204 | STUDIES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION, 5(2), 204-216, 2018

Boosting Students’ Speaking Ability through

Community Language Learning

P-ISSN 2355-2794
E-ISSN 2461-0275
Halimah*

Universitas Suryakancana, Cianjur, INDONESIA

Abstract
This study was done to find out the effect of using the Community Language
Learning (CLL) Method for teaching-learning speaking English with
second semester students in the English Education Study Program at a
private university in West Java in an effort to improve the English speaking
skills of the students. This study used an action research method where the
researcher was accompanied by an observer as a collaborator. Three
cycles were done for this study. Data were gathered from observations, a
questionnaire, interviews and tests. In the preliminary study, the mean
score of the student’s speaking was 61. The percentage of students who
passed the minimum criterion of 70 was 22% with only 6 out of 27 students
passing the minimum score. The mean score from post-test 1 was 63 and
only 7 students or 26% passed the minimum score. The mean score from
post-test 2 was 76 and 89%, i.e. 24 students passed the minimum score.
While from post-test 3 the mean score was 84 and all of the students
(100%) passed the minimum score. Hence the results showed that the use
of the CLL method was a success. The students enjoyed their lessons more,
and were more motivated, interested and confident during the teaching-
learning sessions.

Keywords: Community Language Learning Method, boost, speaking

ability.

1. INTRODUCTION

Speaking is an essential tool for communicating Bahadorfar and Omidvar (2014)

and (Maharani, 2016). Living in the era of globalization, being able to speak English
becomes a necessity (Gani et al., 2015; Muslem, 2015) in order to be able to build
social relationships (Al-Auwal, 2017) and to create good communications (Puspitasari
& Hanur, 2016) with other people who come from different countries (Efrizal, 2012).

*
Corresponding author, email: [email protected]

https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v5i2.9697
 Halimah, Boosting Students’ Speaking Ability through Community Language Learning | 205

So improving the ability to speak English is very important for Indonesian students
who know that the ability to speak English well will make a big contribution to their
communication skills.
Nevertheless, learning to speak English is not an easy task (Alharbi, 2015; Gani
et al., 2015). It needs a lot of practice and strong will-power to keep practicing (Ghiabi,
2014; Halimah et al., 2018). In line with this, Leong and Ahmadi (2017) and Akhyak
and Indramawan (2013) have said that to speak English is not easy because skills like
pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, plus fluency, and comprehension need to be
mastered by the speakers.
Based on previous studies, speaking is considered the most difficult of the four
skills, accordingly there are some problems that are encountered both by the teacher
and the students during teaching-learning speaking English in the classroom. These
problems can result in the students having low ability in speaking English. A study by
Tuan and Mai (2015) found that low ability was due to inhibition, lack of topical
knowledge, low or uneven participation and use of the L1, mother-tongue. Cook
(2001), Denizer (2017) and Pathan et al. (2014) also found the same problems in
getting students to talk in the classroom. Furthermore, Subandowo (2017) and Gani et
al. (2015) found that students had problems with proper pronunciation, while
Melendez et al. (2014) and Gani et al. (2015) found that many students lacked an
adequate vocabulary and had poor skills with grammar. Next, Savaşçı (2014),
Machmud and Abdulah (2017),Yalçın and İnceçay (2014), Kayaoğlu and Sağlamel
(2013), and Machmud and Abdulah (2018) said that many students tend to be passive
during class because they are too frightened to speak because of speaking anxiety.
Lastly, Dewi et al. (2017) listed four speaking problems of EFL students:
1) Fear of making mistakes and fear of being laughed at by their friends or class-
mates as they are not sure of the correct pronunciation and grammar for what they
want to say,
2) EFL students are not confident enough to express their ideas and feelings and are
hesitant to speak due to their lack of vocabulary;
3) They feel bored when learning English because the teaching-learning activities are
provided in a conventional way.
4) They also cannot speak based on their willingness or lack of it.
Based on a number of findings, it can be concluded that there are eight factors
causing the low speaking ability of EFL students, namely:
a) lack of knowledge about the topic of conversation,
b) lack of mastery of speaking aspects,
c) students tend to use their mother tongue when learning speaking,
d) fear of making mistakes, being humiliated, laughed at, and general lack of
confidence,
e) lecturers lack of preparation for teaching-learning,
f) lecturers lack good material,
g) lecturers not very competent in using English during teaching-learning processes,
h) and boring methods used for teaching-learning speaking.
These problems with teaching-learning speaking EFL happened with students
that the researcher was teaching in the second semester of teaching EFL in the English
Department at Universitas Suryakancana in the academic year 2016/2017, who
became the subject of this research study. At the start, the speaking ability of these
EFL students was low. Based on the observations above there were two factors that

