A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN STUDENTS WITH …repository.uinjkt.ac.id/dspace/bitstream/123456789/28698/1/ARINA... · Ketrampilan Berbicara Mereka. Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris,

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN STUDENTS

WITH SANGUINE AND PHLEGMATIC PERSONALITY

ON THEIR ACHIEVEMENT IN SPEAKING SKILL

(A Survey Study at the Seventh Semester of English Education Department

UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta)

By

Arina Muntazah

NIM. 108014000067

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATION

FACULTY OF TARBIYAH AND TEACHERS’ TRAINING

SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY

JAKARTA

2015

v

ABSTRACT

ARINA MUNTAZAH, 108014000067. A Comparative Analysis between

Students with Sanguine and Phlegmatic Personality on Their Achievement in

Speaking Skill; A Survey Study at the Seventh Semester of English

Education Department UIN Jakarta. Skripsi of English Education Department,

Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teachers’ Training, State Islamic University Syarif

Hidayatullah Jakarta, 2015.

This research is generally attempted to know and describe the difference

between sanguine students and phlegmatic students in their achievement in

speaking skill at the seventh semester of English Education Department UIN

Jakarta.

The method use in this research is quantitative research and comparative

analysis technique. This research is started by collecting theory. After wards,

giving the students personality test taken from standardized test by Florence

Littauer, and then classifying the sanguine student and phlegmatic student. Then,

after classifying students’ personality, the writer took the students last speaking

score in fifth semester in order to design compare both students’ personality with

their speaking score achievement. In analyzing the data, first step is finding

average of sanguine and phlegmatic students’ speaking score and deviation

standard to do homogeneity test. After doing homogeneity test, t-test is used to

prove the significant data. And the last step to do is answering hypothesis of the

research. The result of analysis data between variable X1 and X2 using t-test

formula showed that the value of to (t-observation) was 1.71. In the t-table, score

degree of freedom of 5% is 2.07 and score degree of freedom of 1% is 2.81. It can

be concluded that to is lower than t-table (2.07 > 1.71 <2.81). Based on statistic

calculation, it could be concluded that sanguine and phlegmatic students have no

difference in English speaking skill achievement.

vi

ABSTRAK

ARINA MUNTAZAH, 108014000067. Analisis Perbandingan antara Siswa

yang Berkepribadaian Sanguinis dan Plegmatis dalam Pencapaian

Ketrampilan Berbicara Mereka. Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris,

Fakultas Ilmu Tarbiyah dan Keguruan, Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif

Hidayatullah Jakarta, 2015.

Penelitian ini bertujuan mengetahui dan menjelaskan tentang perbedaan

antara mahasiswa yang berkepribadian sanguinis dan mahasiswa yang

berkepribadian plegmatis dalam pencapaian nilai ketrampilan berbicara mereka

pada mahasiswa semester tujuh Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris UIN Jakarta.

Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode penelitian

kuantitatif dan tehnik analisis perbandingan. Penelitian ini dimulai dengan

mengumpulkan teori pendukung. Kemudian memberikan tes kepribadian kepada

mahasiswa yang diambil dari tes standar personality oleh Florence Littauer,

selanjutnya mahasiwa dikelompokan berdasarkan kecenderungan kepribadian

sanguinis dan plegmatis. Setelah mahasiswa dikelompokan berdasarkan

kepribadian sanguinis dan plegmatis, nilai akhir ketrampilan berbicara bahasa

inggris mereka diambil untuk membandingkan perolehan nilai antara mahasiswa

sanguinis dan plegmatis. Dalam menganalisis data, langkah pertama yaitu

menemukan rata-rata nilai speaking dari mahasiswa sanguinis dan plegmatis dan

standar deviasi untuk melakukan uji homogenitas. Setelah melakukan uji

homogenitas, t-tes digunakan untuk membuktikan data yang signifikan. Dan

langkah terakhir yang dilakukan yaitu menjawab hipotesis penelitian. Hasil

analisis data dari kedua variable tersebut (variabel X1 dan X2) dengan

menggunakan rumus t-test menunjukan bahwa nilai to adalah 1.71 dan tingkat

kesalahan 5% adalah 2.07 dan tingkat kesalahan 1% adalah 2.81. Maka to lebih

rendah disbanding dengan nilai t-table (2.07 > 1.71 <2.81). Berdasarkan hasil

perhitungan statistik dapat disimpulkan bahwa mahasiswa sanguinis dan

mahasiswa plegmatis tidak memiliki perbedaan pada pencapaian mereka dalam

keterampilan berbicara

vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent the Most Merciful

All praise is only for Allah, the Lord of the world, the Creator of everything

in this universe, who has giving the blessing upon the researcher in finishing this

research paper. Peace and blessing be upon to our beloved prophet Muhammad

SAW, his families, companions, and all his followers.

The researcher sends her best regard to her beloved parents H. Abunashir, BA

and Hj. Farikha. They always give many things as in learning a lot of aspects in

life in order to be better with their abundant loves and care including their helps

during “skripsi” writing until she could finish her study at Department of English

Education UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.

In this occasion, the gratitude is addressed to her advisors, Drs. Nasifuddin

Jalil, M.Ag., and Zaharil Anasy, M.Hum., for their patiently guidance in

development during the “skripsi” writing. There are many suggestions, valuable

advices, constructive corrections and comments the researcher had got from them.

Moreover, the researcher’s effort in doing this “skripsi” may not be separated

from the involvement and contribution of others, so that the researcher would like

to express her deep appreciation and gratitude to:

1. Nurlena Rifa’I, M.A., Ph.D., the dean of Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teachers’

Training,

2. The chairman of English Education Departmnet, Drs. Syauki, M.Pd. and his

secretary, Zaharil Anasy, M.Hum., for their outstanding deducacy,

3. All the honorable lectures who have taught her new knowledge and have

given her gorgeous experiences in study,

4. Her beloved brother and sister, and all best friend who have always been in

the researcher side in facing all the laughter and tears during the study,

especially for Husni Mubarok for anything given, Sopiah, Lia Nuramaliah,

Ayu Fitriana, and Siti Apriyanti,

viii

5. All her beloved friends of English Education Department Class B for

academic year 2008 who always motivate her in accomplishing this research

paper.

No words to say except a thousand of gratefulness to everyone that they

cannot be mention here. They are involved trough their prayer for this writing.

Last word to say, may Allah always give His blessing to all of us. Amin.

Jakarta, 16 December 2014

The Writer

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER ........................................................................................................... i

APPROVAL SHEET ...................................................................................... ii

ENDORSEMENT SHEET .............................................................................. iii

SURAT PERNYATAAN KARYA SENDIRI ................................................ iv

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................ v

ABSTRAK ................................................................................................ vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENT ................................................................................. vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................ ix

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................... xi

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Research ............................................. 1

B. Identification of the Problem ............................................ 3

C. Limitation of the Research ................................................ 4

D. Formulation of the Research .............................................. 4

E. Objective of the Research ................................................. 4

F. Significance of the Research .............................................. 4

CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 5

A. Personality ......................................................................... 5

1. The Definition of Personality ...................................... 5

2. Type of Personality ..................................................... 6

a. The Sanguine Personality ...................................... 7

b. The Phlegmatic Personality .................................. 8

x

B. Speaking ............................................................................ 10

1. The Definition of Speaking ......................................... 10

2. The Element of Speaking ............................................ 12

C. Achievement ..................................................................... 14

D. Thinking Framework ......................................................... 15

E. Review of Previous Study Related to Research ................. 15

F. Hypothesis of the Research ............................................... 16

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A. Location and Time of the Research .................................. 17

B. Method of the Research .................................................... 17

C. Population and Sample ...................................................... 18

D. Technique of Data Collection ........................................... 18

E. Technique of Data Analysis .............................................. 20

F. Statistical Hypotheses ....................................................... 22

CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION

A. Research Finding

1. Data Description .......................................................... 23

2. Data Analysis .............................................................. 25

B. Interpretation ..................................................................... 32

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

A. Conclusion ........................................................................ 33

B. Suggestion .......................................................................... 33

REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 35

APPENDICES ............................................................................................... 37

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 The Four Temperaments .............................................................. 11

Table 3.1 Personality Traits .......................................................................... 19

Table 4.1 The Sanguine Students of the Seventh Semester of

English Education Department...................................................... 23

Table 4.2 The Phlegmatic Students of the Seventh Semester of

English Education Department...................................................... 24

Table 4.3 Mean and Deviation Standard of the Two Variables .................... 27

Table 4.4 The Statistic Descriptive of the Research ..................................... 29

Table 4.5 The calculation Result of the Hypotheses .................................... 31

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Research

English speaking skill becomes the most important skill in the era of

globalization. In education speaking also become the important skills that should

be mastered by students. Speaking is the activity of giving speeches and talks. As

the tool of communication, English speaking skill becomes an important

component for the students since it makes their social intercourse becomes wider.

It means learning English is not only learning about the theory, but also learning

how to practice it in a real communication. So it cannot be denied that in the

competitive era of globalization, the ability to speak in English is very important.

Moreover, this skill is very important for the students of English education

department who are prepared to be professional English teacher. To teach English

of course they have to know how to speak it correctly. However, because English

is not the students’ first language and as English has difference in the way it

written with the way it pronounce, it is not easy to be mastered particularly

speaking skill. In speaking, student needs more effort not only how to arrange the

words, but also how to pronounce them well. Thus, students need more practice to

speak English fluently.

In the class all students are required to practice speaking. Some students do it

well, but not with some others. They keep quite is not because they are not able to

speak English, but they are worried will do mistake or they feel anxiety. Some

students are very active, they do not think too much about will do mistake. They

have full confidence. Meanwhile, other students are very passive; they will speak

if they think they sure they will right. This is what the psychology called as a

personality. According to Hippocrates, there are four kinds of personality. They

are choleric, sanguine, melancholic and phlegmatic.1 Clearly, the choleric is

1Jacques jouanna, Greek medicine from Hippocrates to Galen: Selected Papers, (Netherland:

Koninklijke Brill NV, 2012), p. 340.

2

personality with strong principle, has good leadership, and good in speaking, the

sanguine is the cheerful and skillful person who always want to be famous person,

the melancholic is perfectionist personality and has analytical thinking, and the

phlegmatic is obedient personality which has consistency in learning.

In one class, certainly teachers face the different personality of their students.

There is a passive and active student. The active students are named by sanguine

personality and the passive students are named by phlegmatic personality. Of

course the sanguine personality is more talkative than the phlegmatic personality

who rather likes to keep silent. So, the teachers are required to understand the

students’ personality.

According to the researcher’s experience when she was in forth semester of

her study, it was clearly seen that both type personality were found in one class. In

teaching-learning process, the student with sanguine personality performed more

confident than the students with phlegmatic personality.

Because the comparative analysis is to do in this study, the difference

between sanguine and phlegmatic personality which is one from extrovert and one

from introvert is chosen to be studied.

Based on the explanation above, the students with sanguine personality may

have better ability in speaking than the phlegmatic personality especially in their

fluency. In the other hand, the students with phlegmatic personality may also have

better ability in speaking score because they will think deeper before they decide

to speak up, then the students with phlegmatic personality may have better in

accuracy when they speak up.

To prove the theory, it needs to compare both personalities above with their

competence in speaking ability and compare those personalities with their

speaking score to measure which personality is better in speaking skill. Based on

that reason, therefore, this “skripsi” is under the title “A Comparative Analysis

between Students with Sanguine and Phlegmatic Personality on Their

Achievement in Speaking Skill” (A Survey Study at the Seventh Semester of

English Education Department State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah

Jakarta).

