSYAH W.
70,00
76,00
70,00
71,80
B
6
1111014000094
WILDAN AHDIYAT
67,00
76,00
68,00
70,10
B
7
1111014000095
AULIA RACHMAWATI
78,00
77,00
67,00
73,30
B
8
1111014000096
MAYA SYARIE
80,00
80,00
80,00
80,00
A
9
1111014000097
ACHMAD BADRUN
76,00
76,00
72,00
74,40
B
10 1111014000098
TIAS SIL ROMANSYAH
65,00
76,00
66,00
68,70
C
11 1111014000099
SULIS SETYANINGSIH
64,00
77,00
65,00
68,30
C
12 1111014000100
MUTHIA HANIFAH
70,00
77,00
71,00
72,50
B
13 1111014000101
FITROTUN NISA
70,00
80,00
70,00
73,00
B
14 1111014000102
NUNKY APRILLIA
75,00
80,00
72,00
75,30
B
15 1111014000103
OKY PRIMADEKA YULIANA
80,00
81,00
80,00
80,30
A
16 1111014000104
FAHMI FAUZJI
70,00
81,00
71,00
73,70
B
17 1111014000105
DWI RATNASARI
80,00
80,00
80,00
80,00
A
18 1111014000106
AJENG RIZKY AGITA
70,00
80,00
70,00
73,00
B
19 1111014000107
ESTI SETYANINGRUM
70,00
80,00
71,00
73,40
B
20 1111014000108
ELLEN FIRDHAYANA
80,00
77,00
78,00
78,30
B
21 1111014000109
NIKI BRILIAN RINDU PUTRI
80,00
80,00
80,00
80,00
A
22 1111014000110
LILI SAMROTUL KARIMAH
80,00
80,00
73,00
77,20
B
23 1111014000111
HASRUL HUTAGAOL
74,00
78,00
68,00
72,80
B
24 1111014000112
WIYUDO SERENA
65,00
75,00
65,00
68,00
C
25 1111014000113
PUTRA DIAN KHARISMA IVADA
67,00
78,00
70,00
71,50
B
26 1111014000114
MUHAMMAD KAHFIANAN
70,00
78,00
65,00
70,40
B
27 1111014000115
RURY GAMAL PACI
70,00
78,00
71,00
72,80
B
NO
NOMOR POKOK
NAMA
Formatif 30.0%
UTS 30.0%
UAS 40.0%
NILAI AKHIR ANGKA
HURUF
28 1111014000116
FIKRI ABDILLAH
73,00
78,00
71,00
73,70
B
29 1111014000117
IRFAN MUJAHID
68,00
76,00
78,00
74,40
B
30 1111014000118
RIZKA MUSLIMAINI
67,00
77,00
68,00
70,40
B
31 1111014000119
MUHAMAD ADNA
80,00
80,00
80,00
80,00
A
32 1111014000120
MUHAMMAD FADLY
77,00
81,00
70,00
75,40
B
33 1111014000121
SHENDY PRATAMA
71,00
78,00
72,00
73,50
B
34 1111014000122
MUH MIFTAHUSSURUR
83,00
77,00
80,00
80,00
A
35 1111014000123
FANDI ROHMAN DIANTO
60,00
76,00
66,00
67,20
C
36 1111014000124
DESSI WULANDARI
75,00
80,00
70,00
74,50
B
37 1111014000125
AHMAD MUCHLISHON
82,00
81,00
75,00
78,90
B
38 1111014000126
DZAWIN NUR IKRAM
80,00
76,00
80,00
78,80
B
39 1111014000127
SRI PUJIASTUTI
40 1111014000128
LALA NURMALASARI DEWI
80,00
80,00
80,00
80,00
A
41 1111014000129
M. ISKAK SAQOFI
75,00
81,00
66,00
73,20
B
42 1111014000134
MONASIA GUSTI
72,00
81,00
71,00
74,30
B
Dosen 2
Jakarta, 19 November 2014 Dosen1
Ummi Kultsum, M.Pd. NIP.
NIP.197908112009122001
THE RESULT OF STUDENTS’ PERSONALITY TEST SEVENTH SEMESTER OF ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT VII A No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Name Sarah Aslamiyah Imam Achmad Damasullah Akhmad Furqon Utul Azkiya Eka Fitriyani Eva Nurlaela Rismalia Nur Febriani Nurina Ayuningtiyas Mega Anjar Sari Haqim Hasan Albana Miryanti Nisa Hasanah Rosya Kurniati Dara Sabila Nurania Gita Ayuningtyas Faras Labieb Ahmad Novian Chintiami Nurul Fatmawai Farah Aini Dewi Nur Fitriyani Indra Wira Swasono Synthia Dian Septiani Fauzia Firdausya Hayzun Amalia Khilda Shopia Utari Wahyuningsih Mutiara Junita
S 6
C 6
M 18
P 10
Domination Melancholic
7
11
17
15
Melancholic
10 6 10 2 15 20 6 4 13 7 8 11 14 15 3 19 14 14 5 10 10 6 9 12 18
4 5 5 12 4 7 5 7 5 2 9 7 8 9 17 3 9 10 7 4 2 5 10 8 3
16 12 6 10 10 4 9 12 7 16 11 12 11 7 10 3 4 6 18 7 12 7 7 10 5
10 17 19 16 11 9 20 17 15 15 12 10 7 9 10 15 13 10 10 19 16 22 14 10 14
Melancholic Phlegmatic Phlegmatic Phlegmatic Sanguine Sanguine Phlegmatic Phlegmatic Phlegmatic Melancholic Phlegmatic Melancholic Sanguine Sanguine Choleric Sanguine Sanguine Sanguine Melancholic Phlegmatic Phlegmatic Phlegmatic Phlegmatic Sanguine Sanguine
VII B No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Name Amy Rahmadania Fuji Herawati Elin Ermasi Kumala Dewi Afni Amalia Putik Delima Ari Armadi Nadia Karimah Audrey Ningtyas Safitri Oktaviani Rachmanita Oktaviani Siti Apiah Yustiani Wurry Aprianty TitinSupartini Y Ervi Nur Azizah Selinda Febriani Salsabila Firdaus Utami Fauziah Yulianti Sari Tri Hanifah Ayatika Adawiyah Novika Rahayu Syifa Fauziah Lulu Walidaini Nurita Wulandari Rani Desita Siti Khafidoh
S 9 6 24 16 9 18 3 15 1 7 12 8 4 10 7 14 7 6 17 20 13 7 9 7 4 3 9
C 7 4 1 3 3 2 7 1 5 6 3 6 12 4 11 14 6 12 4 2 11 6 13 13 7 9 4
M 10 7 3 13 12 6 12 5 13 12 9 10 14 16 18 7 20 16 5 6 7 17 7 11 20 18 14
P 14 23 13 8 15 14 17 19 16 15 16 16 10 10 3 4 7 6 14 12 9 10 11 9 9 10 13
Domination Phlegmatic Phlegmatic Sanguine Sanguine Phlegmatic Sanguine Phlegmatic Phlegmatic Phlegmatic Phlegmatic Phlegmatic Phlegmatic Choleric Melancholic Melancholic Sanguine Choleric Melancholic Melancholic Sanguine Sanguine Sanguine Melancholic Choleric Choleric Melancholic Melancholic Melancholic
VII C No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Name Dessi Wulandari Fitrotun Nisa Shendy Pratama Ajeng Rizky Agita Wildan Ahdiyat Maya Syarie Irfan Mujahid Dwi Ratnasari Achmad Badrun Fikri Abdillah Ditta Fidia Anggiarini Rizka Muslimaini Esti Setyaningrum Wiyudo Serena Nunky Aprillia Oky Primadeka Yuliana Bagas Febriansyah W Nikki Brilian Rindu P Lala Nurmala Sari D
S 13 8 9 13 8 5 8 9 2 5 5 15 12 15 14 5 14 19 16
C 3 6 9 2 8 5 2 11 13 14 9 5 9 9 4 6 7 9 7
M 11 16 14 9 10 13 12 9 13 14 10 8 9 7 6 12 9 6 8
P 13 7 8 16 14 18 18 11 11 7 16 10 10 8 16 17 10 6 9
Domination Sanguine Phlegmatic Melancholic Melancholic Phlegmatic Phlegmatic Phlegmatic Phlegmatic Choleric Phlegmatic Choleric Melancholic Choleric Melancholic Phlegmatic Sanguine Sanguine Sanguine Phlegmatic Phlegmatic Sanguine Sanguine Sanguine
