1

TEACHING SPEAKING THROUGH SIMULATION TECHNIQUE

TO IMPROVE THE STUDENTS’ SPEAKING ABILITY

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Written by:

HENRY ELISA

F2201141014

MASTERS STUDY PROGRAM OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION

TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY

TANJUNGPURA UNIVERSITY

PONTIANAK

2018

2

TEACHING SPEAKING THROUGH SIMULATION TECHNIQUE

TO IMPROVE THE STUDENTS’ SPEAKING ABILI

RESEARCH ARTICLE

HENRY ELISA

F2201141014

Approved by:

Supervisor I Supervisor II

Dr. Clarry Sada, M.Pd. Dr. Y. Gatot Sutapa Y., M.Pd.

NIP 19600815 195103 1 001 NIP 19650717 199203 1 003

Legalized by:

Dean, Teacher Training and Chair, Masters Study Program

Education faculty of English Language Education

Dr. H. Martono, M.Pd. Drs. Sudarsono, MA., Ph.D.

NIP 19680316 199403 1 014 NIP 19580414 198703 1 001

TEACHING SPEAKING THROUGH SIMULATION TECHNIQUE

TO IMPROVE THE STUDENTS’ SPEAKING ABILITY

1

TEACHING SPEAKING THROUGH SIMULATION TECHNIQUE

TO IMPROVE THE STUDENTS’ SPEAKING ABILITY

Henry Elisa, Clarry Sada, Yohanes Gatot Sutapa Yuliana

Masters Study Program of English Language Education,

Teacher Training and Education Faculty

Email: henryelisa.edu@gmail.com

Abstract

This research aimed to improve the students’ speaking ability through simulation

technique. Classroom Action Research implemented as the research design in this

study. The data of the study were taken from eighteen students in class VIIIB of SMP

Nusantara Indah Sintang in Academic Year 2016/2017. The researcher used

observation checklist, field notes, and speaking test as the instruments of data

collection. The findings of the study proved that this technique has improved the

students’ ability in speaking in the term of grammar, Vocabulary, Comprehension,

Fluency and Pronunciation. It can be seen that their involvement was rise in teaching

and learning process. The students’ involvement increased in each meeting, it reached

94.44% and the percentage of the final score was 72.22% in the last cycle. The

researcher suggests that teachers should use simulation technique especially to

improve the students’ speaking ability for oral communication in their classroom

activity when teaching speaking.

Keywords: Simulation, Speaking, Teaching Speaking, Teaching Technique

INTRODUCTION

The ability of communication is skill

to express, understand, and produce

language both in spoken and written form.

That is why the process of teaching

speaking is expected to develop these skills

in order to make the graduate students able

to use English to communicate in a certain

level of literacy. The purpose of teaching

English in secondary school is the students

are targeted to reach the functional level. In

this level the students will be able to use the

language for communication both spoken

and written in daily activities such as

reading newspaper and manual instruction

to solve the problems (Soehendro, 2006, p.

123). Related to the teaching target for

secondary school, the students must engage

in learning process actively. By involving

the students in learning activities, they will

practice English as a tool for

communication.

There are some studies that had been

conducted by researchers to improve the

students’ speaking skill through simulation

technique in their English classes. Ardriyati

(2009, p. 1) from the results of her study

showed that the students are highly

motivated and they feel that they get

enough practice as well as theory. Javid

(2013, p. 254) offers deep insights into the

fact that the power of simulation can

transpose the normal classroom into an

authentic setting where language skills can

be taught under more realistic conditions.

Mutohhar (2014, p. 126) claims that by

using simulation, the students will get more

chances to practice their English

grammatically and practically, because

it makes them in a real world. From the

results of studies had conducted by the

other researchers, the writer more

motivated and believe that simulation

technique is the appropriate technique to

2

improve the students’ speaking. The writer

would conduct the same technique to

improve the students’ speaking ability at

SMP Nusantara Indah.