3

The object of study should be specific; therefore the students on the seventh

semester of English Education Department State Islamic University (UIN Syarif

Hidayatullah Jakarta) are selected. Speaking is one of the subjects in English

major which has levels. Only the students who already succeed in passing the

basic level can take the next level. To do the research in this major is decided

because speaking in English major in university becomes a specific subject of the

study and of course it has specific score rather than in school which only has

English subject in general. So it is more reliable to accomplish the research.

B. Identification of the Problem

Problem clearly appear because students with different personality are in one

class. There is a group with active and talkative students and other group is the

group of passive students who really love to keep silent when they are learning.

The active students in speaking are named by sanguine personality and the passive

belong to phlegmatic personality.

The related problems that can be identified to the sanguine personality and

phlegmatic personality of student are such the example below:

1. Some students are difficult to practice their speaking in the class.

2. Other students are eager to practice speaking but they miss grammatical

structure.

3. Some lectures do not really put attention about students’ personality.

4. The teaching strategy used in the class did not consider students’

personality.

C. Limitation of the Problem

Based on the identification of the problem above, it could be limited only on

the differences between sanguine students and phlegmatic student in their learning

process in speaking skill.

4

D. Formulation of the Research

Based on the limitation of the problem, the research question of this “skripsi”

can be formulated as follows:

“Did the sanguine students have differences speaking score with the

phlegmatic students?”

E. Objective of the Research

The objective of the study was to known and describe the difference score of

speaking skill for the students with sanguine and phlegmatic personality.

F. Significance of the Research

The result of this research was expected to make a deep understanding about

students’ personality and give significance not only theoretically but also

practically to:

1. Students

The result of this research is expected to help students to recognize their

personalities and minimize their weakness.

2. Institutions

This research can contribute to all educational institutions to consider

students’ personality and determine the best strategy in teaching learning

process to minimize students’ gap and maximize their potential in

speaking skill.

3. Further Researchers

The result of this study is expected to be used as consideration or preview

for the next researchers in doing the same field of the study.

5

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This chapter is going to explain theoretical description that consists of

personality including the sanguine and phlegmatic personality; speaking that

consist of understanding of speaking and the element of speaking; achievement;

thinking framework; review of previous study to research; and hypotheses of the

research.

A. Personality

1. The Definition of Personality

The word „personality‟ originally comes from the Latin persona. It refers to

the masks worn by actors in ancient Greek dramas in order to develop a role or

false appearance. But according to psychologists the word „personality‟ is more

than the role people play.1

Psychologists have different view about personality. Golden Allport described

personality is something real within an individual that leads to characteristic

behavior and thought. For Carl Roger, personality or „self‟ is an organized,

consistent pattern of perception of the „I‟ or „me‟ that lies at the hearth of an

individual‟s experiences. Whereas according to B. F. Skinner, the word

personality was unnecessary. Skinner did not believe that it is necessary or

desirable to use a concept such as self or personality to understand human

behavior. For Sigmund Freud, personality is largely unconscious, hidden and

unknown.2

In addition, in the book Personality Psychology, Larsen defines personality as

“the set of psychological traits and mechanisms within the individual that are

1Jess Feist and Gregory J. Feist, Theories of Personality, (New York: McGraw Hill, 2009), p.

3.

2Barbara Engler, Personality Theories, 8

th Ed., (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt

Publishing Company: 2009), p. 2.

6

organized and relatively enduring and that influence his or her interaction with,

and adaption to, the intrapsychic, physical, and social environment.”3

According to Lawrence “In psychology, the field of personality is concerned

not only with the total individual but also with individual differences. While

recognizing that all people are similar in some ways, those interested in

personality are particularly concerned with the ways people differ from one

another.”4

From the various definitions above, it could be synthesized that many different

definitions are possible. Personality can be defined as a set of characteristics in the

psychological behavior and thoughts, perception, and individual differences.

2. Types of Personality

The study of personality is broad and varied in psychology, one the topic is

type of personality. There are two types of personality. They are extrovert and

introvert.

On this discussion, the writer only concentrates on Hippocrates‟s theory of

personality traits which is grouped into big four temperament, they are sanguine,

choleric, phlegmatic, and melancholic.5 In relation to the statement above, it can

be classified that sanguine and choleric are extrovert while phlegmatic and

melancholic are introvert.

In addition, according to Hippocrates in the book Pathology Student’s Library

written by Ghozenko, he offered the first constitutional classification. He focused

his attention on the differences of existing in various people reflected in

temperament and social behavior. These observations were assumed by

Hippocrates as the basic of his classification. According to his terminology, this

ancient typology, the choleric, sanguine, phlegmatic and melancholic exist up to

the present time. The choleric personality is impetuous, easily irritated and

3Randy J. Larsen and David M. Buss, Personality Psychology, 2

nd Ed., (New York: Graw-

Hill, 2005), p. 4.

4Lawrence A. Pervin, Personality Theory, Assessment and Research, (New York: John

Willey & Sons, Inc, 1980), p. 4. 5Thomas Chamorro-Premuzic and Adrian Furnham, Personality and Intellectual

Competence, (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publisher, 2005), p. 4.

7

angered, sometimes uncontrollable. His work ability is high, but not constant.

While sanguine personality is communicable, vivacious, lively, active and

emotional. In other hand, phlegmatic personality is calm, apathetic, unexcitable,

but stable. Moreover, melancholic personality is unsociable, sometime depressed,

and hesitating.6

a. The Sanguine Personality

“The sanguine personality described enthusiastic, positive, and cheerful

individuals, satisfied with life and generally enjoying good mental as well as

physical health.”7 He tends to be cooperative and caring. Characteristic of

sanguine person are sociable, outgoing, talkative, responsive, easygoing,

lively, carefree, leadership.8

Sanguine personality also is one of the personalities type. Its characteristic

is creative, fun-loving, enjoy with people, and seek out adventure sometimes

result in label of superficiality and frivolity, more joyful place because of the

inspiration, enthusiasm, and fellowship he provides.9

According to Eysenck, the sanguine person is carefree and full of hope,

pleasant and friendly to help others, sociable, given to pranks, contended, does

not take anything very seriously, and has many friends. Unfortunately he is

bad debtor, he asks for time to pay, and does not really sure to keep his

promise. He is not vicious but difficult to convert from his sins; he may feel

sorry for a bad thing he did but then he forget so soon; he is easily fatigued

and bored by work but enjoyed mere games that constant change, and

persistence is not his forte.10

6A.I Gozhenko et al, Pathology Medical Student’s Library, (Radom: Radomska Szkola

Wyisza Zubrzyckiego, 2009), p. 56.

7Thomas Chamoro-Premuzic and Adrian Furham, loc. cit.

8Walter Mischel et al., introduction to personality, 7

th Ed., (New York: John Willey & Sons,

Inc., 2004), p. 52.

9Art Bennet, LMFT and Laraine Bennet, The Temperament God Gave You, (Manchester,

New Hampshire: Shopia Institute Press, 2005), p. 37.

10

Hans, Eysenck, Fact and Fiction in Psychology, (Baltimore: Penguins Book, 1965), p. 56.

8

1) The Strength of Sanguine

The points below are from the book of „Personality Plus‟ authored by

Florence Littaure, they are traits (characters) which appear in variety of

quantity.

Animated Delightful

Playful Cheerful

Sociable Inspiring

Convincing Demonstrative

Refreshing Mixes-easily

Spirited Talker

Promoter Lively

Spontaneous Cute

Optimistic Popular

Funny Bouncy11

2) The weakness of Sanguine

Traits below are the negative of the sanguine in some ways of the student

type when he interacts in school environment. Florence Littaure mentioned the

traits as follow:

Brassy Wants Credits

Undisciplined Talkative

Repetitious Disorganized

Forgetful Inconsistent

Interrupts Messy

Haphazard Loud

Permissive Scatter brained

Angered easily Restless

Naïve Changeable12

b. The Phlegmatic Personality

“Phlegmatic is a personality type based on the ancient Greek humors

discussed by Hippocrates and Galen in which one is apathetic and conforming

on the outside but tense and distraught on the inside.” He is lethargic, takes

away from others; somewhat passive. Characteristic of phlegmatic person are

11Florence Littaure, Personality Plus, (Michigan: Fleming H. Revell, 1997), pp. 16—18.

12

Ibid.

9

passive, careful, thoughtful, peaceful, controlled, reliable, even-tempered, and

calm.13

Phlegmatic are reserved or quite person, prudent, sensible, reflective,

respectful, and dependable. They are not easily insulted or provoked to anger,

even they do not like exaggeration in speech. They are loyal and committed,

tolerant and supportive. They also have excellent quality, very discipline, and

excel in profession where being calm under pressure, moreover they are

agreeable people, they often hide their will even ignore it.14

1) The strength of Phlegmatic

Adaptable Diplomatic

Peaceful Consistent

Submissive Inoffensive

Controlled Dry Humor

Reserved Mediator

Satisfied Tolerant

Patient Listener

Shy Contented

Obliging Pleasant

Friendly Balanced15

2) The weakness of Phlegmatic

Numerous traits below are the simple descriptions to know about the

weakness of the phlegmatic personality. Florence Littaure mentioned that

traits:

Blank Worrier

Unenthusiastic Timid

Reticent Doubtful

Fearful Indifferent

Indecisive Mumbles

Uninvolved Slow

Hesitant Lazy

Plain Sluggish

Aimless Reluctant

Nonchalant Compromising16

13Walter Mishel et al., loc. cit.

14

Bennet, op. cit, p. 40.

15

Littaure, loc. cit.

16

Littaure, loc. cit.

10

The table below describes the personality characteristics which differ

between one and others by Christian in Astrology and Personality Testing

book written by Martin and Deidre Bobgan:17

Table 2.1

The Four Temperaments

Sanguine Choleric Melancholic Phlegmatic

Cheerful Optimistic Melancholy Calm

Friendly Active Sensitive Dependable

Talk active Confidence Analytical Efficient

Lively Strong-willed Perfectionist Easy Going

Restless Quick to anger Unsociable Passive

Self-centered Aggressive Moody Stubborn

Undependable Inconsiderate Rigid Lazy

Based on the table above it can be concluded that phlegmatic personality is

also called as introvert person. He is talkative less than sanguine personality

because phlegmatic personality is passive. In characteristic, phlegmatic student

likes to avoid the wrongness, and student who has this personality will be more

keep silent than try to speak. In other hand, sanguine personality or extrovert

person is more active. In this case, the student with sanguine personality is

talkative more and he does not worry anymore about making a mistake in their

speaking.

B. Speaking

1. The Definition of Speaking

Speaking is one of the language production skills used for communication. It

is the most natural way to communicate. In communication people do not only to

respond to other people, but also to express their ideas, feeling, thought, etc. Thus,

speaking is very significant to the quality of people‟s living processes and

experiences. The ability to which people develops an efficient and effective

17Martin and Deidre Bobgan, Astrology and Personality Testing, (California, 1992), p. 9.

11

communicative is by the way to speak. Without speaking, people might be hard to

socialize even it can be isolated from any kind of society.

The speaking is used actively by a person to communicate with others in

order to express ideas, feeling, as well as opinion to achieve a particular goal.

Speaking is an interactive process of constructing meaning that involves

producing and receiving and processing information.

