THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING (TBLT) TO IMPROVE STUDENTS ABILITY IN WRITING NARRATIVE TEXT 1

Prosidig Semiar Nasioal Volume 01, Nomor 1 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING (TBLT) TO IMPROVE STUDENTS ABILITY IN WRITING NARRATIVE TEXT 1 Irkah Taswirah Karim 2, Djamiah Husai 3, Sukardi Weda 4 State Uiversity of Makassar ABSTRACT The objectives of this research were to fid out whether or ot the implemetatio of TBLT improves the studets ability i writig arrative text. The method used was quasiexperimetal research desig ivolvig two groups; experimetal group ad cotrol group. The sample cosisted of 33 studets i experimet group ad 33 studets i cotrol group. This research applied TBLT as tool to improve the studets ability i writig arrative text. The researcher employed writig test to measure the effects of the treatmet. The data obtaied through writig test ad were aalyzed by usig descriptive ad iferetial statistics through SPSS Versio 20 while data o questioaire were aalyzed by usig Likert Scale. The result showed that the probability value (sigificat 2-tailed) was lower tha the level of sigificace (0.000<0.05). It meas there was a sigificat differece betwee experimetal group ad cotrol group after the treatmet. The mea score i posttest of experimetal groups was 58.97 ad the mea score i posttest of cotrol group was 38.51. It meas that the experimetal group s score was higher tha cotrol group s score. Based o the data aalysis, it was foud that there was improvemet o the studets ability i writig arrative text i experimetal group. It meas that the implemetatio of TBLT improved the studets ability i writig arrative text. Therefore, the researcher cocluded that the implemetatio of TBLT improved the studets ability i writig arrative text. Keywords: TBLT, The Frame work of TBLT, The Cocept of Writig, Narrative text. INTRODUCTION Oe of the approaches that ca be adopted for teachig is Task-Based Laguage Teachig (TBLT) as the part of commuicative approach. This approach ca create a commuicative learig i the classroom because the studets are asked to do ay tasks or activities toward their learig, especially Eglish. Husai (2011: 27) argued that to costruct a motivatio, teacher sets up a role i the classroom with a small group by give a task to the learers. The studets ca do may thigs i or out the classroom. The studets ca do more tasks i order to motivate them i learig laguage because some people believe that the more they do, the more they will get or kow. The tasks also have to be related to the learig subject ad learig objectives. There are some reasos of usig TBLT as a alterative teachig method. Accordig to Nua (2004: 77-81), TBLT ca facilitate the learers with the materials which focus o meaig, ca demostrate the laguage acquisitio durig iteractio i the classroom, ad ca ivolve four laguage skills such as listeig, speakig, readig, ad writig. Aother reaso is TBLT ecourages the studets iteractio i class (Acar, 2006: 174). Oe of the reasos of usig TBLT is because it ivolves four laguage skills; listeig, speakig, readig, ad especially writig. Those skills are beig taught i Eglish as a Foreig Laguage (EFL) classroom ad started i the basic, so there are o doubt that the studets 1 Disampaika pada Semiar Nasioal Pedidika Karakter di Gedug SCC Palopo pada Sabtu, 03 Mei 2014 2 Staf Pegajar STIK Avicea Bataeg 3 Guru Besar Uiversitas Negeri Makassar 4 Staf Pegajar Uiversitas Negeri Makassar

Irkah Taswirah Karim, Djamiah Husai, Sukardi Weda also lear how to write Eglish. Through writig, people ca trasfer their ideas ad thoughts. Additioally, the demad of writig mastery is also supported by the competecy stadards i every school. At the juior high school, the studets are itroduced about the types of writig ad how to write those types simply. Next, at the seior high school, the studets begi to explore more their writig skill. The studets are expected to be able to write some types of writig such as recout, descriptive, procedure, ad especially arrative. TBLT ca be used i teachig writig skill. For the higher level of difficulty i teachig writig, studets write arrative text based o a coclusio from oe or three to five paragraphs. It is supported by Nua (2004: 208) showed that level of difficulty i teachig writig through TBLT. It meas, due to TBLT ivolves activities i teachig ad learig process, the seior high level of studets may write arrative text based o the activities. As the syllabus of the first grade Eglish teachig i the SMAN 2 Bataeg, it shows that the teachers teach the studets about those types of writig use iquiry method as the teachig ad learig process rus covetioally, ad ever apply TBLT approach. Therefore, the researcher applied TBLT approach through writig skill. Studets