One of the techniques can be

implemented in the teaching and learning

process is simulation. It is described as a

special kind of model, and a model is a

special way of expressing a set of

statements about some aspect of reality,

such as past reality, present reality or future

reality (Vincenzi, Wise, Mouloua, &

Hancock, 2009, p. 6). Further, Baudrillard,

Heinich, Alessi and Trollip cited in Gibson,

Aldrich and Prensky (2007, p. 4) define

simulation as an interactive abstraction or

simplification of some real life or any

attempt to imitate a real or imaginary

environment. Sheikh, Ajeedi and Abu

(2008, p. 16) strengthen that a simulated

environment is less expensive real life. In

addition, simulation technique is an activity

in which the students simulate a real life

encounter as if they were doing so in the

real world, either as themselves in the

specific situation given, or taking on the

role of a character different from

themselves or with thoughts and feelings

they do not necessarily share (Jeremy

Harmer, 2007, p. 352).

Davison and Gordon cited in Klippel

(1991, p. 121) state that “simulations are

simplified patterns of human interactions or

social processes where the players

participate in roles”. Simulations are very

similar to role-plays but what makes

simulations different than role plays is that

they are more elaborate. In simulations,

students can bring items to the class to

create a realistic environment. For instance,

if a student is acting as a singer, she brings

a microphone to sing and so on. Because,

language is learnt by imitation (Parel &

Jain, 2008, p. 31). In the process of

teaching and learning the students can be

asked to do a simulation related to their

daily life activities (Landriscina, 2013, p.

5). Simulation might proceed by feeding

pretend inputs not only into factual and

practical reasoning mechanism but also into

a wider class of mental-state generating

mechanism (Dokic & Proust, 2002, p. 8).

Based on what has mentioned above

that the students still have problems in

using English in the classroom. The general

research question of this study is

formulated as follow: “How can simulation

technique improve the student’s speaking

ability?”. It is realized that a simulation

technique could not able to solve all of the

problems found in the teaching and learning

process. Then, the researcher formulated

the specific question of the study as follow:

How can the simulation technique improve

the students’ involvement and score of

speaking aspects in the teaching and

learning process?.

RESEARCH METHOD

This research was conducted by using

classroom action research. It is used to

study the classroom activity in improving

the teaching speaking skill among the

second year students at SMP Nusantara

Indah. Mills (2003, p. 5) states that

classroom action research is any systematic

inquiry conducted by teacher writers,

principals, school counselors, or other

stakeholders in the teaching learning

environment to gather information about

how their particular schools operate, how

they teach, and how well their student learn.

In additional, Burns (2010, p. 2) cites that

classroom action research is “part of a

broad movement that has been going on in

education generally for some time. It is

related to the ideas of ‘reflective practice’

and ‘the teacher as researcher’.

Thus, classroom action research is a

form of researching one’s learning. The

researcher is concerned with using a

systematic process in solving educational

problem and making improvements (Tomal,

2010, p. 14). Because the study is always

done with others, it is important to ensure

that relationships are of a kind that will lead

to education. McNiff and Whitehead (2002,

p. 53) states that the purpose of education is

to lead to further education.

3

When conducted the research, the

writer applied the model of action research

developed by Kurt Lewin as cited in

McNiff and Whitehead (2002, pp. 40-41).

The model of classroom action research is

known as an action-reflection cycle of

planning, acting, observing and reflecting.

Planning

Fischer cited in Burn (2010, pp. 24-25)

says that typically there are four broad areas

of teachers’ interests that provide a focus

for classroom action research. These are: a)

your teaching and making changes in

teaching; b) your learners and how they

learn; c) your interaction with the current

curriculum and with curriculum innovation;

d) your teaching beliefs and philosophies

and their connections with daily practice.

Planning is the first step in conducting

action research in Lewin’s model. In this

step, the writer has planned the technique

would be used to improve teaching and

learning speaking for the grade eight

students. This stage refers to the

preparation, the writer will organize

teaching technique, teaching media,

preparing lesson plan, and designing

research instruments for data collecting.