In addition, Nunan defined speaking as “the ability to carry out a conversation

in the language.”18

It can be said that in the conversation, people need special skill

to take part in dialog. They need to know what language is appropriate and

understanding what the other speaker means to the topic that is discussing. As

Littlewood said that “When we speak, we are constantly estimating the hearer‟s

knowledge and assumptions, in order to select language that will be interpreted in

accordance with our intended meaning.”19

Further he explained that “…one factor

determining the speaker‟s choice of language is the knowledge that he assumes

the hearer to process. A further important factor is his interpretation of the social

situation in which communication is taking place: language carries not only

function meaning, it also carries social meaning”.20

In relation to the statement above, Jo McDonough and Christopher Shaw

satated “Speaking is not the oral production of written language, but involves

learners in the mastery of a wide range sub-skill which added together, consitute

an overall competence in the spoken language”.21

It means that speaking is nor

merely to transform written language by speaking it. Speaking involves the ability

to integrate sub-skill, such as grammar, vocabulary, and sound. In speaking,

speaker needs to know how to produce a sound, the rules to produce an infinite

numbers of sentences, and to understand of what language is appropriate in certain

situation. In fact that one skill can not be performed without others.

18David Nunan, Language Teaching Methodology. A Textbook for Teachers, (Edinburgh:

Longman Pearson Education, 1998), p. 39.

19

William Littlewood, Communicative Language Teaching, an Introduction, (Landon:

Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 3.

20

Ibid., p. 4.

21

Jo McDonough, and Christopher Shaw, Materials and Methods in ELT: A Teacher’s

Guide, (Cambridge: Blackwell Publisher, 1993), p. 151.

12

Based on the definitions above, it can be synthesized that speaking is the

process of responding and expressing ideas, opinions, feeling or thought with the

other people. As human beings, especially social creature need to express their

thoughts, opinions, or feelings in appropriate way in order to have a good social

life.

2. The Element of Speaking

Speaking a language is especially difficult for foreign language because

effective oral communication requires the ability to use the language appropriately

in social interaction. Speaking foreign language requires more than knowing its

grammatical and semantic rules. It also acquires the knowledge of how native

speaker use the language structurally, such as pitch, stress, and intonation or

known as pronunciation, body language, fluency, control of idiomatic expression,

and understanding of cultural pragmatics are required.22

a. Pronunciation

As one of the speaking element, pronunciation plays an important role to make

sure that the productions of the words do not obscure the meaning. People need to

acquire the words in the correct way. It is also often judged people by the way

they speak, and so learners with poor pronunciation may be judged as incompetent

or lack of knowledge, they make the meaning of words not clear. As stated on the

article of AMEP Research Centre, “pronunciation refers to the production of

sounds that we use to make meaning.”23

Pronunciation is the way for speakers‟

produce clearer language when they speak. The speaker must be able to articulate

the words, and create the physical sounds that carry meaning.

b. Grammar

Jeremy Harmer states that the grammar of a language is the description of

rules which allows someone to generate language itself.24

For most people, the

22

Marianne Celce-Murcia (ed.), Teaching English as Second or Foreign Language, 2nd

Ed,

(Boston: Heinle &Heinle Publishers, 1991), p. 204.

23Adult Migrant English Program Research Centre, Fact Sheet – What is pronunciation?,

AMEP Research Centre, October 2002, 2014, p. 1.

24

Jeremy Harmer, ´The Practice of English Language Teaching, (New York: Longman

Publishing, 1991), p. 12.

13

essence of language lies in grammar. It enables people to make statements about

how to use their language. In brief, grammar represent one‟s linguistic

competence; therefore it includes many aspects of linguistic knowledge: the sound

system (phonology), the system of meaning (semantics), the rules of word

formation (morphology), the rules of sentence (syntax), and the vocabulary of

words (lexicon).

“Language without grammar would be chaotic; countless words without

indispensable guidance for how they can be ordered and modified. A study of

grammar (syntax and morphology) reveals a structure and regularity, which lies at

the basic of language and enables us to talk of the language system.”25

c. Vocabulary

Vocabulary is single words, set phrases, variable phrases, phrasal verbs and

idioms.26

Vocabulary has a significance role in speaking, without many sources of

vocabulary, some people may have difficulty in their speech. Some people define

vocabulary as words. Words are perceived as the building blocks upon which

knowledge of a second language can be built. However a new item of vocabulary

may be more than a single word. For example, „police man‟ and „father-in-law‟

which are made up of two or three words but express a single idea. There are also

multi word idioms like „call it a day‟, where the meaning of phrase cannot be

deduced from an analysis of the word component.27

d. Fluency

Fluency can be reached with practice. Fluency is the ability to talk accurately,

quickly, and use the expression properly. It means speaking a language without

hesitation or producing some errors. It refers to the ability to talk with normal

levels of continuity, rate and effort and to link ideas and language together to form

coherent and connected speech. The key indicators of fluency are speech rate and

25Norbert Pachler (ed.), Teaching Modern Foreign Language (London: Routledge, 1999), p

.94.

26

Keith S. Folse, Vocabulary Myths: Applying Second Language Research to Classroom

Teaching, (Michigan: University of Michigan, 2004), p. 2.

27Penny Ur, A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory, (London: Cambridge

University Press, 1996), p. 60.

14

continuity.28

In fluency practice, the speakers‟ attention is on the information they

are communicating than on the language itself.

e. Comprehension

The last element of speaking is comprehension. As stated by Laura in her

article, comprehension is a complex process that has been understood and

explained in a number of ways.29

Comprehension means the ability to understand

meaning which is spoken. Comprehension takes part in some situations for

example discussing work or problems, making arrangements, chatting at social

gathering, watching a film, and being interviewed.

C. Achievement

According to Simpson and Weiner as quoted by Yusuf achievement is defined

as measurable behavior in a standardized series of tests. They contended that

achievement test intends to measure systematic education and training in school

occupation towards a conventionally accepted pattern of skills or knowledge.

Several subjects may be combined into an achievement battery for measuring

general school proficiency either in point score or achievement age and perhaps

achievement quotient. According to Bruce and Neville (1979) educational

achievement is measured in relation to what is attained at the end of a course,

since it is the accomplishment of medium or long term objective of education.

In the same occasion, Yusuf described that achievement is regarded as action

of completing or attaining by exertion. It subsumes anything won by exertion, a

feat, a distinguished and successful action.30

From the explanation above, it can be said that achievement is used to

describe the status or level of person's learning and his ability to apply what he

has learnt. In educational view, achievement is to measure how much has been

28Paul Davis and Eric Pearse, Success in English Teaching, (New York: Oxford University

Press, 2000), p. 57.

29

Laura S. Pardo, What Every Teacher Needs to Know about Comprehension, International

Reading Association: 2004, 2014, p. 1.

30Yusuf, Inter-Relationship among Academic Performance, Academic Achievement and

Learning Outcomes. P. 6—7.

15

learned in a subject and what specific abilities or skills have been developed. So,

the term denotes to the performance of students, which is determined at the end of

a course.

Students‟ achievement in this research refers to achievement in learning

English. The achievement is reflected by students‟ scores after following the

lesson and through the test. However, students‟ achievement was influenced by

certain factors; one of them was students‟ personality.

D. Thinking Framework

Many people think that some factors which initiate problem in the teaching or

learning speaking skill are the students‟ lake of practice to speak English. The

teachers seldom expose them to speak English, and the method used by the

teachers does not build students‟ interest. However, the problems are not only

those things; there is also a factor which influences students‟ performance in

speaking. It is personality. Every student has different personality; as stated in

previous chapter that the sanguine personality is dominating in speaking than the

phlegmatic personality. This statement will prove that sanguine student will have

better score in speaking than the phlegmatic one.

Therefore, the writer is interested in analyzing whether the students who have

sanguine and phlegmatic personality are influence their achievement in speaking

skill score.

The first step in doing this research is giving the personality test that consist of

40 numbers of traits list of personality in order to determine whether the students

are sanguine or phlegmatic. After students have been classified into sanguine and

phlegmatic, the next step is comparing the student speaking score with those two

personalities. This aimed to answer the research question.

E. Review of Previous Study Related to Research

The writer found the similar research written by Nadiyah (2010) which the

title is “Comparative Analysis on Choleric Students and Melancholic Students

Concerning Their English Speaking Skill.” Nadiyah compared the students‟

16

personality of the second grade students SMA Muhammadiyah 25 Pamulang with

students‟ achievement in speaking score. Based on her opinion, different

personality of the student would make different result in students‟ speaking

ability. In her research showed that there are no significantly differences between

students‟ difference personality with their achievement in speaking score. The

relationship between Nadiyah‟s research with the writer‟s research is the variable

used. Nadiyah used choleric and melancholic students as variables. However, the

writer in this “skripsi” has different focus. The writer focuses on two other types

of personality, they are sanguine and phlegmatic personality and will do the

research in seventh semester of English Education Department State Islamic

University (UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta).

Another previous study related to research is from Lidya Catrunnada Ira

Puspitawati with her paper research entitled “Prokrastinasi Task Differences on

Thesis Introvert and Extrovert Personality”. The result of this quantitative

research showed that personality differences have statistically different to the

students‟ prokratinasi on doing their thesis task. It was noted that, the students

with extrovert personality have prokrastinasi more than the introvert one. The

relationship between this research and the writer‟s research is the use of

dependent variable; however the writer used speaking as dependent variable, and

the writer used sanguine and phlegmatic as independent variables. Sanguine is one

of the categories of extrovert personality, and phlegmatic is one of categories of in

introvert personality.

F. Theoretical Hypothesis

Based on the theories which were described above, it can be posed a

theoretical hypothesis that the sanguine students have better score that the

phlegmatic students in speaking skill.

17

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter consists of the location and time of the research, the method of

the research, the population and sample, the technique of data collecting, the

technique of data analysis, and the theoretical hypothesis.

A. Location and Time of the Research

The research was conducted at English Education Department State Islamic

University (UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta) which is located on Jalan Ir. H.

Juanda No.95 Ciputat. The research was successfully conducted on 20th

of

November 2014.

B. Method of the Research

The method of this research is comparative analysis. It can be used to test

hypotheses concerning about whether there is differences or not between variable

tested. This is aimed to know whether the personality of students especially

sanguine and phlegmatic students has difference achievement in speaking skill

score.

This research is quantitative non-experimental research which describe things

that have occurred and examine relationship between things without any direct

manipulation of condition.1

The first step in doing this research was giving questionnaire to the students

of the seventh semester to get the data about their personality, and then got their

score from Department of English Education to compared students’ speaking

score with their personality.

1James H. McMillan and Sally Schummacher, Research in Education: Evidence-Based

Inquiry, 6th

Ed.,, (Boston: Person Education, Inc., 2006), p. 24.

18

C. Population and Sample

1. Population

The population target in this research was all students from the seventh

semester of English Education Department State Islamic University (UIN Syarif

Hidayatullah Jakarta) which consist of three classes with 128 students; VII. A,

VII. B, and VII. C.

2. Sample

The sample used in this research was purposive sample by classified only

sanguine and phlegmatic students, and those became the sample. There are 21

students from the sanguine personality and 27 students from the phlegmatic

personality.

D. Technique of Data Collection

The techniques of data collection in this research were questionnaire of

personality test taken from standardized assessment written by Frolence Littauer.

It identifies students’ personality by examining their personality based on the list

of traits. There were 40 question numbers of test from the four personality types;

sanguine, choleric, phlegmatic and melancholic. Then, the paper tests were given

to the students in order to determine their type of personality.

