THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INFORMATION GAP METHOD TO TEACH SPEAKING VIEWED FROM STUDENTS’ CREATIVITY
Abstract
The objective of this experimental research is to reveal the effectiveness of Information Gap Method to teach speaking to high school students in Tumijajar. This study involves three variables. Two independent variables are teaching methods (Information Gap Method and Audio Lingual Method) and students’ level of creativity. The dependent variable is speaking skill. The research examines the effect of the two independent variables on the dependent variable. The samples were two classes which consist of 30 students of class X2 as the experimental class and 30 students of class X4 as the control class. The instruments used to gather data in this research cover speaking test and creativity test. The data were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey test. From the analysis, it reveals that: (1) Information Gap Method is more effective than Audio Lingual Method to teach speaking; (2) the students having high level of creativity have better speaking skill than those having low level of creativity; and (3) there is an interaction between teaching methods and the students’ level of creativity to teach speaking. While Information Gap Method is effective to teach speaking, to implement the methods, a teacher must consider about the students’ level of creativity.
References
Amabile, Teressa. 1996. Creativity and Innovation in Organization. Boston: Harvard Businnes School.
Brown, H. Douglas. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Sec. Edition. San Fransisco: Longman.
Brown, H. Douglas. 2007. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Fifth Edition. New York: Pearson Education Inc.
BSNP. 2006. Standar Isi untuk Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah. Jakarta: Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan.
Byram, Michael and Garcia, M. C. Mendez. 2009. Communicative Language Teaching. pp. 491-516. In Karlfried Knapp and Gerd Antos (eds), Handbook of Foreign Language Communication and Learning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cook, Vivian. 1996. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford. University Press.
Genc, B. 2007. An Analysis of Communication Strategies Employed by Turkish Speakers of English. Turkey: Cukurova University Press.
Grainger, Teresa, Kathy Goouch, and Andrew Lamberth. 2005. Creativity and Writing: Developing Voice and Verve in the Classroom. Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group.
Harmer, Jeremy. 1991. The Practice of English Language Teaching 3rd Edition.
New York: Longman inc.
Hess, N. 2001. Teaching Large Multilevel Classes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kayi, H. 2006. Teaching Speaking: Activities to Promote Speaking in Second Language. The Internet TESL Journal. Vol. XII. No. 11. pp. 2-7.
Krashen, S. D. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Larsen, Diane. 2000. Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Neu, H. And Reeser, T. 1997. Information Gap Activities for Beginning French Classes. Boston: Heinle Heinle.
Pope, R. 2005. Creativity: Theory, History, and Practice. Newyork: Routledge.
Rees, G. 2005. Find the Gap–Increasing Speaking in Class. Retrieved on December 27, 2012 from http://www.teachingenglish.org.k/think/speak/find gap.shtml.
Richards, Jack C. and Rodgers, Theodore S. 2001. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching: Second Editions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rockler, Michael J. 1988. Innovative Teaching Strategies. Arizona: Gorsuch Scarisbrick Publisher.
Rodriguez, S. Perkins. 2002. The Impact of Enabling Creativity and Innovation within the Organization. New York: Stern School of Business.
Sternberg, R. And Williams, W. 1996. How to Develop Students Creativity. The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Utami Munandar, S.C. 2009. Pengembangan Kreatifitas Anak Berbakat. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Weir, Cryrill J. 2005. Language Testing and Validation: An Evidence-based Approach. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
DOI: 10.24042/ee-jtbi.v8i1.512