were able to face, feel, ad do the tasks by themselves. The researcher believes that by doig tasks the learer ca write about the tasks more expressively. By takig ivolved to some kids of activities, learers also ca improve their kowledge ad experiece, especially i writig arrative text. The, the researcher also ivestigated the studets iterest to see their psychological attitudes that could reasoably be iterpreted as measuremets o a proper of applyig TBLT. Based o the previous explaatio, there questios appear cocerig with the implemetatio of TBLT I writig arrative text i that school. Regardig to these research questios, the researcher formulated some research questios as follows: Does the implemetatio of Task-Based Laguage Teachig approach improve studets ability i writig arrative text? LITERATURE REVIEW 1. Task-Based Laguage Teachig TBLT has bee proposed by may experts as oe of the ways i Teachig Eglish. It is a approach of teachig which focuses o task activity, provides cotexts to activate learig acquisitio process, ad promotes laguage learig. The task is orgaized as a series of activities i classroom. Pedagogically, TBLT has stregtheed the priciples ad practices (Nua, 2004: 1), : 1) a eeds-based approach to cotet selectio; 2) a emphasis o learig to commuicate through iteractio i the target laguage; 3) the itroductio of authetic texts ito the learig situatio; 4) the provisio of opportuities for learers to focus ot oly o laguage but also o the learig process itself; 5) a ehacemet of the learer s ow persoal experieces as importat cotributig elemets to classroom learig; ad 6) the likig of classroom laguage learig with laguage use outside the classroom. The defiitio of task that would be sesible for the purpose of this study is the rerevised versio of Nua s defiitio (2004: 4): A pedagogical task is a piece of classroom work that ivolves learers i comprehedig, maipulatig, producig or iteractig i the target laguage while their attetio is focused o mobilizig their grammatical kowledge i order to express meaig, ad i which the itetio is to covey meaig rather tha to maipulate form. The task should also have a sese of completeess, beig able to stad aloe as a commuicative act i its ow right with a begiig, middle ad a ed. Clarifyig his defiitio, he argues that although may other proposals emphasize that pedagogical tasks ivolve commuicative laguage use i which the user s attetio is Hal 64 dari 214

The Implemetatio of Task-Based Laguage Teachig (TBLT) to Improve Studets Ability focused o meaig, it does ot mea that grammatical form is ot importat. He asserts that his defiitio refers to the deploymet of grammatical kowledge to express meaig, highlightig the fact that meaig ad form are highly iterrelated, ad that grammar exists to eable the laguage user to express differet commuicative meaigs. Willis s i Oxford (2006: 18) explai the three phases i A Framework for Task-Based Learig is summarized as follows: I. Pre-task The teacher itroduces the topic ad gives the studets clear istructios o what they have to do at the task stage i order to create the studets iterest. The teacher might help the studets to recall or activate topic-related words, phrases, ad target seteces that may be useful for the task. I this stage, the teacher ca also give the studets a clear model of what will be expected from them i doig the task. The model provided ca be i the form of video or audio recordig of people doig the task, text or picture related to the task topic. The studets ca take otes ad sped time preparig the task. II. Cycle task The cycle task cosists of the task plus plaig ad report sub-phases. Durig the task phase, the studets perform the task by workig i pairs or groups ad usig whatever liguistic resources they possess to achieve the goals of the task. The teacher moitors ad offers ecouragemet. Havig completed the task, the studets prepare either a writte or oral report about what happeed durig the task. The studets may work with the teacher to improve their laguage while plaig their reports. They the practice what they are goig to say or write. III. Post-task This fial phase is the laguage focus stage. Here the focus returs to the teacher who reviews ad aalyses what happeed i the task, i regards to laguage. It may iclude laguage forms the studets were usig, problems that the studets had, ad perhaps forms that eed to be covered more or were ot used eough. The, the teacher may select laguage areas to be practiced based upo the eeds of the studets ad what emerged from the task ad report phases. The studets do practice activities to icrease their cofidece ad make a ote of useful laguage. This practice is the opportuity for the teacher to emphasize the key laguage. 