Table 3.1

Personality Traits

STRENGNESS

1. --- Adventurous --- Adaptable --- Animated --- Analytical

2. --- Persistent --- Playful --- Persuasive --- Peaceful

3. --- Submissive --- Self-

Sacrificing

--- Sociable --- Strong-willed

4. --- Considerate --- Controlled --- Competitive --- Convincing

5. --- Refreshing --- Respectful --- Reserved --- Resourceful

6. --- Satisfied --- Sensitive --- Self-reliant --- Spirited

7. --- Planner --- Patient --- Positive --- Promoter

19

8. --- Sure --- Spontaneous --- Scheduled --- Shy

9. --- Orderly --- Obliging --- Outspoken --- Optimistic

10. --- Friendly --- Faithful --- Funny --- Forceful

11. --- Daring --- Delightful --- Diplomatic --- Detail

12. --- Cheerful --- Consistent --- Cultured --- Confident

13. --- Idealistic --- Independent --- Inoffensive --- Inspiring

14. --- Demonstrative --- Decisive --- Dry Humor --- Deep

15. --- Mixes Easily --- Mover --- Musical --- Mediator

16. --- Thoughtful --- Tenacious --- Talker --- Tolerant

17. --- Listener --- Loyal --- Leader --- Lively

18. --- Contented --- Chief --- Chart maker --- Cute

19. --- Perfectionist --- Pleasant --- Productive --- Popular

20. --- Bouncy --- Bold --- Behaved --- Balanced

WEAKNESS

21. --- Blank --- Bashful --- Brassy --- Bossy

22. --- Undisciplined --- Unsympathetic --- Unenthusiastic --- Unforgiving

23. --- Reticent --- Resentful --- Resistant --- Repetitious

24. --- Fussy --- Fearful --- Forgetful --- Frank

25. --- Impatient --- Insecure --- Indecisive --- Interrupts

26. --- Unpopular --- Uninvolved --- Unpredictable --- Unaffectionate

27. --- Headstrong --- Haphazard --- Hard to please --- Hesitant

28. --- Plain --- Pessimistic --- Proud --- Permissive

29. ---Angered easily --- Aimless --- Argumentative --- Alienated

30. --- Naïve --- Negative

attitude

--- Nervy --- Nonchalant

31. --- Worrier --- Withdrawn --- Workaholic --- Wants credit

32. --- Too Sensitive --- Tactless --- Timid --- Talkative

33. --- Doubtful --- Disorganized --- Domineering --- Depressed

34. --- Inconsistent --- Introvert --- Intolerant --- Indifferent

20

35. --- Messy --- Moody --- Mumbles --- Manipulative

36. --- Slow --- Stubborn --- Show-off --- Skeptical

37. --- Loner --- Lord over others --- Lazy --- Loud

38. --- Sluggish --- Suspicious --- Short-tempered --- Scatterbrained

39. --- Revengeful --- Restless --- Reluctant --- Rash

40. ---Compromising --- Critical --- Crafty --- Changeable

The questionnaire has 40 numbers. Every number of items consists of traits

from the four personality types. To do the test the students were asked to choose

some traits which reflect themselves.

The students were asked to put a check list (v) to the four traits options on

entirely items numbers. The answer represents their traits that fit them best. Then

the check list test paper that have been done by the students are matched to the

indicators table above. For example:

Number 1

( C ) Adventurous

( P ) Adaptable

V ( S ) Animated

( M ) Analytical

Each symbol means:

C : is for Choleric

S : is for Sanguine

M : is for Melancholic

P : is for Phlegmatic

By seeing the checklist, the students answer “animated” for items number 1.

It means the item number 1 will be counted as sanguine students. The same way is

applied to the next numbers until the last one.

The way of personality judgment is by seeing the highest result that appears

on the total questions.

21

E. Technique of the Data Analysis

First of all, the students were given questionnaire to determine students’

personality types, and then calculate the speaking score of both personalities with

statistic count. The two groups; the sanguine and phlegmatic students and each

score of English speaking are clearly distributed as the single data distribution into

two tables.

Because the research is non-experimental research, it used data information to

measure the hypotheses, and the result will explain how the results either support

or refuse the hypothesis or answer the research question.

In this research the writer used the formula:

Mean of Variable X1 ∑

Mean of Variable X2 ∑

Standard Deviation of Variable XI S = √∑

Standard Deviation of Variable X2 S = √∑

t-test

√

Note:

X1 = The total scores of sanguine students

X2 = The total scores of phlegmatic students

N1 = The number of sanguine students

N2 = The number of phlegmatic students

1 = Mean of sanguine students

22

2 = Mean of phlegmatic students

S1 = Standard deviation of sanguine students

S2 = Standard deviation of phlegmatic students

to = t- test

F. Statistical Hypotheses

Significant critical value: 0.05 and 0.01

Criteria :

If to > t-table means there is influence and Ha is accepted, while Ho is

rejected.

If to < t-table means there is no influence and Ha is rejected, while Ho is

accepted.

The Hypotheses of the research describes how the research must be answered.

Ho = There is no significantly difference between sanguine and phlegmatic

students’ on their achievement in speaking score.

Ha = There is significantly differencesbetween sanguine and phlegmatic

students’ on their achievement in speaking score.

23

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION

This chapter consists of the data description, the data analysis, the data

interpretation and the statistic interpretation.

A. Research Findings

1. Data Description

The following two tables are the students who have been categorized into the

sanguine and the phlegmatic personality. They were sample which had been

chosen by purposive sampling and the following are their En glish speaking score

taken from English Education Department.

Table 4.1

The Sanguine Students

The Seventh Semester of English Education Department

No Name Speaking Score

1 Student 1 80.00

2 Student 2 70.40

3 Student 3 68.00

4 Student 4 80.00

5 Student 5 73.40

6 Student 6 71.80

7 Student 7 75.70

8 Student 8 76.00

9 Student 9 70.70

10 Student 10 70.70

11 Student 11 76.00

12 Student 12 78.50

13 Student 13 78.20

14 Student 14 80.00

24


15 Student 15 80.90

16 Student 16 72.70

17 Student 17 80.00

18 Student 18 78.30

19 Student 19 77.70

20 Student 20 77.80

21 Student 21 80.00

Table 4.2

The Phlegmatic Students

The Seventh Semester of English Education Department


1 Students 1 74.40

2 Students 2 70.00

3 Students 3 80.30

4 Students 4 75.30

5 Students 5 80.00

6 Students 6 70.10

7 Students 7 74.70

8 Students 8 71.20

9 Students 9 70.60

10 Students 10 71.50








25












The 48 students are the sanguine and the phlegmatic students. From the total

number of students of the seventh semester, only 73 students who participated to

fill the questionnaire of personality test. The other 25 students belong to the other

personalities; they are neither the sanguine students nor the phlegmatic students.

2. Data Analysis

To begin the data analysis, first step is finding the average of the sanguine and

phlegmatic students.

The way to find the average of the sanguine and phlegmatic students’ score is

by the following calculation. The average in statistics is known by mean (M). The

pattern of Mean is

∑

Description:

: the total of students’ score

: a number of students

26

This pattern is to find Mean from single data of which scores are more

than one frequency; whether they are for some data or whole of them. The

following is the calculation for x1 or the sanguine students.

∑

= 76.04

After having the first Mean, and the next step is forward to the second Mean.

It is for the phlegmatic students. The calculation is as follows:

∑

= 75.17

Next step is finding the Deviation Standard of the sanguine and the phlegmatic

students.

Deviation Standard of sanguine students is as follows:

S = √∑

= √

= √

= √ = 4.01

Deviation Standard of phlegmatic students is as follows:

S = √∑

= √

= √

=√ = 1.89

The calculation and the results of the mean and deviation standard were

explained on the following tables.

27

Table 4.3

Mean and Deviation Standard of the Two Variables

No The Sanguine Students The Phlegmatic Students

Students Score )2

Students Score ( - )2

1 1 80.00 3.96 15.68 1 74.40 -0.77 0.59

2 2 70.40 -5.64 31.81 2 70.00 -5.17 26.73

3 3 68.00 -8.04 64.64 3 80.30 5.13 26.32

4 4 80.00 3.96 15.68 4 75.30 0.13 0.02

5 5 73.40 -2.64 6.97 5 80.00 4.83 23.33

6 6 71.80 -4.24 17.98 6 70.10 -5.07 25.70

7 7 75.70 -0.34 0.17 7 74.70 -0.47 0.22

8 8 76.00 -0.04 0.002 8 71.20 -3.97 15.76

9 9 70.70 -5.34 36.48 9 70.60 -4.57 20.88

10 10 70.70 -5.34 28.52 10 71.50 -3.67 13.47

11 11 76.00 -0.04 0.002 11 80.00 4.83 23.33

12 12 78.50 2.46 6.05 12 70.40 -4.77 22.75

13 13 78.20 2.16 4.67 13 74.50 -0.67 0.45

14 14 80.00 3.96 15.68 14 74.50 -0.67 0.45

28

No The Sanguine Students The Phlegmatic Students

Students Score )2

Students Score ( - )2

16 16 72.70 -3.34 11.16 16 73.10 -2.07 4.28

17 17 80.00 3.96 15.68 17 78.80 3.63 13.18

18 18 78.30 2.26 5.11 18 80.30 5.13 26.32

19 19 77.70 1.66 2.76 19 77.40 2.23 4.97

20 20 77.80 1.76 3.10 20 74.80 -0.37 0.14

21 21 80.00 3.96 15.68 21 80.30 5.13 26.32

22 22 78.30 3.13 9.80

23 23 77.30 2.13 4.54

24 24 77.40 2.23 4.97

24 25 77.80 2.63 6.92

26 26 71.30 -3.87 14.98

27 27 73.10 -2.07 4.28

N=21 1596.8 321.444 N=27 2029.5 330.12

∑

= 76.04

S = √∑

= √

=

√

= √ = 4.01

∑

= 75.17

S = √∑

= √

=

√

= √ = 1.89

29

The next table concluded the result of the calculation above.

Table 4.4

The Statistic Descriptive of the Research

Statistic Sanguine Students Phlegmatic Students

The Highest Score 80.90 80.30

The Lowest Score 68.00 70.00

Mean 76.04 75.15

Standard Deviation 4.01 1.89

The tables above described that the Mean of the sanguine students’ score was

76.04, while the Mean of the phlegmatic students’ score was 75.15 and the

Deviation Standard of the sanguine students was 4.01, while the Deviation

Standard of the phlegmatic students was 1.89. Looking on the Table 4.4, there

were differences both the result of the Mean and Deviation Standard. The

sanguine students were fine superior of 0.89 on Mean and 2.12 on Deviation

Standard from phlegmatic students.

After analyzing the data and counting the formula, it has been found the result

of the Means and the Deviation Standard of students speaking achievement from

both personality, and finally gave interpretation of ‘to’.

a. Statistical Test (t-test)

In analyzing the data from the result above, it used statistical calculation of

the t-test formula written by Sugiyono. As seen on the Table 4.4, it is suggested to

measure the homogenity varian of both samples. It is the biggest varian divided by

the smallest varian (the varian is taken from the deviation standard), and the result

is compared to F table based on the result of the degree of freedom (DF) from

both samples.

30

DF of this research is (N1 – 1) and (N2-1) = (21 – 1= 20) and (27 – 1= 26)

The homogeneity varian is F=

= 2.12

The F tabel of the degree freedom of 5 % of 20 and 26 is 1.99

Based on the calculation presented above the result of F was higher than F table

(2.12>1.99), thus, it can be interpreted that the varian was not homogen.