Acting In this stage, the writer as the English

teacher was implemented the preparation

which has done in the previous stage. The

writer was applied communicative language

teaching method by using simulation as the

technique to teach speaking.

Observing In this stage, the writer was observed

the process of teaching and learning

process. To help the writer in doing the

observation, he was helped by an English

teacher at the school as a collaborator. She

was observed the teaching and learning

process including the situation, condition,

the writer and students’ activities, and

material of speaking activities.

Burns (2010, p. 59) suggests four

approaches about how to observe. First,

observe and record everything, which gives

the observer a broad look at the

environment. Second, observe and look for

nothing in particular, which may lead the

observer to notice unusual happenings.

Third, look for paradoxes so that observers

might notice a student who is generally

very quiet in the classroom suddenly

becomes talkative. And fourth, identify the

key problem facing a group.

Reflecting The last stage of action research is

reflecting on the experiences of teaching

and learning process. It is one of the most

basic and essential aspects of our

development as classroom professionals.

Deep reflection serves to build knowledge

about curriculum development in the widest

meanings of that term. Burns (2010, p. 142)

states the possibilities for reflection and

knowledge-building in action research are

extensive, but they include exploring and

expanding our understanding of how the

roles of teachers and learners interact;

learners learn and how their diversity

affects learning; to develop new modes of

interaction with students; the curriculum

works and the theories that underpin it; to

develop and experiment with classroom

tasks, texts and activities; to select and

sequence units of work and the materials

that go with them; to introduce and try out

new classroom technologies; to assess

students’ progress and evaluate the course;

and to test out and apply current ideas and

theories from the field of language

teaching.

4

Subject of Research The subject of the research is students

of class VIIIB in SMP Nusantara Indah

Sintang. There are 18 students in the class

with 7 male students and 11 female

students. They are chosen as the subject of

the research based on the results of

classroom observation along the first

semester of the second years. Among the

three parallel classes, the students in class

VIIIB have a problem in speaking. They

lack of confident when the writer asked

them to perform a dialogue at the front of

class. Some of them just read the dialogue

without pay attention on how to pronounce

the words. They also often got low score on

English evaluation especially on speaking.

Technique and Tool of Data Collection

In this research the researcher was

collected the data through some techniques

and tools. To support the researcher’s ideas,

some expert’s voices were added in this

section. To collect the data for this

research, the researcher used some

techniques. They were observation and

interview.

Observation is collecting data through

‘making familiar things strange’, or in other

words, seeing things that are before our

eyes in ways we haven’t consciously

noticed before (Burns, 2010, p. 57).

Schmucks states observation, as a mean of

collecting qualitative data, involve carefully

watching and systematically recording what

we see and hear going on in a particular

setting (Mertler, 2009, p. 107). The writer

was used structured observation in this

research. It typically requires the observer

to do nothing else but observe, looking

usually for specific behaviors, reactions or

interactions (Mertler, 2009, p. 107).

Interviews are conversation between

teacher-researcher and participants in which

the teacher poses questions to the

participants (Mertler, 2009, p. 108). In

conducting interview, the writer was used

semi structured interviews by asking

several ‘base’ questions but also has the

option of the following up a given response

with alternative, optional questions that

may or may not be used by the researcher,

depending on the situation (Mertler, 2009,

p. 108).

Further, the tools for data collections

were observation checklist, field note,

interview guide and test. Observation

checklist is used to assess the researcher.

The questions on the checklist represent

roughly the order in which the teacher-

researcher and observer might consider

what information will be recorded during

the observation (Creswell, 2012, p. 217).

The writer was helped by an observer

to record the classroom observation in the

form of field notes. Field notes are written

observation of what the observer see taking

place in the classroom activity Johnson

(Mertler, 2009, p. 107). In addition

Creswell (2012, p. 216) states that field

notes are “text (words) recorded by the

researcher during and observation in a

qualitative study”.