205
206 | STUDIES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION, 5(2), 204-216, 2018

were mainly the causes of their low scores, namely: 1) problems related to the students’
ability to learn Speaking EFL, and 2) problems related to the lecturer’s ability to teach
Speaking EFL. This was supported by research done by Arifin (2017), who said that
the two main factors that cause the emergence of problems in speaking EFL are factors
to do with the lecturer and factors to do with the students. Meanwhile, Alharbi (2015)
found three main factors causing the emergence of problems in teaching-learning
speaking, namely: (i) the ability of the lecturers in teaching, (ii) the methods used, and
(iii) the students don’t get enough or make enough opportunities to practice speaking
English EFL both inside the classroom and out of it.
From these findings on the results and factors causing the low ability to speak in
English, it appears that new methods need to be used to crack these difficulties in
speaking and to enable the students to improve their ESL speaking ability. One such
method that can be used is the Community Language Learning (CLL) method. This is
in line with Fatemi and Adel (2014), who found that CLL is the most effective learning
method that can be applied to learn a foreign language at the university level. CLL can
be used by lecturers to explain foreign words, pronunciation and/or grammar terms in
the class (Cook, 2001). Meanwhile, Anderson and Chung (2011), Chimombo (1993)
and Abdullah (2017) found that CLL increased interest, creativity, and student
participation in the learning processes for speaking ESL. Nurhasanah (2015) found
that CLL was effective to increase the participation and motivation of students in their
EFL speaking class and that, as a result their speaking ability improved.
Based on the studies above, this research was done to find out whether the CLL
method could improve the EFL speaking skills of 27 students in their second semester
studying English, ESL, in the English Department of a private university in West Java
in the 2016/2017 academic year. The researcher used the CLL method for teaching
speaking ESL to find out if it could improve the EFL speaking ability of these students.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 The Nature of Speaking

Naturally, language uses speaking. Understanding a living language is

commonly defined as the ability to understand and to speak the language. Speaking is
the ability to use the language for daily communication. Speaking as Gani et al. (2015)
and Efrizal (2012) have defined is one of the ways to reveal what is in one’s mind
orally. Meanwhile, Maharani (2016) defined speaking skill as an ability to produce
speech or oral language by comprehending, expressing, and sharing ideas, opinions or
feelings depending on the context, the participants, the experience, the environment
and the purpose. The last definition comes from Juhana (2012) who said that speaking
is a process of building and sharing meaning by the use of verbal and non-verbal
signals, in many different contexts. Its purpose is to communicate, either
transactionally or interactionally, to send a message. Thus it can be inferred that
speaking is an ability used by a person as a tool to express, share and communicate
one’s ideas, opinions, desires, or feelings to another depending on the context, the
participants, the experience, the environment and the purpose.
 Halimah, Boosting Students’ Speaking Ability through Community Language Learning | 207

2.2 Factors Influencing Learning Speaking

As English is used as a tool for international communication, mastering it both

in written and spoken form, is a must especially for an English department student.
There are many studies which claim that of the four language skills, speaking is
considered as the most difficult skill faced by the students compared with the other
three: reading, writing and listening (Ahmed & Alamin (2014); Derakhshan et al.
(2016); Melendez et al. (2014); Mirhadizadeh (2016); Tuan & Mai (2015). Various
factors that influence the learning of speaking include psychology, motivation,
anxiety, shyness, fearfulness and lack of confidence. Some studies have shown that
anxiety affects the mastery of a second language (Ariyanti, 2016; Arnold, 2011;
Kayaoğlu & Sağlamel, 2013; Tuan & Mai, 2015). Meanwhile, others (Gani et al.,
2015; Leong & Ahmadi, 2017; Melendez et al., 2014); Subandowo, 2017) found that
some linguistic factors influence the learning of speaking, namely vocabulary,
pronunciation, grammar, fluency and accuracy. In particular some previous studies
state that there are two principal factors that influence the learning of speaking EFL
namely psychology and linguistic factors.