Sugiyono further explained five procedures in determing the formula of

comparing two groups of sample; if two groups of sample have different amount

and the varian is not homogen, the Separated Varian formula is used. The

Saparated Varian formula is as follows:

√

√

√

√

b. t-table

The degrees of freedom (DF) determined the t-table. For DF of this research

is

(N1 -1) + (N2 -2) = (20-1) + (27-1) = 45 = 22.5

2 2 2

The degree of significance of 5% was 2.07, and the degree of significance of

1% was 2.81.

To prove the hypothesis, the data obtained from both personalities was

calculated by using the t-test formula with the assumption as follows:

31

to > ttable : The alternative hypothesis (Ha) is accepted and the null

hypothesis (H0) is rejected. It means there is significance

difference between the sanguine students and the phlegmatic

student on their speaking skill achievement.

to < ttable : The alternative hypothesis (Ha) is rejected and the null hypothesis

(H0) is accepted. It means there is no significance difference

between the sanguine and the phlegmatic students on their

speaking skill achievement.1

Table 4.5

The Calculation Result of the Hypothesis

Sample Mean Deviation

Standard DF

t-

Test

ttable

1%

ttable

5%

Conclusion

Sanguine

Students 21 76.04 4.01

22.5 1.71 2.81 2.07

Ho is

accepted

Phlegmatic

Students 27 75.17 1.89

Ha is

rejected

Based on the counting of the table above, it can be explained that:

a) The means of English speaking scores of the sanguine students was 76.04, with

the highest score was 80.90 and the lowest was 68.00. Meanwhile the means of

English speaking score of the phlegmatic students was 75.17, with the highest

score was 80.0 and the lowest was 70.00.

b) The deviation standard of the sanguine students was 4.01, and the deviation

standard of the phlegmatic students was 1.89.

c) The result of t-test was 1.71.

d) T-table for the degree of significance of 5% was 2.07, and the degree

significance of 1% was 2.81.

1Sugiyono, Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif Kualitatif dan R & D, (Bandung: Alfabeta, 2009),

p. 196—199.

32

By comparing the values of t₀= 1.71 and ttable 2.81 and 2.07, the data

calculated with statistical result shows that t₀ was smaller than t-table. So, the

alternative hypothesis (Ha) was rejected and the null hypothesis (H₀) was

accepted. It means there is no significance difference between the sanguine

students and the phlegmatic students on their achievement in speaking skill.

B. Interpretation

Based on the statistical calculation, it can be clarified that there was no

significant difference between the sanguine students and the phlegmatic students

in speaking skill achievement. The result of the t-test was 1.71, and it was smaller

than t-table both in the degree of significance of 5% and 1% (2.07 > 1.71 < 2.81).

So the null hypothesis (Ho) was accepted and the alternative hypothesis (Ha) was

rejected. It can be interpreted that there is no significance difference between the

sanguine students and the phlegmatic students on their speaking skill

achievement.

The sanguine students are assumed to have a good ability and better ability in

speaking. In this research, their score of speaking was 76.04 in average. The

phlegmatic students were estimated to be people who have less ability in speaking

than sanguine students. However, the average of their speaking score was 75.17.

Based on t-test calculation, it showed that there was no difference between

sanguine and phlegmatic students in speaking score achievement because of their

different average score was not too significant.

In relation to this conclusion and looking at the previous research in chapter II

that student with extrovert personality that was sanguine students had better in

English speaking score, and now it have already been proved. The students with

phlegmatic personality could also have better in their English speaking score.

33

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

This chapter presents conclusion and suggestion based on this research which

has been done at Department of English Education State Islamic University

Jakarta (UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta).

A. Conclusion

This research showed that there was no significantly different between

sanguine and phlegmatic student in their achievement in speaking skill. The data

interpreted that sanguine students and phlegmatic students had no difference in

their speaking score achievement. Even though the sanguine students had higher

average of English speaking score and the phlegmatic students got lower average

English speaking score, the t-test calculation showed that there was no

significantly difference between students with sanguine and phlegmatic

personality in their speaking score because the difference of their average is not

too significant.

Based on the result above it can be concluded that students’ personality both

sanguine and phlegmatic did not have any effect on students’ achievement in

speaking skill.

B. Suggestion

Based on the conclusion of this research, it can be recommended some

suggestions go to:

1. Students

The result of this research is expected to help students to recognize their

personalities and minimize their weakness, and students should not worry

to have best score in speaking skill because personality is not significantly

influence.

2. Institutions

34

This research can contribute to all educational institutions to consider

students’ personality and determine the best strategy in teaching learning

process to minimize students’ gap and maximize their potential in

speaking skill.

3. Further Researchers

The result of this study is expected to be used as consideration or preview

for the next researchers in doing the same field of the study with the

different object of the research.

35

REFERENCES

Baststone, Paul. Grammar, New York: Oxford University Press, 1950.

Bennet, Art., and Bennet, Laraine. The Temperament God Gave You, Manchester,

New Hampshire: Shopia Institute Press, 2005.

Brudden, Philip M. Effective English Teaching, 2nd Ed, New York: The Bob’s

Merrill Company, 1995.

Catrunnada, Lidya., and Puspitawati, Ira. Prokrastinasi Task Differences on

Thesis Introvert and Extrovert Personality, Thesis of Undergraduate

Program, Faculty of Psychology, Gunadarma University, 2008.

Celce-Murcia, Marianne (Ed.). Teaching English as Second or Foreign Language,

2nd Ed, Boston: Heinle &Heinle Publishers, 1991.

Chamorro-Premuzic, Thomas., and Furnham, Adrian. Personality and Intellectual

Competence, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publisher,

2005.

Davis, Paul., and Pearse, Eric. Success in English Teaching, New York: Oxford

University Press, 2000.

Engler, Barbara. Personality Theories, 8th Ed, Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Harcourt Publishing Company, 2009.

Eysenck, Hans. Fact and Fiction in Psychology, Baltimore: Penguins Book, 1965.

Feis, Jess., and Feist, Gregory J. Theories of Personality, New York: Mc Graw

Hill, 2009.

Folse, Keith S. Vocabulary Myths: Applying Second Language Research to

Classroom Teaching, Michigan: University of Michigan, 2004.

Friedman, Howard S., and Schustack, Miriam W. Personality: Classic Theories

and Modern Research, 4th Ed, Boston: Pearson Higher Education, 2009.

Gozhenko, A.l., et al., Pathology Medical Student’s Library, Radom: Radomska

Szkola Wyisza Zubrzyckiego, 2009.

Harmer, Jeremy. ´The Practice of English Language Teaching, New York:

Longman Publishing, 1991.

Hewings, Martin. Pronunciation, London: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Larsen, Randy J., and Buss, David M. Personality Psychology, 2nd Ed, New

York: Graw-Hill, 2005.

Littaure, Florrence. Personality Plus, Michigan: Fleming H. Revell, 1997.

36

Littlewood, Wlliam. Communicative Language Teaching, an Introduction,

Landon: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Martin., and Bobgan, Deidre. Astrology and Personality Testing, California, 1992.

McDonough, Jo., and Shaw, Christopher. Materials and Methods in ELT: A

Teacher’s Guide, Cambridge: Blackwell Publisher, 1993.

McMillan, James H., and Schummacher, Sally. Research in Education: Evidence-

Based Inquiry, 6th Ed, Boston: Person Education, Inc., 2006.

Mischel, Walter., et al., Introduction to Personality, 7th Ed, New York: John

Willey & Sons, Inc., 2004.

Nunan, David. Language Teaching Methodology. A Textbook for Teachers,

Edinburgh: Longman Pearson Education, 1998.

Pardon, Laura S. What every teacher needs to know about comprehension,

International Reading Association: 2004, 2014.

Pervin, Lawrence A., and John, Oliver P. Personality: Theory and Research, 7th

Ed, New York: John Willey & Son, Inc., 1997.

Pervin, Lawrence A. Personality Theory, Assessment and Research, New York:

John Willey & Sons, Inc, 1980,

Schmitt, Cornald J. Invitation to Language, Foreign Language Explanatory

Program, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998.

Sugiyono. Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif Kualitatif dan R & D, Bandung:

Alfabeta, 2009.

Ur, Penny. A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory, London:

Cambridge University Press, 1996.

QUESTIONNAIRE

The Purpose and Guidance:

1. This questionnaire is proposed in order to finish “skripsi” in Department of English

Education, Faculty and Tarbiyah and Teachers’ Training

2. The questionnaire conducted to identify kind of students’ personality

3. Please kindly help for answering by choosing each traits based on your personality by

putting cross (x) in a, b, c or d.

4. Thank you very much for your kindly participation.

Respondent Identity

Name :

NIM :

Class :

The Personality Test Of Florence Littauer

The Four Personality Assessment

STRENGTHS

a. Adventurous, Orang yang mau melakukan suatu hal yang baru dan berani dengan

tekad untuk menguasainya.

b. Adaptable, mudah menyesuaikan diri dan senang dalam setiap situasi.

c. Animated, penuh kehidupan, sering menggunakan isyarat tangan, lengan dan wajah

secara hidup.

d. Analytical, suka menyelidiki bagian-bagian hubungan yang logis dan semestinya.

a. Persistent, melakukan sesuatu sampai selesai sebelum memulai lainnya.

b. Playful, penuh kesenangan dan selera humor yang baik.

c. Persuasive, meyakinkan orang dengan logika dan fakta, bukanya pesona atau

kekuasaan.

d. Peaceful, tampak tidak terganggu dan tenang serta menghindari setiap bentuk

kekacauan.

a. Submissive, dengan mudah menerima pandangan atau keinginan orang lain tanpa

banyak perlu mengemukakan pendapatnya sendiri.

b. Self-sacrificing, bersedia mengorbankan dirinya demi atau untuk memenuhi

kebutuhan orang lain.

c. Sociable, orang yang memandang bersama orang lain sebagai kesempatan untuk

bersikap manis dan menghibur, bukannya sebagai tantangan atau kesempatan bisnis.

d. Strong-willed, orang yang yakin akan caranya sendiri.

a. Considerate, menghargai keperluan dan perasaan orang lain.

b. Controlled, mempunyai perasaan emosional tetapi jarang meperlihatkannya.

c. Competitive, mengubah setiap situasi, kejadian atau permainan menjadi kontes dan

selalu bermain untuk menang.

d. Convincing, bisa merebut hati orang melalui pesona kepribadian.

a. Refreshing, memperbarui dan membantu atau membuat orang lain merasa senang.

b. Respectful, memperlakukan orang lain dengan rasa segan, kehormatan dan

penghargaan.

c. Reserved, menahan diri dalam menunjukan emosi atau antusiasme.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

d. Resourceful, bisa bertindak cepat dan efektif boleh dikata dalam semua situasi.

a. Satisfied, orang yang mudah menerima keadaan atau situasi apa saja.

b. Sensitive, secara intensif memperhatikan orang lain dan apa yang terjadi.

c. Self-reliant, orang mandiri yang bisa sepenuhnya mengandalkan kemampuan,

penilainan dan sumber dayanya sendiri.

d. Sprited, penuh kehidupan dan gairah.

a. Planer, memilih untuk mempersiapkan aturan-aturan yang terinci sebelumnya dalam

menyelesaikan proyek atau target dan lebih menyukai keterlibatan dengan tahap-tahap

perencanaan dan produk jadi, bukannya melaksanakan tugas.

b. Patient, tidak terpengaruh oleh penundaan tetap tenang dan toleran.

c. Positive, mengetahui segala-segalanya akan beres kalau dia /orang lain yang

memimpin.

d. Promoter, mendorong atau memaksa orang lain mengikuti, bergabung atau menanam

investasi melalui pesaona kepribadiannya.

a. Sure, yakin, jarang ragu-ragu atau goyah.