Interview guide was prepared to help

the researcher when conducted interview to

get information when the teacher cannot

directly observe the participants. Mertler

(2009, p. 108) states that interview guide

“containing either specific or general

question to be asked ”.

Speaking assessment would be

implemented to examine the students’

achievement and progress after the process

of teaching and learning process through

simulation technique was implemented. The

researcher used a scoring rubric which

contains five aspects of speaking. They are

grammar, vocabulary, comprehension,

fluency and pronunciation. The researcher

asked the students to simulate a

conversation in front of the classroom. The

writer has adapted scoring for speaking

created by Brown (2003, pp. 172-173) and

speaking level by Riyaz and Mullick (2016,

p. 60). It is used to analyze and determine

the students’ score and speaking level. The

adaptation is conducted especially in the

aspects of speaking by figuring out the

details in order to make description clearer

for the raters.

5

Data Analysis Techniques

After collecting the data, the writer

will analyze the data. The data for this

study is qualitative data which is collected

through observation and interview. In

analyzing the data of this research, the

writer will use three steps process proposed

by Parson and Brown in Mertler (2009, pp.

141-144). They are described as follow:

Organization; In this step, the writer would

organized the narrative data in the form of

observational field notes, interview

transcripts and transcript of the classroom

interactions have collected by the observer.

After the data are organized, the writer will

make a code to categorize the data to

provide similar types and information.

Description; In the second step, the writer

described the characteristic of the

categories resulting from the coding. He

made a connection between the data have

collected to the research question. The last

step was interpretation, in this step the

writer as the researcher would examined

events, behaviors and related results of

observation that has been categorized. He

will look for the aspects of the data that

answer the research questions and to know

the result of the current practice. If the data

showed that the teaching process activity

does not run well. So, the writer would

decided to do the next cycle until the

process of teaching speaking through

simulation technique show a development.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

The data presented in this study were

obtained from the implementation of the

classroom action research through the use

of simulation technique in teaching

speaking. This study was conducted in two

cycles; there were two meeting in each

cycle.

Cycle 1

The first cycle was conducted in two

meetings. The percentage of the students’

involvement in each meeting were for the

first meeting 72,5% and the second meeting

80% respectively. Thus the final percentage

for the students’ involvement during the

process of teaching and learning in the first

cycle was 76,25%. It meant that the second

criteria of success obtained from the

observation checklists have not been

reached yet. Graphic 1 showed the students’

involvement in cycle I.

Figure 1. The Students’ Involvement in Cycle I

Further, to know the students’

speaking improvement during the process

of teaching and learning through

simulation. The researcher did an

assessment on the students’ simulation

performance. There were five category

assessed by the researcher. They were

grammar (15%), Vocabulary (15%),

Comprehension (20%), Fluency (30%) and

Pronunciation (20%).

6

The data for the assessment were

students’ video of simulation performance.

They were taken by the collaborator when

they did simulation in front of the class.

The data were then scored by using scoring

rubric by the researcher and the

collaborator. This was done in order to

avoid subjectivity in scoring the students’

simulation performance. The students’

score for each category will be presented in

table 1.

Table 1. The Students’ Simulation Performance Percentage in Cycle I

Category Scale

Rater 1 Rater 2

Average (%) Number

of

Students

Percentage

(%)

Number

of

Students

Percentage

(%)

Grammar

4 6 33,33 11 61,11 47,22

3 6 33,33 3 16,67 25,00

2 6 33,33 4 22,22 27,78

1 0 0,00 0 0,00 0,00

Vocabulary

4 1 5,56 6 33,33 19,44

3 10 55,56 7 38,89 47,22

2 7 38,89 5 27,78 33,33

1 0 0,00 0 0,00 0,00

Comprehension

4 0 0,00 4 22,22 11,11

3 10 55,56 7 38,89 47,22

2 6 33,33 6 33,33 33,33

1 2 11,11 1 5,56 8,33

Fluency

4 0 0,00 0 0,00 0,00

3 5 27,78 7 38,89 33,33

2 9 50,00 6 33,33 41,67

1 4 22,22 5 27,78 25,00

Pronunciation

4 0 0,00 0 0,00 0,00

3 4 22,22 6 33,33 27,78

2 11 61,11 8 44,44 52,78

1 3 16,67 4 22,22 19,44

Based on the students’ score in each

category, it can be seen that the student’s

score were dominated with score 2. If the

students’ score in each category is 2, the

students would not pass the passing grade.