2. The Cocept of Writig Teachig writig is importat for the studets. Teachig writig is iteded to ecourage the studets to express the ideas ad thoughts i the writte form. The studets eed to kow how to write letters, reports, a essay, the story ad so o. Nua (1989: 36) stated that writig icludes the cotrol of cotet, format, setece structure, vocabulary, puctuatio, spellig, ad letter formatio. The process approach to writig istructio is eeded by the studets. The studets will ot cofused if there are some istructio i teachig writig. 3. Narrative Text The basic purpose of arrative is to etertai, to gai ad hold a readers iterest. However arratives ca also be writte to teach or iform, to chage attitudes/social opiios for example soap operas ad televisio dramas that are used to raise topical issues. Narratives sequece people/characters i time ad place but differ from recouts i that through the sequecig, the stories set up oe or more problems, which must evetually fid a way to be resolved. Narrative is a tellig of some true or fictitious evet or coected sequece of evets. A arrative cosists of a set of evets i a process of arratio, i which the evets are selected ad arraged i a particular order. The category of arratives icludes both the shortest of evets or a brief ews item ad the logest historical or biographical works, diaries as well as ovels, short stories, ad other fictioal forms. Hal 65 dari 214

Irkah Taswirah Karim, Djamiah Husai, Sukardi Weda RESEARCH METHOD This research applied quasi experimetal method i which two groups were ivolved. They are experimetal group ad cotrol group. Gay (2006: 234) stated that the experimetal group got a treatmet while the cotrol group was treated as usual. The experimetal group was treated by usig TBLT approach ad the cotrol group was treated by usig iquiry method/approach. Both groups were give pretest ad posttest. The pretest was admiistered before the treatmet to assess studets prior writig skill ad the posttest was admiistered to measure treatmet affects. The populatio of the research was the first year studets (class X) of SMAN 2 Bataeg. It cosisted of seve classes. Each class had 33 studets; so that the total umber of studets was 231.This research employed cluster radom samplig techique meas that from seve classes of populatio, the researcher chose radomly two classes as sample by lottery. The sample cosisted of 66 studets, 33 studets as experimetal group ad 33 studets as cotrol group. The data were aalyzed by usig iferetial ad descriptive statistics for the studets writigs through SPSS 20. FINDINGS 1. The Improvemet o the Implemetatio of Task-Based Laguage Teachig (TBLT) toward Studets Writig Ability Table 1. Frequecy ad rate percetage of studets score i pretest of experimetal ad cotrol group Classificatio Score Experimetal group Cotrol group Frequecy Percetage Frequecy Percetage Very good 86-100 - 0% - 0% Good 71-85 - 0% - 0% Average 56-70 - 0% - 0% Poor 41-55 8 24.24% 1 3.03% Very poor 0-40 25 75.76% 32 96.97% Total 33 100% 33 100% Based o the data show i table above, the studets writig i pretest of experimetal group, oe or 0% of the studets is i average, good, ad very good classificatio. There are 8 or 24.24% studets classified as poor. There are 25 or 75.76% of studets classified as very poor. I the pretest of the cotrol group, oe or 0% of the studets is classified as average, good ad very good. There is 1 or 3.03% of the studets classified as poor. There are 32 studets or 96.97% classified as very poor. Table 2. The differece of mea score betwee pretest of experimetal ad cotrol group i the five writig compoets Writig Mea score Sig.(2- Differec compoet Experimeta Classificatio Cotro Classificatio Tailed e s l l ) Cotet 38.75 Poor 36.90 Poor 1.85 0.375 Orgaizatio Poor Poor 39.42 37.06 2.36 0.279 Vocabulary 40.30 Poor 35.75 Poor 4.55 0.053 Grammar 34.51 Poor 33.36 Poor 1.15 0.521 Mechaics 33.67 Poor 32.21 Poor 1.46 0.429 Average 186.65 175.28 11.37 > 0.05 Hal 66 dari 214

The Implemetatio of Task-Based Laguage Teachig (TBLT) to Improve Studets Ability Based o the data i table above, the mea score of all compoets of experimetal ad cotrol group i pretest are differet ad ot sigificat. It is proved by the mea score of writig cotet i experimetal group is 38.75 ad cotrol group is 36.90. Based o the writig assessmet rubric, the cotet s mea score was classified as poor because the mai idea was ot clear or accurate, the opiio was weak, gettig limited supports of ideas, quite ot relevat, lack of developig ideas, ad o-fluet expressed. The orgaizatio s mea score of experimetal group is 39.42 ad the cotrol group s orgaizatio is 37.06. These scores were classified as poor orgaizatio because the ideas were discoected, lack of logical sequecig, iadequate loosely orgaized, ad some ideas were cofusig. The mea score of vocabulary of experimetal group is 40.30 ad the cotrol group s vocabulary mea score is 35.75. These scores were classified as poor writig vocabulary because they were usig cofusig words, idioms, word form, ad almost more tha a half words of paragraphs were ot appropriate ad were ot usig effective words. The mea score of grammar of experimetal group is 34.51 ad the cotrol group s grammar is 33.36. These score were classified as poor grammar because they had may errors, poor cotrol of structure, ad more tha a half structure of the paragraphs were icorrect grammar. The mea score of mechaics of experimetal group is 33.67 ad the cotrol group s mechaics is 32.21. They were classified as poor mechaics writig because there were more tha half errors i spellig, puctuatio, ad capitalizatio. The average mea score of experimetal group is 186.65 ad the average mea score of cotrol group is 175.28 with the differet rage is 11.37. All compoets of writig have o sigificat differet which are proved by P-value or Sig.(2-tailed) of cotet 0.375, orgaizatio 0.279, vocabulary 0.053, grammar 0.521, ad mechaics 0.429, which are higher tha α (5% or 0.05). These data clearly show that both groups have relatively the same prior kowledge. Sice the probability value of pretest is higher tha α=0.05, it meas the differece of the prior kowledge of the studets was statistically ot sigificat. Table 3. The Rate Percetage ad Frequecy of Studets Score i Posttest Classificatio Score Experimetal group Cotrol group Frequecy Percetage Frequecy Percetage Very good 0-40 - 0% - 0% Good 41-55 6 18.18% - 0% Average 56-70 18 54.55% - 0% Poor 71-85 8 24.24% 10 30.30% Very poor 86-100 1 3.03% 23 69.7% Total 33 100% 33 100% The data i the table above shows the result i posttest of experimetal group ad cotrol group. I the experimetal group, there is oe or 0% of studets score classified as very good. There are 6 studets or 18.18% classified as good. There are 18 or 24.24% studets classified as poor. There is 1 or 3.03% studet classified as very poor i writig arrative text. I the cotrol group, there is oe or 0% of studets classified as very good, good, ad eve average. There are 23 studets or 69.70% classified as poor. There are 10 or 30.30% studets classified as poor. Hal 67 dari 214

Irkah Taswirah Karim, Djamiah Husai, Sukardi Weda Table 4. The differece of mea score of posttest betwee experimetal group ad cotrol group i five compoets of writig Mea score Sig.(2- Writig Differec Experimeta Classificatio Cotro Classificatio tailed compoets e l l ) Cotet 61.57 Average 40.12 Poor 21.45 0.000 Orgaizatio Average Poor 60.18 40.60 19.58 0.000 Vocabulary 61.82 Average 38.39 Poor 23.43 0.000 Grammar 56.12 Average 37.03 Poor 19.09 0.000 Mechaics 54.85 Average 34.97 Poor 19.88 0.000 Average 249.54 191.11 103.43 < 0.05 From the table, it reveals the mea score i posttest of experimetal group ad cotrol group i five compoets of writig. It also shows the differet mea score of both groups after givig differet treatmet. The mea score i cotet of experimetal group is 61.57. It was classified as average cotet because the mai ideas were rather clearly stated, gettig eough supportig ideas, quite comprehesible, quite relevat, geerally developed the ideas, ad sufficietly expressed. Otherwise, the mea score of cotet i cotrol group is 40.12. It was still classified as poor cotet because the ideas were still ot clear or accurate ad the chages of opiio were still weak. The mea score of orgaizatio of experimetal group is 60.18. It was classified as average orgaizatio because the ideas were geerally orgaized, few ideas were adequate coheret, mostly relevat to the outlie, ad the ideas were i some logical sequecig. The mea score of orgaizatio of cotrol group is 40.60. It was still classified as poor classificatio because the ideas were still discoected, lack of logical sequecig, loosely orgaized, ad some ideas were cofusig. The mea score of vocabulary i experimetal group is 61.82. It was classified as average vocabulary because it was usig good word choice (dictios), idioms, word forms, ad a half of words of paragraphs were ot appropriate. The mea score of vocabulary i cotrol group is 38.39. It was still classified as poor classificatio because it was still usig cofusig words, idioms, word form, ad almost more tha a half words of paragraphs were ot appropriate ad were ot usig effective words. The mea score of experimetal group s grammar i posttest is 56.12. It was classified as average grammar because it was foud some errors of structure i the studets writig. The mea score of grammar of cotrol group is 37.03. It was still classified as poor grammar because it still had may errors i structure ad icorrect grammar used. The mea score of mechaics of experimetal group is 54.85. It was classified as average mechaics used because it was foud fair umber of spellig, puctuatio errors, ad capitalizatio errors. The mea score of mechaics of cotrol group is 34.97. It was still classified as poor mechaics because it was still foud more tha half errors i spellig, puctuatio, ad capitalizatio i the studets writig i posttest. The data i the table 8 above also shows that the mea score i posttest of experimetal group ad cotrol group i five compoets of writig is differet i the rage of 103.43 poits. The total mea score of experimetal group is 249.54 ad the total mea score of cotrol group is 191.11. It meas that the mea score of posttest i experimetal group is higher tha the cotrol group. The data also showed that the probability value or Sig.(2- tailed) of all compoets of writig was lower tha α (0.000 < 0.05). It meas that both groups are sigificatly differet. Sice the probability value of pretest is lower tha α=0.05, it meas the differece of the studets kowledge is statistically sigificat. There is a Hal 68 dari 214

The Implemetatio of Task-Based Laguage Teachig (TBLT) to Improve Studets Ability sigificat differece betwee the posttest of the studets of both groups after treatmet by TBLT ad o-tblt. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION Based o the fidigs ad discussio i the previous chapter, the researcher put forward the followig coclusios: 1. The implemetatio of TBLT improved the studets ability i writig arrative text. It was proved by the probability value of mea scores of the studets writigs i both groups after the treatmet was 0.000<0.05 which meas there was a sigificat differet, ad the experimetal group s mea score was higher tha cotrol group s (38.51 < 58.97). 2. The studets are iterested i the implemetatio of TBLT i writig arrative text. It was proved by the result of the questioaire s mea score is 82. It is classified as iterested. There are several suggestios that might be useful for the teacher ad further researcher. For teacher, first, it is suggested to use or imply the Task-Based Laguage Teachig (TBLT) i their class teachig because it ca improve the studets ability especially i writig. Secod, the teacher has to desig iterestig activities for the task so that it eables studets to be creative ad motivatig them to lear. Third, the teacher also has to recreate the studets course book i order to match with studets eed ad cotext, ad fourth, the teacher also should cosider ad use the other approaches/methods i his/her classroom. For further researchers who will coduct similar study, there are also some suggestios. First, TBLT ca be implemeted i other skills such as listeig, speakig, ad readig. Secod, TBLT ca be applied i teachig other texts such as descriptive, expository, or persuasive. Third, TBLT ca be applied i elemetary school, juior high school ad also i uiversity level. REFERENCES Acar, Ahmed. 2006. Models, Norms ad Goals for Eglish as a Iteratioal Laguage Pedagogy ad Task-Based Laguage Teachig ad Learig. Retrieved o February 17 th 2013 (Asia EFL Joural Vol. 8. Number. 3: 174-191) from http://www.asia-efljoural.com Ellis, Rod. 2008. The Methodology of Task-Based Teachig. Retrieved o 11 th Jue 2012 from http://www.asia-efl-joural.com Gay, L.R., Geoffrey E. Mills, ad Peter Airasia. 2006. Educatio Research: Competecies for Aalysis ad Applicatios. Eighth Editio. Ohio: Pearso Merrill Pretice Hall Publishig. Husai, Djamiah. 2011. Fosterig Autoomous Learig Iside ad Outside the Classroom i Laguage Learig. Makassar: Bada Peerbit UNM. Jabu, Baso. 2008. Eglish Laguage Testig. Makassar: Bada Peerbit UNM McLeod, Saul. 2008. Likert Scale. A article retrieved o February 17 th 2013 from http://www.simplypsychology.org/likert-scale.html Nariswariatmojo, Saptawula Heig. 2012. Factors which Affect Laguage Learig ad Laguage Learig Process. A article retrieved o 17 th February 2013 from https://theauzty.wordpress.com Hal 69 dari 214

Irkah Taswirah Karim, Djamiah Husai, Sukardi Weda Nua, David. 1989. Desigig Tasks for the Commuicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge Uiversity Press.. 1992. Research Methods i Laguage Learig. Cambridge: Cambridge Uiversity Press.. 2004. Task-Based Laguage Teachig. Cambridge: Cambridge Uiversity Press.. 2006. Task-Based Laguage Teachig i The Asia Cotext: defiig Task. Retrieved o 17 th February 2013 from http://www.asia-efl-joural.com Oxford, Rebecca. 2006. Task-Based Laguage Teachig ad Learig: A Overview. Retrieved o 17 th February 2013 (Asia EFL Joural Vol. 8. Number. 3: 94-121) from http://www.asia-efl-joural.com Richards, Jack C. ad Theodore S. Rodgers. 2001. Approaches ad Methods i Laguage Teachig. Secod Editio. Cambridge: Cambridge Uiversity Press. Weigle, Sara Cushig. 2002. Assessig Writig. Cambridge: Cambridge Uiversity Press. Hal 70 dari 214