b. Spontaneous, memilih agar semua kehidupan merupakan kegiatan yang implusif,

tidak dipikirkan lebih dulu dan tidak dihambat oleh rencana.

c. Scheduled, membuat dan menghayati menurut rencana sehari-hari tidak menyukai

rencananya terganggu.

d. Shy, pendiam, tidak mudah terseret ke dalam percakapan.

a. Orderly, orang yang mengatur segala-galanya secara metodis dan sistematis.

b. Obliging, bisa menerima apa saja. orang yang cepat melakukanya dengan cara lain.

c. Outspoken, bicara terang-terangan dan tanpa menahan diri.

d. Optimistic, orang yang periang dan meyakinkan drinya dan orang lain bahwa segala-

galanya akan beres.

a. Friendly, orang yang menanggapi dan bukan orang yang punya inisiatif, jarang

memulai percakapan.

b. Faithful, secara konsisten bisa diandalkan teguh setia dan mengabdi kadang-kadang

tanpa alasan.

c. Funny, punya rasa humor yang cemerlang dan bisa membuat cerita apa saja menjadi

peristiwa yang menyenangkan.

d. Forceful, kepribadian yang mendominasi dan menyebabkan orang lain ragu-ragu

untuk melawanya.

a. Daring, bersedia mengambil risikio tak kenal takut, berani.

b. Delightful, orang yang menyenangkan sebagai teman.

c. Diplomatic, berurusan dengan orang lain secara penuh siasat,perasa dan sabar.

d. Detailed, melakukan segala-galanya secara berurutan dengan ingatan yang jernih

tentang segala hal yang terjadi.

a. Cheerful, secara konsisten memiliki semangat tinggi dan mempromosikan

kebahagian pada orang lain.

b. Consistent, tetap memiliki keseimbangan secara emosional, menanggapi sebagaimana

yang diharapkan orang lain.

c. Cultured, orang yang perhatiannya melibatkan tujuan intelektual dan artistik seperti

teater, simponi, balet.

d. Confident, percaya diri dan yakin akan kemampuan dan suksesnya sendiri.

6.

10.

7.

8.

9.

11.

12.

a. Idealistic, memvisualisasikan hal-hal dalam bentuk yang sempurna, dan perlu

memuhi standard itu sendiri.

b. Independent, memenuhi diri sendiri, mandiri, penuh kepercayaan diri dan rupanya

tidak begitu memerlukan bantuan.

c. Inoffensive, orang yang tidak pernah mengatakan atau menyebabkan apa pun yang

tidak menyenangkan atau menimbulkan rasa keberatan.

d. Inspiring, mendorong orang lain untuk bekerja,bergabung atau terlibat dan membuat

seluruhnya menyenangkan.

a. Demonstrative, terang-terangan menyatakan emosi. Terutama rasa sayang dan tidak

ragu-ragu menyentuh orang lain ketika bicara kepada mereka.

b. Decisive, Orang yang mempunyai kemampuan membuat penilaian yang cepat dan

tuntas

c. Dry humor, Memperlihatkan “kepandaian bicara yang menggigit.”

d. Deep, Intensif dan introspektif tanpa rasa senang kepada percakapan dan pengejaran

yang pulasan.

a. Mediator, secara konsisten mencari peranan merukunkan pertikaian supaya bisa

menghindari konflik.

b. Musical, ikut serta atau punya apresiasi mendalam untuk musik, puya komitmen

terhadap musik sebagai bentuk seni bukannya kesenangan pertunjukan.

c. Mover, terdorong oleh keperluan untuk produktif, pemimpin yang diikuti orang lain,

merasa sulit duduk diam-diam.

d. Mixes easily, menyukai pesta dan tidak bisa menunggu untuk bertemu dengan setiap

orang dalam ruangan, tidak pernah menganggap orang lain asing.

a. Thoughtful, orang yang tanggap dan mengingat kesempatan istimewa dan cepat

memberikan isyarat yang baik.

b. Tenacious, memegang teguh, dengan keras kepala, dan tidak mau melepaskan sampai

tujuan tercapai.

c. Talker, terus-menerus bicara biasanya mencritakan kisah lucu dan menghibur setiap

oarang di seklilingnya, merasa perlu mengisi kesunyian supaya membuat orang lain

merasa senang.

d. Tolerant, mudah menerima pemikiran dan cara-cara orang lain tanpa perlu tidak

menyetujui atau mengubahnya.

a. Listener, selalu bersedia utnuk mendengarkan.

b. Loyal, setia kepada seseorang, mempertahankan gagasan atau pekerjaan.

c. Leader, pemberi pengarahan karena pembawaan yang terdorong untuk memimpin dan

sering merasa sulit mempercayai bahwa orang lain bisa melakukan pekerjaan dengan

sama baiknya.

d. Lively, penuh kehidupan, kuat,penuh semangat.

a. Contented, mudah puas dengan apa yang dimiliknya, jarang iri hati.

b. Chief, memegang kepemimpinan dan mengaharapkan orang lain mengikutinya.

c. Chartmaker, mengatur kehidupan, tugas dan pemecahan dengan membuat daftar,

formulir atau grafik.

d. Cute, tak ternilainya harganya, dicintai ,menjadi pusat perhatian.

a. Perfectionist, menempatkan standar tinggi pada dirinya, dan sering pada orang lain,

menginginkan segala-galanya pada urutan yang semestinya sepanjang waktu.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

b. Pleasant, mudah bergaul, bersifat terbuka,mudah diajak bicara.

c. Productive, harus terus-menerus bekerja atau mencapai sesuatu, sering merasa sulit

beristirahat.

d. Popular,orang yang menghidupkan pesta dan denga demikian sangat diinginkan

sebagai tamu pesta.

a. Bouncy, kepribadian yang hidup,berlebihan,penuh tenaga.

b. Bold, tidak kenal takut,berani,terus terang, tidak takut akan risiko.

c. Behaved, secara konsisten ingin membawa dirinya dalam batas-batas apa yang

diarasakan semestinya.

d. Balanced, kepribadian yang stabil dan mengambil tengah-tengah, tidak menjadi

sasaran ketingginan atau kerendahan.

WEAKNESSES

a. Blank, orang yang memperlihatkan sedikit ekspresi wajah atau emosi.

b. Bashful, menghindari perhatian, akibat rasa malu.

c. Brassy, orang yang suka pamer, memperlihatkan apa yang gemerlap dan kuat, terlalu

bersuara.

d. Bossy, suka memerintah, mendominasi, kadang-kadang mengesalkan dalam hubungan

antara orang dewasa.

a. Undisciplined, orang yang kurang keteraturannya mempengaruhi hampir semua

bidang kehidupannya.

b. Unsympathetic, merasa sulit mengenali masalah atau sakit hati atau perasaan orang

lain.

c. Unenthuasiastic, cenderung tidak bergairah, sering merasa bahwa bagaimanapun

sesuatu tidak akan berhasil.

d. Unforgiving, orang yang sulit memaafkan dan melupakan sakit hati atau ketidak

adilan yang dilakukan kepada mereka, biasa menyimpan dendam.

a. Retuticent, tidak bersedia atau menolak ikut terlibat terutama kalau rumit.

b. Resentful, sering memendam rasa tidak senang sebagai akibat merasa tersinggung

oleh sesuatu yang sebenarnya atau sesuatu yang dibayangkan.

c. Resistant, berjuang,melawan, atau ragu-ragu menerima cara lain yang bukan caranya

sendiri.

d. Repetitious, menceritakan kembali kisah atau insiden untuk menghibur, tanpa

mengayadari anda sudah menceritakannya beberapa kali sebelumnya, terus-menerus

memerlukan sesuatu untuk dikatakan.

a. Fussy, bersikeras tentang persoalan atau perincian sepele, minta perhatian besar

kepada perincian yang tidak penting.

b. Fearful, sering mengalami perasaan sangat khawatir,sedih atau gelisah.

c. Forgetful, punya ingatan kurang kuat yang biasanya berkaitan dengan kurang disiplin

dan tidak mau repot-repot mencatat secara mental hal-hal yang tidak menyenangkan.

d. Frank, langsung,blak-blakan tidak sungkan-sungkan mengatakan kepadanya.

a. Impatient, orang yang merasa sulit bertahan untuk menghadapi kesalan atau

menunggu orang lain.

b. Insecure, orang yang merasa sedih atau kurang kepercayaan.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

c. Indecisive, orang yang merasa sulit membuat keputusana apa saja.

d. Interrupts, orang yang lebih banyak bicara dari pada mendengarkan, yang mulai

bicara bahkan tanpa menyadari bahwa orang lain sudah bicara.

a. Unpopular, orang yang intensitas dan tuntutannya akan kesempurnaan bisa membuat

orang lain menjauhinya.

b. Uninvolved, tidak punya keinginan untuk mendengarkan atau tertarik kepada

perkumpulan, kelompok, aktivitas atau kehidupan orang lain.

c. Unpredictable, bisa bergairah sesaat dan sedih pada saat berikutnya, atau bersedia

membantu tetapi kemudian menghilang atau berjanji akan datang tetapi kemudian

lupa untuk muncul.

d. Unaffectionate, merasa sulit secara lisan atau fisik memperlihatkan kasih sayang

dengan terbuka.

a. Headstrong, bersikeras memaksakan caranya sendiri.

b. Haphazard, tidak punya cara yang konsisten untuk melakukan banyak hal.

c. Hard to please, orang yang standarnya ditetapkan begitu tinggi sehingga orang lain

sulit memuaskannya.

d. Hesitant, lambat dalam bergerak dan sulit ikut terlibat.

a. Plain, kepribadian tengah-tengah tanpa tinggi rendah dan tidak memperlihatkan

banyak emosi.

b. Pessimistic, sementara mengharapkan yang terbaik, orang ini biasanya melihat sisi

buruk suatu situasi lebih dulu.

c. Proud, orang yang punya harga diri tinggi dang menganggap dirinya selalu benar

serta orang terbaik untuk pekerjaan.

d. Permissive, memperbolehkan orang lain melakukan apa saja sesukanya untuk

menghindari dirinya tidak disukai.

a. Angered easily, orang yang perangainya seperti anak-anak yang mengutarakan diri

dengan ngambek dan berbuat berlebihan serta melupakannya hampir seketika.

b. Aimless, bukan orang yang menetapkan tujuan dan tidak ingin menjadi orang yang

seperti itu.

c. Argumentative, mengobarkan perdebatan karena biasanya dia benar, tidak peduli

bagaimana situasinya.

d. Alienated, mudah merasa terasing dari orang lain, sering karena rasa tidak aman atau

takut jangan-jangan orang lain tidak benar-benar senang bersmanya.

a. Naive, prespektif yang sederhana dan kekanak-kanakan,kurang bijaksana atau

perngertian tentang tingkat kehidupan yang lebih mendalam.

b. Negative attitude, orang yang sikapnya jarang positif dan sering hanya bisa melihat

sisi buruk atau gelap dari setiap situasi.

c. Nervy, penuh keyakinan, semangat,dan keberanian, sering dalam pengertian negatif.

d. Nonchalant, mudah bergaul,tidak peduli, masa bodoh.

a. Worrier, secara konsisten merasa tidak tetap,terganggu atau resah.

b. Withdrawn, orang yang menarik diri dan memerlukan banyak waktu untuk sendirian

atau mengasingkan diri.

c. Workaholic, orang yang menetapkan tujuan secara agresif serta harus terus-menerus

produktif dan merasa bersalah kalau beristirahat, tidak terdorong oleh keperluan untuk

sempurna atau tuntas tetapi kebutuhan untuk pencapaian dan imbalan.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

d. Wants credit, merasa senang mendapat penghargaan atau persetujuan orang lain.