2.3 The Community Language Learning Method

Community Language Learning (CLL) is a teaching method that can be used by

teachers, lecturers and other language practitioners to develop the confidence of EFL
students and to motivate them as well as, in this case, help them to improve their EFL
speaking ability. CLL is one of the methodologies recommended for teaching in a
foreign language setting. It is labeled as a ‘humanistic’ methodology which involves
psychological aspects with students working together to develop their skills in the
language that they want to or have to learn. This method was first developed by Charles
A. Curran (1976) and his associates which they characterized as the “Counseling-
Learning-Theory” where the teacher functions as a counselor and the students function
as the clients. This method puts emphasis on the process and on the uniqueness and
wholeness of the person and on integrating the personality of the learner into the
educational process. For Curran (1976), as was stated by Chimombo (1993), viewed
all learning as progressing over five stages paralleling the five stages of human
development, via: the first stage is called the embryo, the second stage the fetus, then
comes the birth stage followed by adolescence and finally adulthood. In language
learning, stage 1 is the stage when the learner (client) knows nothing and totally
depends on the teacher (counselor), who knows everything. Then a little bit later she
grows up to become an independent learner. In the third stage the learner is
increasingly able to say what she wants using her native language with the counselor’s
help to translate her utterances into the target language. Then there is a basic difference
between stages 3 and 4 when the client can present utterances correctly and the
counselor’s role is only to correct any incorrect utterances and to advise how to make
better utterances.
Six steps are recommended when teaching-learning using the CLL Method, via:
(i) recording the students’ speaking, (ii) transcribing the students’ speaking, (iii)
reflections on the experiences in the learning process, (iv) reflective listening, (v)self-
correction and finally (vi) small group tasks (Nagaraj, 2009).

207
208 | STUDIES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION, 5(2), 204-216, 2018

3. METHOD

This study used a classroom action research (CAR) model that was adapted from
the cycle model by Ferrance (2000). The primary reason for using a CAR model is to
assist the “actor” in improving and refining “her actions” (Sagor, 2006). The 27
participants in this study were in their second semester studying EFL in the English
Department of a private university in West Java in the 2016/2017 academic year. The
study was aimed to reveal the students’ difficulties in enhancing their speaking ability
and to find solutions to those problems by applying a variety of CLL methods as stated
by Creswell (2012), CAR is a type of classroom research carried out by a teacher in
order to solve problems or find answers to context-specific issues and problems.
Based on these considerations, in this study, the researcher used collaborative
action research in which she co-operated with one of the English lecturers from the
English Education Study Program at the private university in Cianjur. The lecturer
acted as the researcher and also as an observer using the CLL method while the
collaborator acted as an independent observer who observed both the researcher and
the participants. The lecturer was an active participant who not only functioned as an
observer but also participated in taking actions by making the lesson plans and by
giving assessments. Then, she collected and analyzed the data together with the
collaborator. The study consisted of three cycles each of which involved six steps in
this modeling method of research namely: (i) identification of the problem, (ii)
gathering data, (iii) interpreting the data, (iv) acting on the evidence, (v) evaluating the
result, and (vi) determining the next steps to be applied in the next cycle. Visually, the
phases can be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The phases of action.

While implementing CAR in the second semester for these EFL students, the
researcher gave the students tests: post-tests 1, 2 and 3 after each cycle. To compare
the results from the pretests with those from the post-tests after each cycle, the writer
calculated the mean score from the tests, the percentage of the class reaching the pass
mark and the improvement in the mean score from the previous test. Interviews were
also held to find out the response of the students to the implementation of the CLL.
Finally a questionnaire was also used to find out the response of the students to the
implementation of the CLL method. The interviews as well as the questionnaire were
 Halimah, Boosting Students’ Speaking Ability through Community Language Learning | 209

done at the end of CAR. The observations were made during the implementation of
the CLL processes in the classroom.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Results from the Observations

Several things related to the implementation of the CLL method were found from
the observation notes. There are always strengths and weaknesses. Each of them was
discussed comprehensively by the researcher with her collaborator so that it could
become input for future improvements. So that in the end, all the shortcomings were
overcome. As an example, at the beginning of the CAR actions the teacher still had
difficulties with several things such as time management and class control but then
soon after that she corrected her mistakes so that they did not happen again in the next
phase. From the students’ side, at first they looked confused, puzzled and afraid when
they were asked to speak. They still had difficulties in expressing their ideas, their
opinions and their thoughts, and they still found it hard to pronounce the new
vocabulary and they were also less motivated to follow the teaching-learning processes
using the CLL method. Those problems were discussed and analyzed until the CLL
method became the solution to those problems so they could be resolved. Therefore,
the researcher can say that the CLL method gave a positive impact for the teaching-
learning processes in her speaking class.
When the observations were being done during this research, the students were
really busy with their activities. Firstly they had to record their speaking for the first
time. Then, they had to listen to the recording of their own speech and transcribe what
they had said. Afterwards, they had to listen to their recording again and correct their
transcription. Next, they had to code their incorrect utterances in terms of
ungrammatical utterance, incorrect collocations and mispronounced words. With their
friends in their group they corrected their mistakes with guidance from their counselor
(teacher). Finally, they had to re-record what they said after it had been corrected and
ensure that their corrected speech was written in their notebooks for future learning
and review outside of class. Through these activities the teacher-centered class time
was reduced and the student-centered class time was increased.
Most of the students were motivated to participate more in the teaching-learning
processes for EFL speaking since the CLL methods reduce their anxiety during the
teaching-learning processes. They became more confident at speaking in English and
were more active in the teaching-learning processes because the CLL method gave
them more opportunity to speak during the class activities. They felt more comfortable
to speak in front of their lecturer as well as in front of their classmates. They were
more interested in learning speaking for they could comprehend the material given by
the teacher. They could assess their own work through the recording activities and then
they could improve their speaking ability as they corrected their problems. Using the
CLL method had enabled them to develop social skills in the teaching-learning
processes, which gave them self-esteem to show their ability in using English. It also
helped them to solve their problems in learning EFL speaking because they could share
with their friends as one of a pair or a group and hence they got feedback from their
friends

209
210 | STUDIES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION, 5(2), 204-216, 2018

In this research, the researcher also found some weaknesses. The teacher found
it difficult to get contextual material since the material used was decided by the
students themselves. The ability to translate the source language to the target language
was needed for the writer as their counselor. Controlling the students was more
difficult in the teaching-learning processes while applying the CLL since with group
work, the students preferred to talk with their friends out of the context of what was
being taught and learnt. The recording activities used with this method could also
waste much time because some of the students did not have hand phones which could
record, and because sometimes their batteries ran out and they did not bring a charger.

4.2 Results from the Questionnaire

Based on the responses to the questionnaire that was given to the students after
the fourth action in Cycle 3, the responses are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Responses to questionnaire (in %).

No Matter of Contention Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
1 Students are more interested in learning EFL
70 30 0 0
speaking after using the CLL method.
2 Students are more confident in speaking after
15 63 22 0
teaching-learning using the CLL.
3 Students are interested in EFL speaking after
26 56 18 0
teaching-learning using the CLL method.
4 Students find it easy to give and to respond to
EFL expressions after teaching-learning using 11 63 26 0
the CLL method.
5 Students are motivated after using CLL to get
used to speaking English and to study more 56 37 7 0
seriously.

4.3 Results from the Post-Test

The students’ tests were scored by using the scoring rubric based on five aspects
of speaking: pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, fluency, and content. The maximum
score for each aspect was 3 and the minimum score was 0. Based on the results from
their speeches, it was found that the speaking skills of the students improved further
within each cycle. The scores from each student in all four tests are set out in Table 2.
To compare the test results between the pretest and between each test, the mean
scores from each test, the percentage of the class achieving the passing score, and the
improvement in the mean score from one test to the next were calculated and are set
out in Table 3.

Table 2. Students’ scores from all four speaking tests.

Scores
Student Code No
X X1 X2 X3
S1 53 67 73 87
S2 80 80 87 93
S3 53 73 73 93
S4 47 67 67 80
S5 87 87 80 80
 Halimah, Boosting Students’ Speaking Ability through Community Language Learning | 211

Table 2 continued…
S6 80 80 60 93
S7 60 60 80 73
S8 60 60 87 80
S9 53 60 87 93
S10 53 60 93 87
S11 53 60 93 87
S12 53 67 60 93
S13 53 60 93 93
S14 60 60 87 87
S15 53 53 80 80
S16 87 87 80 87
S17 67 67 73 80
S18 80 80 87 93
S19 47 60 73 80
S20 47 60 73 80
S21 87 87 93 93
S22 60 67 87 80
S23 60 60 80 80
S24 47 67 87 87
S25 67 67 80 87
S56 60 60 93 73
S27 60 67 87 80
Totals 1654 1695 2057 2272
Averages 61 63 76 84
Maximums 87 87 93 93
Minimums 47 40 60 73
Percentage (%) of
class reaching the 22 26 89 100
passing score (DSK)

Table 3. The improvement in scores from one test to the next.

Scores Pretest Test 1 Test 2 Test 3
Totals 1654 1695 2193 2272
Mean scores 61 63 81 84
Improvement in mean scores 2 18 3
Percentage of students (%) reaching DSK 22 26 89 100
Improvement (%) from one test to the next 4 63 11

The following figures show the improvements in the mean scores and percentage
of students passing in each test.

211
212 | STUDIES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION, 5(2), 204-216, 2018

Mean Scores

Series1
84
76

61 63

Pretest Test 1 Test 2 Test 3

Figure 2. Mean scores.

Percentage Reaching Passing Score

120%

100%

80%

60% Students class

percentages’ score
40%

20%

0%
Pretest Test 1 Test 2 Test 3

Figure 3. Percentages reaching passing score

To wrap up the results, in the pre-test, the mean score for speaking was 61. The
percentage of the class who reached the minimum passing score was 22%, i.e. only 6
students reached the minimum pass score of 70. The mean score from post-test 1 after
the first cycle was 63 and the percentage passing was 26%. i.e. 7 students passed this
time. The mean score from post-test 2 after the second cycle was 76 and the percentage
that passed was 89%, i.e. 24 students passed this round. The mean score from post-test
3 after the third cycle was 84 and the percentage that passed was 100%, i.e. all 27
students passed the minimum score this time. Thus, the final results showed that using
the CLL method was a success.
 Halimah, Boosting Students’ Speaking Ability through Community Language Learning | 213

4.4 Results from the Interviews at the End of Cycle 3

The researcher carried out post-interviews with the students about the
implementation of the CLL method at the end of the third cycle. The aim was to find
out the students’ views towards the teaching-learning activities using the CLL method.
In this case, the researcher divided the questions into three groups, namely: (i) the
conditions for the students in the speaking English class during CAR, (ii) the
difficulties the students had in implementing the CLL method during CAR and (iii)
the opinions of the students about the effectiveness of the CLL method for learning
speaking EFL. According to the answers from the interviews, it was found that the
conditions of the students after implementing the CLL method were better than before
in terms of confidence, participation, enthusiasm, fluency, and understanding the
content of EFL speech. They said that the CLL method can create good conditions in
which they can learn within their community. It made the students feel comfortable
during the teaching-learning and also reduced their boredom and stress.
However, the students further informed that this technique needs good
preparation. The more the teacher prepares the more it will lead to success. It also
depends on the creativity of the teacher in conducting the phases in the CLL method;
the way the teacher translates the speeches, the way the teacher controls the class and
the way the teacher manages the time available. In their opinion, the CLL method was
very beneficial and had had a good impact on the EFL speaking activities in their
classroom.

5. CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that using the CLL method as a means of organizing learning
activities for speaking resulted in improving the EFL speaking ability of the students.
The students enjoyed their lessons more and were more motivated, interested and
confident during the teaching-learning sessions. Therefore, the CLL method should be
applied in activities designed for teaching-learning EFL speaking. It is recommended
that the CLL method should be extended for teaching-learning other language skills,
such as phonology, conversation skills, interpreting, and drama.

REFERENCES

Abdullah, M. (2017). Students’ speaking ability through community language

learning. English and Literature Journal, 1(1), 97-126.
Ahmed, S., & Alamin, A. (2014). Assessing speaking ability in academic context for
fourth year Taif University students. International Journal of English
Linguistics, 4(6), 97–103.
Akhyak, & Indramawan, A. (2013). Improving the students’ English speaking
competence through storytelling (A study in Pangeran Diponegoro Islamic
College (STAI) of Nganjuk , East Java , Indonesia ). International Journal of
Language and Literature, 1(2), 18–24.
Al-Auwal, T. M. R. (2017). Reluctance of Acehnese youth to use Acehnese. Studies
in English Language and Education, 4(1), 1–14.

213
214 | STUDIES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION, 5(2), 204-216, 2018

Alharbi, H. A. (2015). Improving students’ English speaking proficiency in Saudi

public schools. International Journal of Instruction, 8(1), 105–116.
Anderson, J., & Chung, Y. C. (2011). Finding a voice: Arts-based creativity in the
community languages classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism, 14(5), 551–569.
Arifin, W. L. (2017). Psychological problems and challenge in EFL speaking
classroom. REGISTER JOURNAL, Language & Language Teaching Journals,
10(1), 29–47.
Ariyanti, A. (2016). Psychological Factors affecting EFL students’ speaking
performance. ASIAN TEFL: Journal of Language Teaching and Applied
Linguistics, 1(1), 77–88.
Arnold, J. (2011). Attention to affect in language learning. Anglistik: International
Journal of English Studies, 22(1), 11–22.
Bahadorfar, M., & Omidvar, R. (2014). Technology in teaching speaking skill. Acme
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 2(4), 9–13.
Curran, C. A. (1976). Counseling-learning in second languages. Apple River, IL:
Apple River Press.
Chimombo, M. (1993). Counseling-learning/community language learning: A method
of learner directed language teaching. Southern African Journal of Applied
Language Studies, 2(1), 87–93.
Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern
Language Review/La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 57(3), 402-
423.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Denizer, E. N. (2017). Does mother tongue interfere in second language learning?
Journal of Foreign Language Education and Technology, 2(1), 1–14.
Derakhshan, A., Khalili, A., & Beheshti, F. (2016). Developing EFL learner’s
speaking ability, accuracy and fluency. English Language and Literature
Studies, 6(2), 177-186.
Dewi, R. S., Kultsum, U., & Armadi, A. (2017). Using communicative games in
improving students’ speaking skills. English Language Teaching, 10(1), 63–
71.
Efrizal, D. (2012). Improving students’ speaking through communicative language
teaching method at Mts Ja-Alhaq, Sentot Ali Basa Islamic Boarding School of
Bengkulu, Indonesia. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science,
2(20), 127–134.
Fatemi, M. A., & Adel, S. M. R. (2014). An investigation of Iranian EFL learners’ and
teachers’ perceptions and expectations on the most effective method of
language teaching at university level. International Journal of Language
Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW), 6(2), 1–13.
Ferrance, E. (2000). Themes in education: Action research. Providence, RI: Northeast
and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory.
Gani, S. A., Fajrina, D., & Hanifa, R. (2015). Students’ learning strategies for
developing speaking ability. Studies in English Language and Education, 2(1),
17–30.
 Halimah, Boosting Students’ Speaking Ability through Community Language Learning | 215

Ghiabi, S. (2014). Investigating the effects of story retelling technique as a closed task
vs. Story-completion as an open task on EFL learners’ speaking. International
Journal of English and Education, 3(3), 17-25.
Halimah, Lustyantie, N., & Ibrahim, G. A. (2018). Students’ perception on the
implementation of ORAI applications in CLL method in teaching speaking.
Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 5(1), 1-21.
Juhana. (2012). Psychological factors that hinder students from speaking in English
class (A case study in a Senior High School in South Tangerang, Banten,
Indonesia). Journal of Education and Practice, 3(12), 100–110.
Kayaoğlu, M. N., & Sağlamel, H. (2013). Students’ perceptions of language anxiety
in speaking classes. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 2(2), 142–
160.
Leong, L.-M., & Ahmadi, S. M. (2017). An analysis of factors influencing learners’
English speaking skill. International Journal of Research in English
Education, 2(1), 34–41.
Machmud, K., & Abdulah, R. (2017). Using smartphone-integrated model of teaching
to overcome students’ speaking anxiety in learning English as a foreign
language. Journal of Arts & Humanities, 6(9), 1–11.
Machmud, K., & Abdulah, R. (2018). Using mobile phone to overcome students’
anxiety in speaking English. SHS Web of Conferences, 42, 1-6.
Maharani, S. (2016). The use of puppets: Shifting speaking skill from the perspective
of students’ self-esteem. REGISTER JOURNAL, Language & Language
Teaching Journals, 9(101–126).
Melendez, R. A. M., Zavala, G. G. Q., & Mendez, R. F. (2014). Teaching speaking
strategies to beginners. European Scientific Journal, 1, 548-554.
Mirhadizadeh, N. (2016). Internal and external factors in language learning.
International Journal of Modern Language Teaching and Learning, 1(5), 188-
196.
Muslem, A. (2015). The effects of immersive multimedia learning with peer support
on speaking skill among male and female students. Studies in English
Language and Education, 2(2), 103–117.
Nagaraj, P. (2009). Application of community language learning for effective
teaching. The Modern Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(3), 174–181.
Nurhasanah, S. (2015). The use of community language learning method to increase
the students’ participation in classroom conversation. REGISTER JOURNAL,
Language & Language Teaching Journals, 8(1), 81–98.
Pathan, M. M., Aldersi, Z. E. M., & Alsout, E. A. G. (2014). Speaking in their
Language : An overview of major difficulties faced by the Libyan.
International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies, 2(3), 96–
105.
Puspitasari, H., & Hanur, B. S. (2016). A panacea for teaching listening at Islamic
realm: Interactive video viewing technique. Journal of English Education and
Linguistics Studies, 2, 197–213.
Sagor, R. (2006). Conducting action research cycle. Portland, OR: The Institute for
the Study of Inquiry in Education.
Savaşçı, M. (2014). Why are some students reluctant to use L2 in EFL speaking
classes? An action research at tertiary level. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 116, 2682–2686.

215
216 | STUDIES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION, 5(2), 204-216, 2018

Subandowo, D. (2017). The language interference in English speaking ability for EFL
learners. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Fifth International Seminar
on English Language and Teaching (ISELT-5) (pp. 205–210), May 9-10,
Padang.
Tuan, N. H., & Mai, T. N. (2015). Factors affecting students’ speaking performance at
Le Thanh Hien High School. Asian Journal of Educational Research, 3(2), 8–
23.
Yalçın, Ö., & İnceçay, V. (2014). Foreign language speaking anxiety: The case of
spontaneous speaking activities. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
116, 2620–2624.

[Received 21 January 2018; revised 15 June 2018; accepted 30 June 2018]

THE AUTHOR

Halimah was born in Semarang, in 1978. She received the bachelor degree of English
Education Faculty from Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia, in 2004 and the
Master in English Education from Universitas Sebelas Maret, Indonesia, in 2012. In
2012 she joined the English Department in Suryakancana University Cianjur, West
Java as a lecturer. Now she is on finishing her Doctorate in Language Education in
Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Indonesia. Her current research interests include English
Language Learning, Teaching Methodology, Translation, Linguistics, and Literature.