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

1
 TEACHINGSPEAKING
TEACHING SPEAKINGTHROUGH
THROUGHSIMULATION
SIMULATIONTECHNIQUE
TECHNIQUE
TOTO IMPROVE
IMPROVE THETHE STUDENTS’
STUDENTS’ SPEAKING
SPEAKING ABILI
ABILITY

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

2
 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 students in learning activities, they will

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
grammatically and practically, because
it makes them in a real world. From the
results of studies had conducted by the
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
other researchers, the writer more
motivated and believe that simulation
technique is the appropriate technique to

1
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.
done with others, it is important to ensure
that relationships are of a kind that will lead
to education. McNiff and Whitehead (2002,
2
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
p. 53) states that the purpose of education is
to lead to further education.
 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
3
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.
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
4
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.
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
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
5
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.
performance. There were five category
assessed by the researcher. They were
grammar (15%), Vocabulary (15%),
Comprehension (20%), Fluency (30%) and
Pronunciation (20%).
 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

Rater 1 Rater 2

Category Scale Number Number Average (%)

Percentage Percentage
of of
(%) (%)
Students Students
4 6 33,33 11 61,11 47,22
3 6 33,33 3 16,67 25,00
Grammar
2 6 33,33 4 22,22 27,78
1 0 0,00 0 0,00 0,00
4 1 5,56 6 33,33 19,44
3 10 55,56 7 38,89 47,22
Vocabulary
2 7 38,89 5 27,78 33,33
1 0 0,00 0 0,00 0,00
4 0 0,00 4 22,22 11,11
3 10 55,56 7 38,89 47,22
Comprehension
2 6 33,33 6 33,33 33,33
1 2 11,11 1 5,56 8,33
4 0 0,00 0 0,00 0,00
3 5 27,78 7 38,89 33,33
Fluency
2 9 50,00 6 33,33 41,67
1 4 22,22 5 27,78 25,00
4 0 0,00 0 0,00 0,00
3 4 22,22 6 33,33 27,78
Pronunciation
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.

6
 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
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’
7
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.
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.
 Table 2. The Students’ Simulation Performance Percentage in Cycle II

Rater 1 Rater 2
Average
Category Scale Number Number
Percentage Percentage (%)
of of
(%) (%)
Students Students
4 13 72,22 4 22,22 47,22
3 3 16,67 12 66,67 41,67
Grammar
2 2 11,11 2 11,11 11,11
1 0 0,00 0 0,00 0,00
4 7 38,89 12 66,67 52,78
3 9 50,00 4 22,22 36,11
Vocabulary
2 2 11,11 2 11,11 11,11
1 0 0,00 0 0,00 0,00
4 2 11,11 6 33,33 22,22
3 13 72,22 10 55,56 63,89
Comprehension
2 3 16,67 2 11,11 13,89
1 0 0,00 0 0,00 0,00
4 0 0,00 3 16,67 8,33
3 13 72,22 13 72,22 72,22
Fluency
2 4 22,22 1 5,56 13,89
1 1 5,56 1 5,56 5,56
4 0 0,00 0 0,00 0,00
3 14 77,78 16 88,89 83,33
Pronunciation
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 achievement in the first cycle. Then, the
be seen that the students’ average students’ final score can be seen in the
percentage score were increased in all of following figure.
the aspects compared with the students’

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

8
 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
9
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.
 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
10
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
 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.
11
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.