The passing grade of the final score was 75.

It was expected that the students get score 3

for each category. That why if the students

got only score two as presented in the

formula below, they would not pass.

7

Figure 2. The Students’ Final Score Percentage in Cycle I

From the graphic above shows that

38.89% (7 students) got score above 75 in

the range score for good category of

speaking; 16.67% (3 students) were scored

in the range for fair category; 16.67% (3

students) was given in the range score for

average category and the last 27.78% (5

students) got score in the range score for

weak category. So, it can be said that the

students had not reached the passing grade,

which at least 70% students got score 75. It

meant that the process of teaching and

learning through simulation had not met the

criterion of success.

Cycle 2

After the second meeting had been

conducted, it is obtained the students’

involvement percentage was also improve

from the three previous meeting. The

improvement was considered good because

the percentage was 94.44%. It was increased

14.44% compare with the students’

involvement in the second meeting in cycle

I. It meant that most of the students were

actively participate in all the activities.

Figure 3. The Students’ Involvement in Cycle II

To sum up, the students’ involvement

percentage in each meeting were 81.81% in

the first meeting and 94.44% in the second

meeting. Thus the percentage of the

students’ involvement in the second cycle

during the process of teaching and learning

process through simulation was 88.13%. It

means that the improvement of the students’

involvement was increased 11.88%

compared to the first cycle. Then, it can be

assumed that the second cycle was

successful because the percentage of the

students’ involvement has passed the 80% as

the minimum percentage for the second

criteria of success.

8

Table 2. The Students’ Simulation Performance Percentage in Cycle II

Category Scale

Rater 1 Rater 2

Average

(%) Number

of

Students

Percentage

(%)

Number

of

Students

Percentage

(%)

Grammar

4 13 72,22 4 22,22 47,22

3 3 16,67 12 66,67 41,67

2 2 11,11 2 11,11 11,11

1 0 0,00 0 0,00 0,00

Vocabulary

4 7 38,89 12 66,67 52,78

3 9 50,00 4 22,22 36,11

2 2 11,11 2 11,11 11,11

1 0 0,00 0 0,00 0,00

Comprehension

4 2 11,11 6 33,33 22,22

3 13 72,22 10 55,56 63,89

2 3 16,67 2 11,11 13,89

1 0 0,00 0 0,00 0,00

Fluency

4 0 0,00 3 16,67 8,33

3 13 72,22 13 72,22 72,22

2 4 22,22 1 5,56 13,89

1 1 5,56 1 5,56 5,56

Pronunciation

4 0 0,00 0 0,00 0,00

3 14 77,78 16 88,89 83,33

2 2 11,11 1 5,56 8,33

1 2 11,11 1 5,56 8,33

From the data presented above, it can

be seen that the students’ average

percentage score were increased in all of

the aspects compared with the students’

achievement in the first cycle. Then, the

students’ final score can be seen in the

following figure.

Figure 4. The Students’ Final Score Percentage in Cycle II

9

To sum up, considering all findings in

cycle II, the obtained data showed the

students’ involvement was improve 11.88%

from 76.25% in the first cycle became

88.13% in second cycle. It can be said that

most of the students were involved in the

process of teaching and learning through

simulation technique. Further, the students’

final score was also improved from 38.89%

(7 students) in the first cycle became

83.33% (15 students) who were passed the

minimum passing grade which was 75.

The data for this study were obtained

through observation checklist, field note and

video. The results of the study showed that

76.25% students were involved in the

process of teaching and learning and the

percentage of the students’ final score who

passed the minimum passing grade was only

38.89%. It can be assumed that the results of

the study in the first cycle I were not reached

the criteria of success. The criteria were

70% students may achieve the minimum

passing grade and at least 80% students

actively engaged in the process of teaching

and learning.

Further, after did reflection in the first

cycle. The researcher decided to continue

the study to the next cycle. Then, the cycle

was also conducted in two meetings. The

meetings were conducted on Tuesday, may

30th, 2017 and Thursday, June 1st, 2017. The

researcher was also helped by the same

collaborator in the second cycle. In this

research the students’ involvement in the

process of teaching and learning speaking

was increased 11.88% from the previous

cycle which was 76.25% to 88.13% in this

cycle.

Discussion The improvements could be reached by

having treatments during the teaching and

learning process. As stated by Larsen and

Freeman (2000, P.128) that the role of

teacher is to facilitate communication in the

classroom. In line with the statement, during

the process of teaching and learning the

researcher did the role. He has given

chances for the students to have

communication practice using English by

having discussion when they were asked to

do tasks and prepared for their turn to do

simulation in front of the classroom. It was

helped to increase the students’ involvement

in this cycle. To do support the classroom

activities he was arranged the classroom to

make the students feel like in the real life

situation. It was strengthen by Sheikh et al.

(2008, p. 16) who stated that a simulation

environment is less expensive real life. It

was also supported by Landriscina (2013, p.

5) who said that in the process of teaching

and learning the students can be asked to do

simulation related to their daily life

activities.

After the treatment in the learning

process, the students were motivated in

learning speaking through simulation.

Because they wanted be able to do it in the

real life communication with people who

speak English around them. They were

motivated to have more practice and use

English for communication, especially for

classroom interaction and daily

conversation. To conduct the teaching and

learning process, the researcher also did

roles as suggested by Joyce Weil and

Calhoun (2009, p. 385) who stated that the

teacher has important managerial function in

teaching speaking through simulation such

as explaining, referring, coaching and

discussing. From the results of the study, it

can be proved that the process of teaching

speaking through simulation technique at

class VIIIB of SMP Nusantara Indah

Sintang in Academic Year 2016/2017 was

successful.

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

Conclusions

In this study, the researcher acted as the

teacher in teaching speaking in the

classroom through simulation technique.

And, the participants who were involved in

the study were 18 students of class VIIIB, an

English teacher as a collaborator and the

researcher.

10

The study was applied in two cycles.

There were two meetings in each cycle. In

this present research, there were two kinds

of data collected by the researcher. They

were quantitative and qualitative data.

Quantitative data were collected through the

students’ performance in simulation,

whereas the qualitative data were obtained

through observation checklist and interview.

Video was used by the researcher to score

the students’ performance and also to

confirm the data about the students’

involvement toward the learning activity

through simulation. The data were discussed

clearly in the previous chapter

Suggestions

Based on the research findings of this

study, the researcher would like to suggest

the English teachers, English learners and

the next researchers who want to conduct

research in the same field.

For the English teachers, especially

English teacher at SMP Nusantara Indah

Sintang and the others who teach in rural

areas. In general are suggested to be more

creative, innovative and active in teaching

speaking and also the other languages skills.

They should creative in managing the

classroom atmosphere, innovative in

collecting the material for teaching

speaking, and also being active teacher in

the classroom activity. They also

recommended help their students to have

more chances in using English for

communication. English must be used in

classroom interaction, and also in the school

environment. The teacher may use English

to communicate with their students along the

school hours. It is important to do because

most of the students only learn English at

school. And, most of them never use English

for communication with people outside the

school area.