Sebagai penghibur orang ini menyukai tepuk tangan,tertawa, dan atau penerimaan

penonton.

a. Too sensitive, terlalu introspektif dan mudah tersunggung kalau disalahpahami.

b. Tactless, kadang-kadang menyatakan dirinya dengan cara yang agak menyinggung

perasaan dan kurang perimbangan.

c. Timid, mundur dari situasi sulit.

d. Talkative, pembicara yang menghibur dan memaksa diri yang merasa sulit

mendengarkan.

a. Doubtful, mempunyai ciri khas selalu tidak tetap dan kurang keyakinan bahwa

sesuatu hal akan berhasil.

b. Disorganized, kurang kemampuan untuk membuat kehidupan teratur.

c. Domineering, dengan memaksa mengambil kontrol atas situasi dan / atau orang lain,

biasanya dengan mengatakan kepada orang lain apa yang harus mereka lakukan.

d. Depressed, orang yang hampir sepanjang waktu merasa tertekan.

a. Inconsistent, tidak menentu,serba berlawanan, dengan tindakan dan emosi yang tidak

berdasarkan logika.

b. Intorvert, orang yang pemikiran dan perhatiannya ditujukan ke dalam , hidup di

dalam dirinya sendri.

c. Intolerant, tampaknya tidak bisa tahan atau menerima sikap ,pandangan, atau cara

orang lain.

d. Indifferent, orang yang merasa bahwa kebanyakan hal tidak penting dalam satu atau

lain cara.

a. Messy, hidup dalam keadaan tidak teratur, tidak bisa menemukan banyak benda.

b. Moody, tidak mempunyai emosi yang tinggi, tetapi biasanya semangatnya merosot

sekali, sering kalau merasa tidak dihargai.

c. Mumbles, bicara pelan kalau didesak, tidak mau repot-repot bicara jelas.

d. Manipulative, mempengaruhi atau mengurus dengan cerdik atau penuh tipu muslihat

demi keuntungannya sendiri, dan dengan suatu cara akan bisa memaksakan

kehendaknya.

a. Slow, tidak sering bertindak atau berpikir dengan cepat, sangat mengganggu.

b. Stubborn, bertekad memaksakan kehendaknya, tidak mudah dibujuk, keras kepala.

c. Show-offs, perlu menjadi pusat perhatian,ingin dilihat.

d. Skeptical, tidak mudah percaya, mempertanyakan motif di balik kata-kata.

a. Loner, memerlukan banyak waktu pribadi dan cenderung menghindari orang lain.

b. Lord over, tidak ragu-ragu mengatakan kepada diri anda bahwa dia benar atau

memegang kendali.

c. Lazy, menilai pekerjaan atau kegiatan dengan ukuran berapa banyak tenaga yang

diperlukannya.

d. Loud, orang yang tertawa atau suaranya bisa didengar diatas suara lain-lainnya dalam

ruangan.

a. Sluggish, lambat untuk memulai ,perlu dorongan untuk termotivasi.

b. Supicious, cenderung mencurigai atau tidak mempercayai gagasan atau orang lain

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

c. Short-tempered, punya kemarahan yang menuntut berdasarkan ketidaksabaran.

Kemarahan dinyatakan ketika orang lain tidak bergerak cukup cepat atau tidak

menyelesaikan apa yang diperintahkan kepada mereka.

d. Scatterbained, tidak punya kekuatan untuk berkonsentrasi atau menaruh perhatian

,pikirannya berubah-ubah.

a. Revengeful, secara sadar atau tidak menyimpan dendam dan menghukum orang yang

melanggar, sering dengan diam-diam menahan persahabatan atau kasih sayang.

b. Retless, menyukai kegiatan baru terus menerus karena tidak merasa senang

melakukan hal yang sama sepanjang waktu.

c. Reluctant, tidak bersedia atau melawan keharusan ikut terlibat.

d. Rash, bisa bertindak tergesa-tergesa, tanpa memikirkan dengan tuntas, biasanya

karena ketidaksabaran.

a. Comprommising, sering mengendurkan pendiriannya, bahkan ketika dia benar, untuk

menghindari konflik.

b. Critical, selalu mengevaluasi dan membuat pernilaian, sering memikirkan atau

menyatakan reaksi negatif.

c. Crafty, cerdik, orang yang selalu bisa menemukan cara untuk mencapai tujuan yang

diinginkan.

d. Changeable, rentang perhatian yang kekanak-kanakan dan pendek yang memerlukan

banyak perubahan dan variasi supaya tidak merasa bosan.

39.

40.

MATA KULIAH : PUBLIC SPEAKING

DOSEN 1 : Ummi Kultsum, M.Pd.

DAFTAR NILAI

KODE MK : BHS 7133

KELAS : 5 A

PROGRAM STUDI PENDIDIKAN BAHASA INGGRIS

UNIVERSITAS ISLAM NEGERI SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH JAKARTA

DOSEN 2 :

NO NOMOR POKOK NAMA Formatif30.0%

UTS30.0%

UAS40.0%

NILAI AKHIR

ANGKA HURUF

1090140001601 NUR AINI ERVIAN 68,00 81,00 67,00 71,50 B

11100140000422 DHIYA MAWADDAH 67,00 81,00 66,00 70,80 B

11100140000863 UMUL MUFFARROKHATI 70,00 81,00 70,00 73,30 B

11100140001004 FITRIANA PUTRI KURNIA 68,00 81,00 70,00 72,70 B

11100140001185 FANI DWI SAPITRI 70,00 81,00 68,00 72,50 B

11100140001256 RINDA NURAINI 75,00 81,00 70,00 74,80 B

11110140000037 SARAH ASLAMIYAH 77,00 81,00 76,00 77,80 B

11110140000048 FARAH AINY 78,00 80,00 77,00 78,20 B

11110140000059 EKA FITRIYANI 80,00 80,00 77,00 78,80 B

111101400000710 ROSYA KURNIATI 81,00 80,00 80,00 80,30 A

111101400000811 HARRY DERMAWAN 80,00 80,00 76,00 78,40 B

111101400000912 UTUL AZKIYA 78,00 80,00 75,00 77,40 B

111101400001013 FAWZIA FIRDAUSYA 76,00 80,00 70,00 74,80 B

111101400001114 ANNISA RANTIKA 80,00 81,00 80,00 80,30 A

111101400001415 KHILDA SHOPIA 80,00 81,00 80,00 80,30 A

111101400001516 MUTIARA JUNITA 80,00 80,00 80,00 80,00 A

111101400001617 FITRI IMAS MUFIDAH 80,00 80,00 81,00 80,40 A

111101400001718 DARA SABILA 78,00 81,00 74,00 77,30 B

111101400001819 SELASTIA RILLA D 78,00 83,00 77,00 79,10 B

111101400001920 IMAM ACHMAD D 83,00 80,00 78,00 80,10 A

111101400002021 EVA NURLAELA 77,00 80,00 78,00 78,30 B

111101400002122 DEWI NURPITRIYANI 80,00 83,00 80,00 80,90 A

111101400002223 HAYZUN AMALIA 75,00 80,00 77,00 77,30 B

111101400002324 INDRA WIRA SWASONO 67,00 80,00 70,00 72,10 B

111101400002425 IKROMUL KHAIRUL KHABIBI 80,00 80,00 77,00 78,80 B

111101400002526 UTARI WAHYUNINGSIH 70,00 83,00 67,00 72,70 B

111101400002627 YUDHISTIRA ADI N 76,00 80,00 70,00 74,80 B


UTS30.0%

UAS40.0%

NILAI AKHIR

ANGKA HURUF

111101400002728 NISA HASANAH 78,00 83,00 80,00 80,30 A

111101400002829 MIRYANTI 78,00 80,00 75,00 77,40 B

111101400002930 HAQIM HASAN ALBANA 78,00 80,00 76,00 77,80 B

111101400003031 SYNTHIA DIAN S 70,00 81,00 65,00 71,30 B

111101400003132 NURINA AYUNINGTYAS 80,00 80,00 80,00 80,00 A

111101400003233 RISMALIA NUR FEBRIANI 81,00 80,00 75,00 78,30 B

111101400003334 AKHMAD FURQON 77,00 80,00 70,00 75,10 B

111101400003535 NOVIAN CHINTIAMI 75,00 80,00 67,00 73,30 B

111101400003636 ACHMAD FAKHRY R 80,00 80,00 80,00 80,00 A

111101400003737 RIZKY ANTHONI 75,00 81,00 71,00 75,20 B

111101400003938 FARRAS LABIEB AHMAD 80,00 83,00 72,00 77,70 B

111101400004039 MEGA ANJAR SARI 70,00 83,00 68,00 73,10 B

111101400004140 NURUL FATMAWATI 78,00 80,00 76,00 77,80 B

111101400004241 NURAINA GITA AYUNINGTYAS 80,00 80,00 80,00 80,00 A

111101400004342 ADE MAULINA FAZRIN 74,00 80,00 70,00 74,20 B

111101400008843 KURNIA FIRDAUSI NUZULA

Jakarta, 19 November 2014Dosen1

Ummi Kultsum, M.Pd.

NIP.197908112009122001NIP.

Dosen 2



DAFTAR NILAI

KODE MK : BHS 7133

KELAS : 5 B



DOSEN 2 :