For the English learners, especially

students at class VIIIB at SMP Nusatara

Indah are suggested to keep their motivation

and speaking ability more intensively. In

addition, the students are suggested to have

self motivation in learning speaking not only

in the classroom but also outside the class

such as using English to communicate with

classmates, schoolmates, English teachers

and also the others who can speak English at

school environment and everywhere.

For the other researchers who are

willing to conduct a classroom action

research in same field are suggested to

implement simulation technique in teaching

speaking. The researchers may have more

complete equipments, and use different

rooms for each topic when do actions such

as at library, computer or language

laboratory it is available. It is expected to

help the students feel that they are in the real

life situation. The simulation may also take

place outside the classroom.

REFERENCES Ardriyati, W. (2009). Motivating Students'

Speaking Skill Through Simulation In

Business English Classroom.

Portalgaruda.

Brown, H. D. (2003). Language Assessment;

Principles and Classroom Practices.

San Fransisco: Longman.

Burns, A. (2010). Doing Action Research in

English Language Teaching: A Guide

for Practitioners. New York:

Routledge.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational

Research: Planning, Conducting and

Evaluating Quantitative and

Qualitative Research (Fourth ed.).

Boston: Pearson Education Inc.

Davison, J., & Dowson, J. (2003). Learning

to Teach English in the Secondary

School: A companion to school

experience (Second ed.). London:

RoutledgeFalmer.

Dokic, J., & Proust, J. (Eds.). (2002).

Simulation and Knowledge of Action:

Advances in Consciousness Research

(Vol. 45). Amsterdam: Jonh Benjamins

Publishing Company.

Gibson, D., Aldrich, C., & Prensky, M.

(2007). Games and Simulations in

Online Learning: Research and

11

Development Frameworks. New York:

Information Science Publishing.

Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English

Language Teaching (Fourth ed.).

London: Pearson Longman.

Javid, C. Z. (2013). An Investigation of

Effectiveness of Simulation in

Developing Oral Skills. European

Scientific Journal, 9, 254-270.

Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2009).

Models of Teaching (Eightt ed.). United

Stated of America: Pearson Education

Inc.

Klippel, F. (1991). Keep Talking. New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Landriscina, F. (2013). Simulation and

Learning:A Model Centered

Approach. London: Springer.

Larsen, D. & Freeman. (2000). Techniques

And Principles in Language

Teaching (Second ed.). New York:

Oxford University Press

McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2002). Action

Research: Principles and Practice

(Second ed.). London:

RoutledgeFalmer.

Mertler, C. A. (2009). Action Research:

Teachers as Researchers in the

Classroom (Second ed.). United State

of America: SAGE.

Mills, G. E. (2003). Action Research: A

Guide for the Teacher Researcher

(Second ed.). United State of America:

Merrill Prentice Hall.

Mutohhar (2012). Using Simulation in

Teaching English for Elementary

School Students. TEYLIN, Kudus,

Universitas Muria Kudus.

Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL

Listening and Speaking. New York:

Routledge.

Parel, M. F., & Jain, P. M. (2008). English

Language Teaching: Methods, Tools

and Techniques. Jaipur: Sunrise

Publishers and Distributors.

Riyaz, H., & Mullick, A. P. (2016).

Problems in Learning English Speaking

Skill : A Study of Higher Secondary

Students in Srinagar, India.

International Journal of

Interdiciplinary and Multidiciplinary

Studies (IJIMS), 3(2), 59-69.

Sheikh, A. E., Ajeedi, A. T. A., & Abu-

Taieh, E. M. (2008). Simulation and

Modeling: Current Technologies and

Applications. New York: IGI

Publishing.

Soehendro, B. (2006). Standar Kompetensi

dan Kompetensi Dasar. Jakarta. Badan

Standar Nasional Pendidikan

Tomal, D. R. (2010). Action Research for

Educators. New York: Rowman and

Littlefield ublisher inc.

Vincenzi, D. A., Wise, J. A., Mouloua, M.,

& Hancock, P. A. (Eds.). (2009).

Human Factors in Simulation and

Training. London: CRC Press.