UTS30.0%

UAS40.0%

NILAI AKHIR

ANGKA HURUF

11110140000451 RANI DESITA 73,00 77,00 67,00 71,80 B

11110140000462 AFNI AMALIA 76,00 77,00 68,00 73,10 B

11110140000473 FUJI HERAWATI 70,00 77,00 70,00 72,10 B

11110140000484 SYIFA FAUZIAH 68,00 80,00 67,00 71,20 B

11110140000495 WURRY APRIANTY 80,00 77,00 65,00 73,10 B

11110140000506 KARIMA DESTI ANNISAA 71,00 80,00 66,00 71,70 B

11110140000517 NUNIK KURNIAWATI 77,00 80,00 70,00 75,10 B

11110140000528 ELIN ERMASARI 80,00 75,00 80,00 78,50 B

11110140000539 NADYA KARIMAH 67,00 80,00 77,00 74,90 B

111101400005410 NOVIKA RAHAYU N 76,00 75,00 68,00 72,50 B

111101400005511 AYATIKA ADAWIYAH 80,00 80,00 70,00 76,00 B

111101400005612 RAFIQA IRZA AMIROT 70,00 77,00 70,00 72,10 B

111101400005713 KUMALA DEWI 72,00 77,00 65,00 70,70 B

111101400005914 NADIA KARIMAH 75,00 80,00 70,00 74,50 B

111101400006015 USWATUN KHASANAH 80,00 77,00 80,00 79,10 B

111101400006116 AMI RAHMA DANIA 78,00 77,00 70,00 74,50 B

111101400006217 ERVI NUR AZIZAH 72,00 77,00 67,00 71,50 B

111101400006318 SITI KHAFIDOH 78,00 80,00 72,00 76,20 B

111101400006419 RACHMANITA OKTAVIANI 71,00 77,00 65,00 70,40 B

111101400006520 NURITA WULANDARI 70,00 80,00 70,00 73,00 B

111101400006621 ARI ARMADI 80,00 80,00 80,00 80,00 A

111101400006722 FIRDA AMELIA 70,00 77,00 70,00 72,10 B

111101400006923 TITIN SUPARTINI Y 70,00 83,00 66,00 72,30 B

111101400007024 SITI APIAH YUSTIANI 65,00 80,00 70,00 71,50 B

111101400007125 SALSABIL FIRDAUS 83,00 77,00 80,00 80,00 A

111101400007226 NOFIANATUL HASANAH 82,00 75,00 83,00 80,30 A

111101400007327 ABID CHOIRUL FIKRI 78,00 77,00 77,00 77,30 B


UTS30.0%

UAS40.0%

NILAI AKHIR

ANGKA HURUF

111101400007428 SITI RAUDOTUL FUSHIAH 70,00 75,00 70,00 71,50 B

111101400007529 FARHAN 80,00 75,00 80,00 78,50 B

111101400007630 TRI HANIFAH AGUSTINA 74,00 75,00 65,00 70,70 B

111101400007731 LULU WALIDAINI 78,00 75,00 75,00 75,90 B

111101400007832 SAFITRI OKTAVIANI 71,00 75,00 67,00 70,60 B

111101400007933 AGUNG PRASETIA 67,00 75,00 42,60 E

111101400008034 FAUZIAH PUTRI ROSALINA 70,00 75,00 67,00 70,30 B

111101400008135 NICKY DWININGRUM 75,00 83,00 70,00 75,40 B

111101400008236 YULIANTI SARI 77,00 83,00 70,00 76,00 B

111101400008337 AUDREY NINGTYAS 65,00 83,00 67,00 71,20 B

111101400008438 UTAMI FAUZIYAH 80,00 75,00 77,00 77,30 B

111101400008539 PUTIK DELIMA 76,00 83,00 70,00 75,70 B

111101400008640 SELINDA FEBRIANI 66,00 83,00 67,00 71,50 B

111101400013041 JUMAYEVA AYGOZEL 65,00 77,00 63,00 67,80 C

111101400013242 MAHMUDOVA AYNA 60,00 75,00 62,00 65,30 C

111101400013543 FARZONA JURAKHON 60,00 83,00 65,00 68,90 C


Ummi Kultsum, M.Pd.

NIP.197908112009122001NIP.

Dosen 2



DAFTAR NILAI

KODE MK : BHS 7133

KELAS : 5 C



DOSEN 2 :


UTS30.0%

UAS40.0%

NILAI AKHIR

ANGKA HURUF

11110140000871 FUAD HASAN 75,00 80,00 73,00 75,70 B

11110140000892 RAHMI RABBANI 70,00 77,00 73,00 73,30 B

11110140000903 AMINAH SITI ROHANAH 65,00 81,00 60,00 67,80 C

11110140000924 DITTA FIDIA ANGGIARINI 73,00 80,00 72,00 74,70 B

11110140000935 BAGAS FEBRIANSYAH W. 70,00 76,00 70,00 71,80 B

11110140000946 WILDAN AHDIYAT 67,00 76,00 68,00 70,10 B

11110140000957 AULIA RACHMAWATI 78,00 77,00 67,00 73,30 B

11110140000968 MAYA SYARIE 80,00 80,00 80,00 80,00 A

11110140000979 ACHMAD BADRUN 76,00 76,00 72,00 74,40 B

111101400009810 TIAS SIL ROMANSYAH 65,00 76,00 66,00 68,70 C

111101400009911 SULIS SETYANINGSIH 64,00 77,00 65,00 68,30 C

111101400010012 MUTHIA HANIFAH 70,00 77,00 71,00 72,50 B

111101400010113 FITROTUN NISA 70,00 80,00 70,00 73,00 B

111101400010214 NUNKY APRILLIA 75,00 80,00 72,00 75,30 B

111101400010315 OKY PRIMADEKA YULIANA 80,00 81,00 80,00 80,30 A

111101400010416 FAHMI FAUZJI 70,00 81,00 71,00 73,70 B

111101400010517 DWI RATNASARI 80,00 80,00 80,00 80,00 A

111101400010618 AJENG RIZKY AGITA 70,00 80,00 70,00 73,00 B

111101400010719 ESTI SETYANINGRUM 70,00 80,00 71,00 73,40 B

111101400010820 ELLEN FIRDHAYANA 80,00 77,00 78,00 78,30 B

111101400010921 NIKI BRILIAN RINDU PUTRI 80,00 80,00 80,00 80,00 A

111101400011022 LILI SAMROTUL KARIMAH 80,00 80,00 73,00 77,20 B

111101400011123 HASRUL HUTAGAOL 74,00 78,00 68,00 72,80 B

111101400011224 WIYUDO SERENA 65,00 75,00 65,00 68,00 C

111101400011325 PUTRA DIAN KHARISMA IVADA 67,00 78,00 70,00 71,50 B

111101400011426 MUHAMMAD KAHFIANAN 70,00 78,00 65,00 70,40 B

111101400011527 RURY GAMAL PACI 70,00 78,00 71,00 72,80 B


UTS30.0%

UAS40.0%

NILAI AKHIR

ANGKA HURUF

111101400011628 FIKRI ABDILLAH 73,00 78,00 71,00 73,70 B

111101400011729 IRFAN MUJAHID 68,00 76,00 78,00 74,40 B

111101400011830 RIZKA MUSLIMAINI 67,00 77,00 68,00 70,40 B

111101400011931 MUHAMAD ADNA 80,00 80,00 80,00 80,00 A

111101400012032 MUHAMMAD FADLY 77,00 81,00 70,00 75,40 B

111101400012133 SHENDY PRATAMA 71,00 78,00 72,00 73,50 B

111101400012234 MUH MIFTAHUSSURUR 83,00 77,00 80,00 80,00 A

111101400012335 FANDI ROHMAN DIANTO 60,00 76,00 66,00 67,20 C

111101400012436 DESSI WULANDARI 75,00 80,00 70,00 74,50 B

111101400012537 AHMAD MUCHLISHON 82,00 81,00 75,00 78,90 B

111101400012638 DZAWIN NUR IKRAM 80,00 76,00 80,00 78,80 B

111101400012739 SRI PUJIASTUTI

111101400012840 LALA NURMALASARI DEWI 80,00 80,00 80,00 80,00 A

111101400012941 M. ISKAK SAQOFI 75,00 81,00 66,00 73,20 B

111101400013442 MONASIA GUSTI 72,00 81,00 71,00 74,30 B


Ummi Kultsum, M.Pd.

NIP.197908112009122001NIP.

Dosen 2

THE RESULT OF STUDENTS’ PERSONALITY TEST

SEVENTH SEMESTER OF ENGLISH EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT

VII A

No Name S C M P Domination

1 Sarah Aslamiyah 6 6 18 10 Melancholic

2 Imam Achmad

Damasullah 7 11 17 15 Melancholic

3 Akhmad Furqon 10 4 16 10 Melancholic

4 Utul Azkiya 6 5 12 17 Phlegmatic

5 Eka Fitriyani 10 5 6 19 Phlegmatic

6 Eva Nurlaela 2 12 10 16 Phlegmatic

7 Rismalia Nur Febriani 15 4 10 11 Sanguine

8 Nurina Ayuningtiyas 20 7 4 9 Sanguine

9 Mega Anjar Sari 6 5 9 20 Phlegmatic

10 Haqim Hasan Albana 4 7 12 17 Phlegmatic

11 Miryanti 13 5 7 15 Phlegmatic

12 Nisa Hasanah 7 2 16 15 Melancholic

13 Rosya Kurniati 8 9 11 12 Phlegmatic

14 Dara Sabila 11 7 12 10 Melancholic

15 Nurania Gita Ayuningtyas 14 8 11 7 Sanguine

16 Faras Labieb Ahmad 15 9 7 9 Sanguine

17 Novian Chintiami 3 17 10 10 Choleric

18 Nurul Fatmawai 19 3 3 15 Sanguine

19 Farah Aini 14 9 4 13 Sanguine

20 Dewi Nur Fitriyani 14 10 6 10 Sanguine

21 Indra Wira Swasono 5 7 18 10 Melancholic

22 Synthia Dian Septiani 10 4 7 19 Phlegmatic

23 Fauzia Firdausya 10 2 12 16 Phlegmatic

24 Hayzun Amalia 6 5 7 22 Phlegmatic

25 Khilda Shopia 9 10 7 14 Phlegmatic

26 Utari Wahyuningsih 12 8 10 10 Sanguine

27 Mutiara Junita 18 3 5 14 Sanguine

VII B


1 Amy Rahmadania 9 7 10 14 Phlegmatic

2 Fuji Herawati 6 4 7 23 Phlegmatic

3 Elin Ermasi 24 1 3 13 Sanguine

4 Kumala Dewi 16 3 13 8 Sanguine

5 Afni Amalia 9 3 12 15 Phlegmatic

6 Putik Delima 18 2 6 14 Sanguine

7 Ari Armadi 3 7 12 17 Phlegmatic

8 Nadia Karimah 15 1 5 19 Phlegmatic

9 Audrey Ningtyas 1 5 13 16 Phlegmatic

10 Safitri Oktaviani 7 6 12 15 Phlegmatic

11 Rachmanita Oktaviani 12 3 9 16 Phlegmatic

12 Siti Apiah Yustiani 8 6 10 16 Phlegmatic

13 Wurry Aprianty 4 12 14 10 Choleric

14 TitinSupartini Y 10 4 16 10 Melancholic

15 Ervi Nur Azizah 7 11 18 3 Melancholic

16 Selinda Febriani 14 14 7 4 Sanguine Choleric

17 Salsabila Firdaus 7 6 20 7 Melancholic

18 Utami Fauziah 6 12 16 6 Melancholic

19 Yulianti Sari 17 4 5 14 Sanguine

20 Tri Hanifah 20 2 6 12 Sanguine

21 Ayatika Adawiyah 13 11 7 9 Sanguine

22 Novika Rahayu 7 6 17 10 Melancholic

23 Syifa Fauziah 9 13 7 11 Choleric

24 Lulu Walidaini 7 13 11 9 Choleric

25 Nurita Wulandari 4 7 20 9 Melancholic

26 Rani Desita 3 9 18 10 Melancholic

27 Siti Khafidoh 9 4 14 13 Melancholic

VII C


1 Dessi Wulandari 13 3 11 13 Sanguine Phlegmatic

2 Fitrotun Nisa 8 6 16 7 Melancholic

3 Shendy Pratama 9 9 14 8 Melancholic

4 Ajeng Rizky Agita 13 2 9 16 Phlegmatic

5 Wildan Ahdiyat 8 8 10 14 Phlegmatic

6 Maya Syarie 5 5 13 18 Phlegmatic

7 Irfan Mujahid 8 2 12 18 Phlegmatic

8 Dwi Ratnasari 9 11 9 11 Choleric Phlegmatic

9 Achmad Badrun 2 13 13 11 Choleric Melancholic

10 Fikri Abdillah 5 14 14 7 Choleric Melancholic

11 Ditta Fidia Anggiarini 5 9 10 16 Phlegmatic

12 Rizka Muslimaini 15 5 8 10 Sanguine

13 Esti Setyaningrum 12 9 9 10 Sanguine

14 Wiyudo Serena 15 9 7 8 Sanguine

15 Nunky Aprillia 14 4 6 16 Phlegmatic

16 Oky Primadeka Yuliana 5 6 12 17 Phlegmatic

17 Bagas Febriansyah W 14 7 9 10 Sanguine

18 Nikki Brilian Rindu P 19 9 6 6 Sanguine

19 Lala Nurmala Sari D 16 7 8 9 Sanguine

Documents

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN STUDENTS WITH …repository.uinjkt.ac.id/dspace/bitstream/123456789/28698/1/ARINA... · Ketrampilan Berbicara Mereka. Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris,