Abdullah Hasan

Abdullah Hasan
LANGUAGE LEARNING
&
TEACHING STRATEGIES
FOR YOUNG LEARNERS
Katalog dalam Terbitan (KDT)
Language Learning &
Teaching Strategies For Young Learners
Penulis : H. Abdullah Hasan
Layout : Jonri Kasdi

Design Cover : Cahaya Firdaus Design
ISBN : 978-602-5432-18-7
vi, 105 hal (155x230mm)

Cetakan Tahun 2018
Penerbit :
Cahaya Firdaus
Publishing and Printing
Jl. Sepakat No. 101 Panam-Pekanbaru
Mobile Phone : +6285265504934
E-mail : [email protected]
Lingkup Hak Cipta
Pasal 72
1. Barang siapa dengan sengaja melanggar dan tanpa hak melakukan

perbuatan sebagaimana dimaksud pasal 2 ayat 1 atau pasal 49 ayat 1 dan
2 dipidana penjara masing-masing paling singkat 1 bulan dan/atau
denda paling sedikit Rp. 1.000.000,- atau pidana penjara paling lama 7
tahun dan/atau paling banyak Rp. 5.000.000.000,-
2. Barang siapa dengan dengaja menyiarkan, memamerkan, mengedarkan,
atau menjual kepada umum suatu ciptaan atau barang hasil pelanggaran
hak cipta sebagaimana dimaksud dalam ayat 1, dipidana dengan penjara
paling lam 5 tahun dan atau denda paling banyak Rp. 500.000.000,-
ii
PREFACE
This book is especially presented for teachers or teachers

to be as a reference or a concept to implement in teaching and
learning process. Many teachers realize that engaged teaching
and active learning are desirable. Moreover, the school
curriculum of Indonesia keeps on changing, and the last one is
the 2013 curriculum revision 2016 using communicative
approach which claims the teachers to be more active, creative,
and innovative to prepare the teaching materials to be presented
to their students. Teaching encourages the students to ask
questions and look for answers based on the first and the second
steps of scientific approach, to apply what they have learned in
order to solve the problems, to listen and interact to each other
and debate ideas politely and constructively for three other steps
of Scientific Approach. This is teaching students that can provide
authentic materials to use in their lives. But knowing that these
things are important is not the same thing as knowing how to
make them work in the classroom with a crowded syllabus,
short class periods and many students in a classroom.
The book of LANGUAGE LEARNING & TEACHING
STRATEGIES FOR YOUNG LEARNERS comes about to satisfy
the need in the schools for deeper learning, life long learning
that the students can use and make them not only better
students but more productive members of society. It also comes
about in order to teach “the small ideas,” as one teacher calls
them. The “small ideas” are how to actually teach for active,
creative learning and critical thinking in real classroom. The big
ideas are the lofty proclamations about how important active,
iii
creative, effective, joyful learning and critical thinking which are
in accordance with 2013 curriculum.
At last, the writer hopes some comments from various
teachers and educators for the improvement of this book.
Abdullah Hasan
UIN Sultan Syarif Kasim Riau, January 2018
iv
CONTENTS
PREFACE ................................ iii

CONTENTS ................................ v
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Overview ................................ 1
Problems Faced by Indonesian English Learners .............. 3
Teacher Problems in Teaching English ............................ 6
Formulation of the Problems ............................ 9
CHAPTER 2
LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES
Direct and Indirect Strategies ......................... 15
Memory Strategies ......................... 18
Cognitive Strategies ......................... 19
Compensation Strategies ......................... 21
Meta-cognitive Strategies ......................... 22
Affective Strategies ......................... 22
Social Strategies ......................... 24
CHAPTER 3
ACTIVE, CREATIVE , EFFECTIVE AND
JOYFUL LEARNING
Active Learning ......................... 29
Creative Learning ......................... 37
Effective Learning ......................... 41
Joyful Learning ......................... 44
Achievement ......................... 47
Motivation ......................... 48
v
CHAPTER 4
STRATEGIES FOR THE VARIOUS
SKILL AREAS
Listening Strategies ......................... 53
Speaking Strategies ......................... 55
Reading Strategies ......................... 57
Strategy Instruction in Reading ......................... 59
Writing Strategies ......................... 61
Vocabulary Strategies ......................... 62
Grammar Strategies ......................... 63
Teaching Integrated Skills and
Language Components ......................... 67
Teaching Listening ......................... 68
Teaching Speaking ......................... 69
Teaching Reading ......................... 71
Teaching Writing ......................... 74
Teaching Vocabulary ......................... 75
Teaching Grammar ......................... 80
Teaching Integrated Skills Through
Scientific Approach ......................... 83
SUMMARY ......................... 86
REFERENCES ......................... 88
vi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW
Learning strategies are thoughts and actions we engage in,

consciously or otherwise, to learn new information. Learning
strategies help students to consciously control how they learn so
that they can be efficient, motivated, and independent language
learners (Chamot, Bernhardt, El-Dinary, & Robbins 1999)
Learning strategies are for the most part unobservable,
though some may be associated with an observable behavior.
For example, a learner could use selective attention
(unobservable) to focus on the main idea while listening to a
newscast and could then decide to take notes (observable) in
order to remember the information (Rubin 1987; Cohen 1998).
Applied research on language learning strategies
investigates the feasibility of helping students become more
effective language learners by teaching them some of the
learning strategies that descriptive studies have identified as
characteristic of the ‗good language learner‘ (Rubin 1981;
Mohamed Amin Embi et al 2001; Griffiths & Jordan 2005; Lee &
Oxford 2008 ).
An area of basic research in second/foreign language
acquisition is the identification and description of learning
strategies used by language learners and the correlation of these
strategies with other learner variables such as proficiency level,
age, gender, motivation, and the like (Chamot & ElDinary 1999;
El Dibb 2004; Green & Oxford 1995; Oxford and Bury Stock1995;
Zainil 2005).
Language Learning & Teaching Strategies For Young Learners 1

A number of recent research studies have dealt with
language learning strategies aimed at improving teaching
techniques and achievement. Syahdan (2012) conducted a
research compensatory strategies of first language attrited
children. Chuzaimah (2011) carried out an experimental research
entitled ―3 LS: A Model for Teaching Young Learners. Sri
Rachmajanti (2008) conducted a research entitled, ―Impact of
English Instruction at the Elementary Schools on the student
Achievement of English at the Lower Secondary School‖ Omid
Akbari (2008) investigated the effectiveness of teaching
vocabulary items through pictures and contextualization to
elementary Iranian EFL students. Ya-Ling Wu (2008) determined
language learning strategies used at different proficiency levels.
Nikolova (2008) presented a critical overview of the current
situation in English teaching in public elementary schools in
Japan. Vivian Wu and Natalie Wu (2008) studied creating an
authentic EFL learning environment to enhance student
motivation to study English. Harris (2006) carried out a quasi-
experimental research on 12-to-13-year-old students to explore
the impact of modern language performance and motivation of
encouraging students to transfer language learning strategies
across English and ML. Zainil (2005) implemented an
experimental research to develop an action-function method by
learners of an elementary school in Solok, a town in West
Sumatra. Ag.Bambang Setiyadi (2004) conducted a research
entitle ― Redesigning Language Learning Strategies‖ . These
studies highlight that language learning strategies have been
used to investigate various research aspects.
2 Language Learning & Teaching Strategies For Young Learners

PROBLEMS FACED BY INDONESIAN ENGLISH
LEARNERS.
One can hardly deny that English plays a very important

role in the major aspects of life in this global era. It is the most
widely spoken language in the world nowadays and it is fast
becoming a lingua franca of international trade and commerce.
With challenges posed by globalization and technological
advances, Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
has become crucial in gathering scientific information available
on electronic media. Additionally, most science and technology
books are written in English.
In Indonesia, English is one of the foreign languages being
taught from primary schools up to university. Formerly, based
on KTSP curriculum, at the primary level, English was taught as
a local subject in year one until three, while in years four to six, it
was a compulsory subject with two class-hours a week.
Unfortunately, in curriculum 2013, English is dismissed to teach
because of the failure to achieve the English learning goal. At
junior and senior high schools, it is offered as a compulsory
subject with the time allocation of four class-hours a week,
whereas at the university or college, it is accorded two to six
credit hours and the curriculum focuses on English for Specific
Purposes.
The Elementary schools especially private schools, English
is taught as a local content. The main goal of teaching English at
the primary school level in Indonesia is to have learners possess
basic competence as follows: (1) to develop communicative
competence of limited verbal language accompanying the four
language skills; listening, speaking, reading and writing in
school context; (2) to implant consciousness of the importance
and role of English as a competitive language in the global arena.

The objective of teaching English at the secondary school levels
(SMP/SMA) in Indonesia is to develop communicative
competence in spoken and written English, and to gain
informational and literary knowledge through developing skills
in listening, speaking, reading and writing. Having mastered
these skills, learners are expected to be conscious of the
importance of English and to compete in the global arena.
Furthermore, it is hoped that mastering the skills would enable
learners to improve their understanding both in language and
culture (Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan 2005: 2).
Abdullah Hasan (2012:169) state that based on his
observation of teaching English at the elementary school level in
Riau province, he has discovered that most students are not
motivated and interested in learning English. Many English
teachers are unable to create different activities to aid the
teaching and learning process. They still focus on teacher
centered instruction and concentrate on teaching grammar
explicitly.They also tend to ask the students to memorize
vocabulary words. This has led students to feel bored and
uninterested in learning English. Futhermore, students possess a
negative attitude and lack of motivation toward English. They
do not want to develop their interest in learning English and
often leave class during English lessons.
Zainil (2005:10) states that based on his observations and
experiences in teaching English at junior and senior high schools
in Indonesia, in general, English teachers have employed the
communicative language teaching approach for many years
based on their own perceptions and understanding. Some teach
English using situations related to real life, while some others
use artificial situations, and others use both. Most of them teach
English in large classes and only a few in small ones, but on the
whole, they have not been successful.

Rohaty, et. al (2012) state that most Indonesian students are
passive language learners. They are shy to use English in real life
communication. They only pay attention to forms and rules
when they communicate with others. They do not practice
English in real life communication and situations. Only a few of
them practice and use it in the classroom. Consequently, they fail
to acquire English proficiency (Zainil 2003, 2004).
Suwarsih (2002: 142) has noted that senior high school
graduates who have learned English for six years, with almost
900 hours of school teaching, are unable to use this language for
communicative purposes. This phenomenon can also be
observed among university graduates and even among faculty
members. The teaching of English has so far not helped teachers
and students achieve their declared goals despite many efforts
made to improve its quality.
Despite their enthusiasm towards studying English and
improving themselves in various aspects, the profile of
Indonesian students‘ strategies to learn English has not been
well researched. Similarly, English learners‘ strategies are still
quite a vague concept to Indonesian EFL learners, particularly,
learning strategies in the context of English as a foreign language
(EFL) (Zainil 2005) . Likewise, learning strategies could definitely
help them learn English more efficiently if they are aware of
such strategies consciously and adopt them.
Researchers have discovered that successful L2 learners,
compared with less successful learners, use more strategic
mental processes (learning strategies) and employ them more
frequently; this strategy use was shown to occur before, during,
and after the tasks (Oxford 1994; Oxford, Cho, Leung & Kim
2004). Oxford (1990) pointed out the importance of learning
strategies for language learners both in theory and practice.
Rubin (1994) described learning as behaviors that would

contribute to developing learners‘ language system affecting
learning directly.
TEACHER PROBLEMS IN TEACHING ENGLISH.
The fundamental goal of English teachers at primary

schools and junior high schools is to develop students‘ positive
attitude and motivation to learn English. Zainil (2005) observed
that most teachers employed English teaching approaches,
methods, tecniques and strategies based their own perception,
and most students still fail to master essential elements of the
four skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing. In
addition, they are not able to speak in English clearly, fluently
and appropriately, and their knowledge of grammar and
vocabulary is very low.
Dealing with intellectual development of six-to twelve-
year-old children is what Piaget (1972) refers to as ―concrete
operation,‖ meaning that we need to remember the children‘s
limitations in understanding abstract concepts. Brown (2001)
claims that some rules of thumb for the classroom should be
observed, for instance, should not explain grammar using terms
such as ―present progressive‖ and rules should not be stated in
abstract terms and through difficult concepts or patterns. He
says that in reality, during the teaching and learning process,
most English teachers teach abstract things, explain grammar
explicitly and present difficult concepts or patterns.
Consequently, pupils are unmotivated and frustrated in learning
English. This has caused hindrances to students‘ mastery of
English .
The teachers still fail to see individual differences in
teaching and learning process, some students might use difficult
language learning strategies from each other. As learning styles
vary among students, they might also use different language

learning strategies. More attentive and effective language
learners systematically select and combine strategies relevant to
language tasks, while unmotivated learners, seemingly
desperate, do not pay sufficient attention to the relevance of a
strategy to the task at hand.
This reality indicates that the teachers of English have not
implemented the concepts or classroom techniques of
communicative language teaching very well yet, as well as the
concepts or theories on how to teach English to children at the
elementary school level. To practice the concepts, teachers
should understand their pupils and apply the strategies
according to the pupils‘ needs; consequently the pupils would be
able to implement them in the learning process.
Many factors influence students achieved of instructional
objectives in regards to learning English, such as, the affective
strategy for students‘ learning motivation, attitude and interest;
cognitive strategy for the competence of English teachers, and
memory strategy for students‘ inadequate basic knowledge
(Zainil 2005). Lack of learning facilities, irrelevant methods and
ineffective language learning strategies used by students as well
as inadequate teaching strategies by teachers are other factors
that hinder the English teaching and learning process.
The standard of English language mastery in Indonesia is
declining due to the delimitations of the environment in which
they are learning the language. English language in Indonesia is
taught and learned as a foreign language. In other words, it is
not used as a means of communication in daily life. Indonesian
students use English only in classrooms when learning the
language. Once they study other courses or when they go out of
the classroom, they do not use English or they do not hear it
being used by the people around them. In addition, they are too
shy to practice speaking in English, and the environment in

Indonesia is not conducive for students to practice using English
in their daily life. The students usually use either the Indonesian
language or their mother tongue as a means of communication.
At present, educators and researchers are of the opinion
that the learning of a second language should be meaningful,
reflective and learner-centered so that learners can develop
learner autonomy for lifelong learning. They stress that learner
autonomy can be attained through learner training, that is
focusing on not only ‗what‘ to learn but also on ‗how to learn‘
through the teaching of learning strategies (Dickinson 1987;
Littlewood 1996).
Research findings such as those by Oxford 1990, O‘Malley
& Chamot 1990, Mohamed Amin 1996; Drozdial Szelest 1997,
and Cohen 1998 support previous studies that successful
language learners are those who utilize a wide range of key
language learning strategies. One pedagogical implication of this
is that less successful language learners can be assisted to
improve their language efficiency through learner training or
strategy training. Oxford (1990) states that learner training is
especially necessary in the area of second and foreign language
because language learning in these contexts requires active self-
direction on the part of learners.
Wenden (2003) also states that language learning strategies
are important because researchers like Chamot (1989) and Cohen
(1999) suggest that training students to use language learning
strategies could help them become better language learners.
Another researcher, Mohammed Amin Embi (1997) who has
explored language learning strategies used by successful
learners, created a model for learning language strategies, and
learning English based on research findings. In the year 2000,
Mohammed Amin Embi identified language learning strategies
used by students, explained the relationship between social

factors and situational factors, and language learning strategies
used by successful learners in a Malaysian context.
FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEMS.
Based on the problems mentioned dealing with student

problems in learning English and teacher problems in teaching
English, two formulation of the problems are formulated as
follows:
a. What are the appropriate learning strategies owned by
the students of young learners in English teaching and
learning process?
b. What are the appropriate teaching strategies presented by
the teachers in English teaching and learning process?

CHAPTER II
LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES
Learning strategies are the thoughts and actions we engage

in, consciously or not, to learn new information. The goal of
teaching learning strategies is to help students to consciously
control how they learn so that they can be efficient, motivated,
and independent language learners. (Chamot, Bernhardt, El-
Dinary, & Robbins 1999)
Furthermore, the intent of learning strategies instruction is
to help all students become better language learners. When
students begin to understand their own learning processes and
can exert some control over these processes, they tend to take
more responsibility for their own learning. This self knowledge
and skill in regulating one‘s own learning is a characteristic of
learners, including successful language learners.
Research with both first and second language learners is
revealing some of the ways of thinking that guides and assists an
individual‘s attempt to learn more effectively (Paris & Winograd
1990). The students who think and work strategically are more
motivated and interested in learning and to have a higher sense
of self-efficacy or confidence in their own learning ability. That
is, strategic students perceive themselves as more able to succeed
academically than students who do not know how to use
strategies effectively. The students who expect to be successful at
learning tasks generally are successful, and each successful
learning experience increases motivation.
The term „strategy‟ implies conscious movement toward a
goal. ―Strategies must be controllable‖ (Pressley & McCormick
1995:28) because they are steps that learners take in order to

manage their learning and achieve desired goals. Although the
precise degree of consciousness has been debated, most
researchers (see, e.g. Bialystok 1978; Cohen 1990, 1998; Maclntyre
1994; Oxford & Cohen 1992; Mohammed Amin Embi 2000,
2000b) agree on the necessity of some level of conscious intention
in using L2 strategies. When a strategy is so habitual that it is no
longer within the learner‘s conscious awareness and control, it
becomes a process (Cohen 1998).
Smaldino, Sharon E, Lowther and Russel (2008:18) state
that the word ‗strategy‘ means a way of doing something. An
instructional strategy is a way of involving learners in a
particular teaching-learning activity. Strategies are described as a
procedure of instruction selected to help learners achieve their
objectives or internalize content. Examples include presentation,
demonstration, cooperative learning, gaming, simulation,
problem solving, discussion, drill and practice, discovery and
tutorial.
Strategies used by learners at the early stages of their L2
development may be somewhat different from those used when
these learners are more proficient. As Cohen (1998:.8) stated,
―With some exceptions, strategies themselves are not inherently
good or bad, but have the potential to be used effectively‖ by
various learners who do particular types of L2 learning tasks at
different proficiency levels. More effective L2 learners
intentionally, systematically select and combine strategies
relevant to the language task at hand and to their own learning
style preferences (Ehrman & Oxford 1990, 1995). Less successful
L2 learners grab for various strategies in a seemingly desperate,
random way and do not pay sufficient attention to the relevance
of a strategy to the task at hand (Abraham & Vann 1987; 1990).
Learning strategies are the thoughts and actions we engage
in, consciously or not, to learn new information. The goal of

teaching learning strategies is to help students to consciously
control how they learn so that they can be efficient, motivated,
and independent language learners (Chamot, Bernhardt, El-
Dinary, & Robbinson, R.J. 1999; Mohammed Amin Embi 2000).
Another version states ‗Learning strategies‘ are ―behaviors
or thoughts that a learner engages in during learning that are
intended to influence the learner‘s encoding process‖ (Weinstein
& Mayer 1986:.315). More specifically, learning strategies are
―operations employed by the learner to aid the acquisition,
storage, retrieval, and use of information; specific actions taken
by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable,
more self directed, more effective, and more transferable to new
situations‖ (Oxford 1990: 8). Learning strategies for L2s are
―specific actions, behaviors, steps, or techniques-such as seeking
out conversation partners, or giving oneself encouragement to
tackle a difficult language task-used by students to enhance their
own learning‖ (Scarcella & Oxford 1992.)
Learning strategies can be taught to L2 learners (Chamot et.
al. 1999; Cohen 1998; Feyten, Flaitz, & LaRocca 1999; Oxford
1990, 1996; Wenden 1987; Mohammed Amin Embi 1997). Such
instruction has proved to be most successful when it is tied to
the language tasks that students are normally expected to
accomplish and when strategies are explicitly taught. Strategy
instruction can be woven into regular L2 instruction in an
integrated, smooth, as needed way (Chamot Et. al. 1999; Oxford
& Leaver 1996).
Furthermore, the intent of learning strategies instruction is
to help all students become better language learners. When the
students begin to understand their own learning processes and
can exert some control over these processes, they tend to take
more responsibility for their own learning. This self knowledge
and skill in regulating one‘s own learning is a characteristic of

successful learners, including successful language learners.
Research with both first and second language learners is
revealing some of the ways of thinking that guide and assist an
individual‘s attempts to learn more effectively (Paris &
Winograd 1990).
The students who think and work strategically are more
motivated to learn and to have a higher sense of self-efficacy or
confidence in their own learning ability. That is, strategic
students perceive themselves as more able to succeed
academically than the students who do not know how to use
strategies effectively.The students who expect to be successful at
a learning task are generally successful, and each successful
learning experience increases motivation.
Since the 1970s, considerable research attention in second
or foreign language learning has been devoted to studying
individual differences in language learners. One individual
difference variable, L2 learning strategies, has gained increasing
popularity among researchers and teachers interested in
understanding how languages are learned (Chamot, Barnhard,
El-Dinary, & Robbins 1996; Cohen 1998; Hsiao 2001; MacIntyre &
Noels 1996; Oxford & Cohen 1992; Hsio & Oxford 2002; Griffith
Maleki & Zangani 2007; Manfred 2007; Yang 2007; Lee & Oxford
2008); Although important advances have been made in L2
learners‘ strategy use, significant questions concerning how to
enumerate and categorize these strategies remain.
Exactly how many strategies are available to learners to
assist them in L2 learning and how these strategies should be
classified are open to debate. Different classification systems
based on contrasting criteria (see Oxford & Cohen 1992) have
been proposed. Each existing classification system in and of itself
involves an implicit theory about the nature of L2 learning
strategies and even, to some degree, about L2 learning in

general. For example, if a system contains separate, substantial
categories for affective (emotion and motivation management)
strategies and social learning strategies, the implicit theory
suggests that these types of strategies are important and that
student affect and social interaction play key roles in L2 learning.
Mohamed Amin Embi (2000: 11) states that ‗Language
learning strategies can be defined as the plans and/or actions
that learners take to enhance their process of language learning.
Although learning strategies are deliberate actions, some of them
can be automatic. In the literature, a distinction is often made
between three types of strategies; a) learning strategy; b)
communication strategy, and c) production strategy. Tarone
(1980) regards the last two as strategies for language use.
Wenden and Rubin (1987:19) define learning strategies as ‗what
learners do to learn and do to regulate their learning.
Furthermore, Oxford (1990:8) defines that language learning
strategies are ‗specific actions taken by the learners to make
learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more
efficient and more transferable to new situation‘
An area of basic research in second language acquisition is
the identification and description of learning strategies used by
language learners and the correlation of these strategies with
other learner variables such as proficiency level, age, gender,
motivation, and the like (Oxford & Burry-Stock 1995; Green &
Oxford 1995; Chamot & Eldinary 1999; Mohamed Amin et.al
2001; El-Dib 2004; Maleki & Zangani 2007; Lee & Oxford 2008).
Current research is also investigating the effect of the task itself
on the selection and use of learning strategies, including the
influence of the target language (Chamot & Keatley 2004;
Oxford, Cho, Leung & Kim 2004; Manfred 2007; Yang 2007).

DIRECT AND INDIRECT STRATEGIES
Oxford (1990) divides strategies into two major classes:

direct and indirect strategies. These two classes are subdivided
into a total of six groups. The direct strategies consist of memory
strategies, cognitive strategies, and compensation strategies. The
indirect strategies are composed of meta-cognitive strategies,
affective strategies, and social strategies. The following figure is
the overview diagram of the strategy system:
I. Memory Strategies
Direct Strategies II.Cognitive
Strategies
III.Compensation
Strategies
Learning Strategies.
I.Metacognitive
Strategies
Indirect Strategies II. Affective Strategies
III. Social Strategies
FIGURE. 2.1 Diagram of the Strategy System: Overview

(Oxford 1990:16)
‗The direct strategies’ are the language learning strategies

that directly involve the target language and they are composed
of memory strategies for remembering and retrieving new
information, cognitive strategies for understanding and
producing the language, and compensation strategies for using
the language despite knowledge gaps. All direct strategies

require mental processing of the language, but the three groups
of direct strategies do this differently and for different purposes.
A. Creating mental linkages

B. Applying images and
sounds.
I. Memory Strategies
C. Reviewing well
D. Employing action
A. Practicing
B. Receiving and sending
messages
II. Cognitive Strategies
C. Analyzing and reasoning
D. Creating structure for input
and output
A. Guessing intelligently
Compensation Strategies
B. Overcoming limitations in
speaking and writing
FIGURE 2.2 Diagram of the strategy system showing the direct
strategies (Oxford 1990:17).
Indirect strategies refer to language learning strategies

that support and manage language learning without directly
involving the target language. They consist of meta-cognitive
strategies which allow learners to control their own cognition,
that is, to coordinate the learning process by using functions

such as centering, arranging, planning, and evaluating. Affective
strategies help to regulate emotions, motivations, and attitudes.
Social strategies help students learn through interaction with
others.
The following figure shows the diagram of the strategy system
showing the indirect strategies:
A. Centering your
learning.
I. Meta-cognitive Strategies B. Arranging and
planning your learning
C. Evaluating your
learning
A. Lowering your
anxiety
II. Affective Strategies B. Encouraging yourself
C. Taking your
emotional
temperature
A. Asking questions
III. Social Strategies B. Cooperating with
others
C.Empathizing with
others
FIGURE 2.3. Diagram of Indirect Strategies (Oxford 1990:18)
Oxford (1990) classifies language learning strategies into

two major strategy classes; direct and indirect language
strategies; however, both two classes of strategies act

cooperatively and are equally necessary in the language learning
process. Direct strategies are those behaviors which require a
straightforward involvement with the target language, but each
category of direct strategies does this processing differently and
for different purposes. Indirect strategies are those behaviors
which indirectly involve the target language in learning
processes, but which are nevertheless essential for effective
language learning strategies into direct and indirect strategies.
They divided language learning strategies into three main
categories; meta-cognitive, cognitive and socio-affective
strategies, almost similar to the second level of Oxford‘s
classification.
Memory Strategies
Memory strategies are techniques that facilitate learners‘

recall of new input (Oxford 1990). These strategies help learners
to store new information and skills in memory and retrieve them
later when ever they are needed. These strategies are very
important since the brain, more specifically the left hemisphere,
functions for the storage of speech and language, and it can store
100 trillion bits of information. Language learners will not be
able to functionalize the capability of the brain optimally in the
process of learning a second or foreign language unless they use
memory strategies.
Memory strategies comprise four sets of learning strategies;
creating mental linkages, applying images and sounds,
reviewing well, and employing actions, and each set further
encompasses some subsets of more practical learning strategies.
Creating mental linkage strategies cover three subsets of
strategies, applying image and sound strategies consist of four
subsets of strategies, reviewing well strategies have one subset of
strategies. Of all language learning strategies that they have

identified, O‘Malley and Chamot (1985) do not classify any
language learning strategies into memory strategies. Three
groups of strategies that they have identified (grouping,
elaboration and imaginary) fall under Oxford‘s memory
strategies (creating mental linkage strategies). O‘Malley and
Chamot classify them into cognitive strategies.
Creating mental linkage strategies, which cover O‘Malley
and Chamot grouping and elaboration strategies, are strategies;
1) to put words or phrases into meaningful contexts, 2) to make
relationship between new language information and the ones
that already exist in memory or between two pieces of
information, and 3) to make the new input easier to remember
classifying them into meaningful units. Applying image and
sound strategies help to relate new language knowledge to
previously acquired knowledge in memory by means of
meaningful visual imaginary, to learn words through semantic
mapping, to use key words to remember new words, and to
create a meaningful, sound-based association. Reviewing
strategies are used to review or re-study the language materials
periodically for the purpose of making them become natural and
automatic. Employing action strategies use physical responses
and mechanical techniques in order to remember new target
language information.
Cognitive Strategies
Cognitive strategies are strategies that involve

manipulation and transformation of the language in some direct
ways for processing language input and preparing for language
output (Oxford 1990). O‘Malley and Chamot (1985) describe that
cognitive strategies involve interacting with the materials to be
learned, manipulating the materials mentally or physically, or
applying a specific technique to a learning task. Therefore,

cognitive strategies are very essential because they deal with the
actual processes involved in manipulating the language for
reception and production of meanings. Since cognitive strategies
allow the learners to better comprehend and produce language
in different manners, they are regarded as the most popular
strategies by high school ESL learners and university foreign
language students (O‘Malley et. al 1985).
According to Oxford (1990), cognitive strategies are built
up of four sets of learning strategies; practicing, receiving and
sending messages, analyzing and reasoning, and creating
structure for input and output and each set covers two or more
subsets of strategies. Practicing strategies consist of five subsets
of strategies, analyzing and reasoning strategies comprise five
subsets of strategies and creating structure strategies consist of
three subsets of strategies.
O‘Malley and Chamot (1985) include eleven sets of
strategies into cognitive strategies; repetition, resourcing,
grouping, note taking, deduction, substitution, elaboration,
summarization, translation, transfer, and inferencing. They did
not provide further classified by O‘Malley and Chamot fall
under the forth-level subsets of strategies in Oxford‘s
classification. For example,―translation strategies,‖ ―induction
strategies,‖ and ―transferring strategies‖ in O‘Malley and
Chamot‘s classification. However, O‘Malley and Chamot
proposed more specifications for ―elaboration strategies‖ in
comparison to what Oxford did for the same strategies. They
divide elaboration strategies into personal, world, academic,
between parts, questioning, self-evaluative, and creative
elaboration.
Practicing strategies, which cover O‘Malley and Chamot‘s
repetition strategies, are the most important one in cognitive
strategies because they deal with the exposure to the target

language, and such exposure is hypothesized as enabling to
increase language and communicative competence. Receiving
and sending message strategies, which cover O‘Malley and
Chamot‘s resourcing strategies, concerns with strategies to get
the ideas and to use available reference sources of information
about the target language such as dictionaries and textbooks for
understanding and producing meanings. Analyzing and
reasoning strategies, facilitate the learners to understand the
meaning of new expressions in the target language by drawing
deductive or inductive conclusion, by contrasting with their first
language, by translating into their native language, or by using
knowledge in their mother tongue. Creating structure strategies,
which cover O‘Malley and Chamot‘s note-taking and
summarization strategies, facilitate the learners to highlight, to
write down key words, and make mental or written summary of
language and information presented in the tasks. These activities
enable the learners to structure all language input into
manageable chunks.
Compensation Strategies
Compensation strategies are behaviors that help the

learners to overcome any gaps in knowledge of the target
language (Oxford 1990). Implementing these strategies allow the
learners to use certain skills to compensate their lack of other
skills for the purpose of being able to comprehend the input or
to express ideas (Rumelart 1977). The language learners may use
their syntactical knowledge, for example, to compensate their
limited phonological knowledge. Similar to memory strategies,
O‘Malley and Chamot (1985) do not classify any of all language
learning strategies that they have identified into compensation
strategies. However, the inferencing strategies‖ that they classify
into cognitive strategies fall under compensation strategies.

Compensation strategies are classified into guessing
intelligently and overcoming limitations in speaking and
writing. Guessing strategies, for which O‘Malley and Chamot
use the term ―inferencing strategies‖, are strategies that use
available information to guess the meanings or usage of
unfamiliar language items associated with language tasks and to
predict outcome.
Meta-cognitive Strategies
Meta-cognitive strategies are those behaviors that involve

thinking about learning process such as centering the learning,
arranging and planning the learning, monitoring the learning
tasks and evaluating how well one has learned (O‘Malley and
Chamot 1985; Oxford 1990; Wenden 1999). These strategies are
the executive ones that the learners employ to plan, monitor,
hypothesize about, and evaluate the performance of learning
tasks. Therefore, by possessing these strategies, the learners
would be able to determine what their learning objectives, to
monitor their understanding about materials being learned and
to evaluate what they have learned and how well they have
done it (Wenden 1987b).
The kinds of language learning strategies which Oxford
classifies into meta-cognitive strategies are almost the same as
O‘Malley and Chamot do. The difference only deals with their
distribution. Oxford classifies this category of strategies into
three sets of strategies; centering the learning, arranging and
planning the learning, and evaluating, and each set has two or
more subsets of strategies, while O‘Malley and Chamot classify
it into several sets of strategies; planning, directed attention,
selective attention, self monitoring, problem identification, and
self-evaluation, and they do not classify each of these sets of
strategies into certain subsets of strategies. Some sets of

strategies that O‘Malley and Chamot proposed are equal to
Oxford‘s subsets of strategies. In addition, O‘Malley and Chamot
provide several specifications for ―self-monitoring strategies‖;
comprehension, production, audiotory, visual, and plan and
double check monitoring, and on self-evaluation; production,
performance, ability, strategy and language repertoire
evaluation.
As discussed, Oxford (1990) classifies meta-cognitive
strategies into centering the learning, arranging and planning the
learning, and evaluation the learning. Centering strategies
comprising three subsets of strategies deal with behaviors which
focus the learners‘ attention on the material that they are going
to learn and that they have learned. These strategies are more or
less equal to strategies that O‘Malley and Chamot classify as
directed attention strategies. Arranging and planning strategies
guide the learners to sets their learning goal, organize and plan
their learning activities in efficient and effective ways, and seek
the opportunities for practice the target language especially in
naturalistic situations. These strategies are almost the same as
strategies that O‘Malley and Chamot classify as planning and
selective attention strategies. Evaluating strategies facilitate
progress of learning the target language. Oxford‘s evaluation
learning strategies cover the meaning classified by O‘Malley and
Chamot.
Affective Strategies
Affective strategies are those used for controlling emotions,

attitudes, and motivation that influence the success or failure of
language learning (Oxford 1990). O‘Malley and Chamot (1985)
classify several language learning strategies. They have
identified into social-affective strategies. They do not develop
social and affective strategies separately.

Affective strategies are very important in language learning
because they may help the learners to control their emotions, to
possess positive attitudes toward the target language and to
generate strong motivation (Wenden 1987b). Some researchers
found that many second or foreign language learners failed to
master the target language because they did not know how to
control their emotions and how to build up positive attitudes
towards learning and how to generate and increase their
motivation to learn a second or foreign language (Bialystok 1981;
Gardner 1985).
Three groups of learning strategies included in the affective
strategies are lowering anxiety, encouraging and taking
emotional temperature (Oxford 1990). Two of four sets of
strategies that O‘Malley and Chamot (1985) classify as social-
affective strategies fall under affective strategies. Lowering
anxiety strategies, for which O‘Malley and Chamot used the
term ‖self-talk‖, are ways for making the learning process to be
in relaxed situation and condition. Encouraging strategies,
which O‘Malley and Chamot classify as self-reinforcement
strategies, lead learners to be more confident and take risks in
the language learning processes so that they will not be afraid of
making mistakes. Lastly, taking emotional temperature
strategies help learners to discern negative attitudes and
emotion. None of the language learning strategies according
O‘Malley and Chamot‘s classification, fit with taking emotional
temperature strategies.
Social Strategies
Social strategies are the strategies that involve other people

in the language learning process.(Oxford 1990). As discussed,
O‘Malley and Chamot incorporated this category of strategies
into social-affective. Social strategies enable to create a better

interaction among learners, between learners and teachers or
between learners or other users of the target language. These
strategies are needed in the process of learning a language
because they involve other people. In a nutshell, learning is not
only a pedagogic event, but a social event as well ( Allwright
1989).
Social strategies cover three sets of learning strategies::
asking questions, cooperating with others and empathizing with
others.(Oxford, 1990). Similar to the discussion of affective
strategies, two of four sets of strategies that O‘Malley and
Chamot (1985) classify as social-affective strategies are exactly
the same as the first two sets of social strategies developed by
Oxford. The intended strategies are asking questions and
cooperating with others. Asking question strategies are very
beneficial for learners to clarify materials that they do not
understand or to verify the materials to check their correctness.
Cooperative strategies facilitate learners to learn the target
language in peers or groups cooperatively, after which each
learner is held accountable for his/her own learning and is
motivated to increase the learning of oth
Olsen and Kagan (1992) stated that empathizing strategies
help learners to increase their ability to empathize by developing
cultural understanding and becoming aware of other thoughts
and feelings. None of the language learning strategies classified
by O‘Malley and Chamot are empathizing strategies. To
summarize, the similarities as well as dissimilarities between
Oxford‘s classification and O‘Malley and Chamot‘s classification
on language learning strategies are shown in table below.

TABLE 2.1 Comparison between Oxford’s and O’Malley-
Chamot’s Classification on language learning strategies
Oxford’s Classification (1990) O’Malley-Chamot

Categories Sets Classification (1985)
Creating mental linkages Grouping/Elaboration
Memory Applying images and *)
sounds Imaginary *)
Reviewing well
Employing action
Practicing Repetition
Receiving and Sending Resourcing
Cognitive Message Deduction/Induction
Translation
Analyzing/Reasoning Transferring
Note taking
Creating structure for Summarization
input and output
Compensation Guessing intelligently Inferencing *)
Overcoming limitations -
Centering learning Directed attention
Planning and selective
Metacognitive Arranging and Planing attention
Self-management
Evaluating Seld-monitoring and
Self-evaluation
Note: *) = these are classified by O‘Malley and Chamot into of

cognitive strategies.
**)= these are classified by O‘Malley and Chamot into of
social-affective strategies.
The following table is of three models for language learning

strategy instruction presented 1) Styles and Strategies- Based
Instruction (SSBI) model by Cohen (1998). 2) Cognitive
Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) model

(Chamot 2005; Chamot et.al 1999). 3) Model of language
learning strategies (Grenfell & Harris 1999).
TABLE 2.2 Models for language learning strategy instruction
SSBI*Model CALLA** Model Grenfell & Harris

(Cohen,1998) (Chamot,2005; Chamot (1999)
et.al., 1999)
Teacher as Preparation: Teacher Awereness raising:
diagnostician: identifies students‘ current Students complete a
Helps students learning strategies for task, and then identify
identifycurrent familiar tasks. the strategies they used.
strategies and
learning styles
Teacher as language Presentation: Teacher Modeling: Teacher
learner: Shares own models, names, explains models, discusses value
learning expereices new strategy; asks students of new strategy, makes
and thinking if and how they have used checklist of strategies for
processes. it. later use.
Teacher as learner Practice: Students practice General practice:
trainer: Trains new strategy; in subsequent Students practice new
students how to use stategy practice, teacher startegies with different
learning strategies. fades reminders to tasks.
encourage independent
strategy use.
Teacher as Self-evaluation: Students Action planning:
coordinator: evaluate their own strategy Students set goals and
Supervises students‘ use immediately after choose strategies to
study plans and practice. attain those goals.
monitors difficulties.
Teacher as coach: Expansion: Students Focused practice:
Provides ongoing transfer strategies to new Students carry out
guidance on tasks, combine strategies action plan using
students‘ progress. into clusters, develop selected strategies;
repetoire of preferred teacher fades prompts
strategies. so that students use
strategies autmatically.

Assessment: Teacher Evaluation: Teacher and
assesse students‘ use of students evaluate
strategies and impact on success of action plan;
performance. set new goals; cycle
begins again.
* Styles and Strategies-Based Instruction

** Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach

CHAPTER III
ACTIVE, CREATIVE , EFFECTIVE AND
JOYFUL LEARNING
ACTIVE LEARNING.
In Indonesian basic education, PAKEM is the term usually
applied to active learning in elementary schools. In junior
secondary schools, the term CTL (Contextual Teaching and
Learning) is commonly applied. PAKEM is the acronym for
Pembelajaran Aktif, Kreatif, Efektif dan Menyenangkan –
learning that is Active, Creative, Effective and Joyful. USAID
Managing Basic Education project (MBE) that operated in East
and Central Java from 2003 – 2007) presented some distinctions
between student-centered learning and conventional teaching
(Cannon & Arlianti, 2008) as follows:
TABLE 3.1 Distinctions between student-centered learning
and conventional teaching
Conventional didactic or
Student-centered active learning
teacher-centered learning
Students have responsible role Students are usually passive -
for interacting with teachers and they have very limited role in
other students, for finding planning learning or working
information, for assessing their with other students. They usually
own work and for participating sit in classes, ‗pay attention‘ and
in planning their learning respond to teacher direction
Emphasis on activity (problem Emphasis on recording or
solving, discussion, enquiry-type copying information and on
activities) and on higher-order lower-order intellectual activities
thinking such as analysis, such as recall
evaluation, application)
Intrinsic motivation to learn Extrinsic motivation to learn
(from the learning activities) (from grades, teacher praise and

through interest, curiosity, and threats or punishment)
responsibility
Recognize the importance of Generally ignores the positive
emotion in learning (the affective impact of the affective domain
domain) – therefore teachers and can rely on threats and fear
actively promote joy and to motivate learning
pleasure in learning
Focus on learning cooperatively Individual learning and
with other students competition between students
Attitude that learning can Attitude that learning only occurs
occur anywhere is encouraged; in school is developed; textbook
learning inside and outside learning is stressed
school is stressed
Greater flexibility in Relatively inflexible
arranging learning and teaching arrangements (fixed and formal
facilities (rooms, desks, locations) seating in rows in classrooms)
Greater emphasis on a long- Short-term perspective:
term perspective: emphasis on emphasis on completing set work
lifelong learning and learning and passing tests
how to learn to face future
challenges and changes
Assessment of learning (tests Little use of the results of the
and examinations) used to assessment of learning (tests and
provide students with feedback examinations) is made to support
to help them learn learning
Active learning is a term that refers to several models of

instruction that focus the responsibility of learning on learners.
Bonwell and Eison (1991) popularized this approach to
instruction. However according to Mayer (2004), strategies like
―active learning‖ developed out of the work of an earlier group
of theorists who promoted discovery learning. Practice after
initial learning, is of vital importance in one‘s education/career,

and it is important for cognitive development, but practice is
required learning.
Bonwell and Eison (1991) suggested learners work in pairs,
discuss materials while role-playing, debate, engage in case
study, take part in cooperative learning, or produce short written
exercises, etc. The argument is when active learning exercises
should be used during instruction. While it makes some sense to
use these techniques as a ―follow up‖ exercise or as application
of known principles, it may not make sense to use them to
introduce material. Proponents argue that these exercises may be
used to create a context for the material, but this context may be
confusing to those with no prior knowledge. The degree of
instructor guidance students need while being active may vary
according to the task and its place in a teaching unit.
Bell, D & Kahrhoof, J.(2006) state that active learning is a
process wherein students are actively engaged in building
understanding of facts, ideas, and skills through the completion
of instructor directed tasks and activities. It is any type of
activity that gets students involved in the learning process.
One of the most common methods for creating courses
and learning exercises is content driven development. A
frequent problem with content centered creation is that it does
not take into consideration situational factors (what and how
students learn), and the multiple learning styles of students. A
second approach is a ―Systematic Learning–Centered Design‖
model. According to Fink (2003), this model is based on the
concept that what and how students should learn is at the heart
of creating significant learning, and that through the utilization
of systematic tools to develop solutions to these questions, one
can implement a pedagogically sound method of creating
learning activities.

In active learning, essentially, all of these activities are
student centered learning and require the learner to be actively
involved in the construction of knowledge or the building of
understanding. Adams & Burns (1999) claim that students are
actively engaged in the creation of knowledge which focuses on
things that are important to the learners. Individuals work
together to solve a mutual problem. Each student must actively
contribute to the group. Carey & Bowen (2000) state that in
engaged learning the students actively involve in their own
learning and establish a connection between a learner and the
learning object.
It is important to understand the theoretical framework
that active learning techniques are built upon. The two primary
theories that have been commonly used to describe teaching and
learning processes during the last half century are ―Information
Processing‖ or ―Objectivism,‖ which is often referred to as
―traditional teacher-centered instruction,‖ and ―Constructivism,‖
which is often referred to as ―student-centered instruction.‖
Objectivists define learning as a change in the learner‘s
behavior or in the learner's cognitive structure. Objectivists hold
that there is one true reality and knowledge is the learner's exact
reflection of that reality (Vrasidas, 2000). The belief is that
effective instruction occurs when the teacher transfers objective
knowledge to the learner. For example, a classroom lecture can
be an effective teaching method when the instructor accurately
feeds the information to the students. While these kinds of
traditional forms of teaching are sometimes effective, research
has shown undoubtedly that when students are actively
involved rather that passively listening they learn more
effectively.
Constructivism was founded on cognitive psychology,
social psychology, extensive research in education, and

neurological science. The biggest impact that Constructivism has
had on education is that it moved the focus of learning from the
teacher to the student (Adams & Burns, 1999). In the
Constructivist theory, learning occurs when students become
engaged in an activity that utilizes the content and skill they are
learning. Any new information introduced during the activity
that is consistent with current knowledge and understanding is
assimilated easily. Any new information that is not consistent
with past experiences and understanding is either rejected as
being wrong or is built into new knowledge. New knowledge is
constructed when students combine new information with
existing knowledge through the process of reflection (Adams &
Burns, 1999).
Here are examples of active learning activities that involve
various learning strategies:
a. A class discussion may be held in unison, in person or in an

online environment. This environment allows for instructor
or teacher guidance. Firstly, both teacher and learners sing
an English song which is related to the topic being taught.
Secondly, the teacher gives a model of a task as an initial
instruction on how and what activities should be done by
the learners. Secondly, they try to follow the instruction and
practice among them. Lastly, the teacher asks them to do in a
pair work and a group work activity.
b. A pair work activity is when learners take a minute to
ponder the previous lesson, later to discuss or practice it
with one or more of their peers and finally share it with the
class as part of a formal discussion. During this pair work
activity the teacher or instructor should observe and clarify
misconception or wrong practice. However learners need a
background in the subject matter to converse in a

meaningful way of activity. Therefore a pair work activity is
useful when learners can identify and relate the activity to
real situations and condition what they know to others.
c. A group work activity occurs after a pair work activity
when the learners want to practice or share with more
friends. Each group consists of four or five persons and led
by a chairperson. At the end of a group work activity, a
member of the group reports or presents the task to the
whole class.
While practice is useful to reinforce learning, problem

solving is not usually suggested. Sweller (1988) suggests solving
problems can even have negative influence on learning, instead
he suggests that learners should study worked examples,
because this is more efficient method of schema acquisition. So,
teachers are cautioned to give learners some basic or initial
instruction first, perhaps to be followed up with a meaningful
activity.
The typical method for selecting an appropriate strategy
has been through the use of common sense based on teaching
experience or by adapting what has worked for others. A
common method of designing instruction today is built using
―Blooms Taxonomy,‖ which focuses on the creation of learning
objectives and then designing instruction based on meeting these
objectives. Although Bloom‘s group in fact generated three
taxonomies (cognitive, affective, and psychomotor), Instructional
Designers have most frequently referred to the one in the
cognitive domain. The cognitive taxonomy consists of six kinds
of learning that are arranged in a hierarchical sequence. These
are, from the highest to the lowest (Bloom, 1956):
1. Evaluation

2. Synthesis
3. Analysis
4. Application
5. Comprehension
6. Knowledge (meaning ―recall‖ knowledge)
This taxonomy has been used both as a framework for

formulating course objectives and as a basis for evaluating
student learning. While this method has become what effective,
individuals and organizations involved in higher education have
expressed a need for different types of learning that are not
represented in Bloom taxonomy. For example, learning how to
learn, adapting to change, leadership, interpersonal skills,
communication skills, character, tolerance, and others. These
types of learning go beyond the cognitive domain of Bloom‘s
taxonomy and suggest the need for broader taxonomy of
significant learning (Fink, 2003). Significant Learning Taxonomy
The Taxonomy of Significant Learning, developed by L.D.
Fink, is based on the idea that all forms of learning require that
the learner experience some kind of change. Fink states that
without change there is no learning. For lasting change to occur
there needs to be a significant connection or high level of
importance to the learner‘s life. The more significant an activity
is to the learner, the greater the change, the greater the amount
of learning that occurs. Based of this perspective, Fink created a
taxonomy of learning that contains 6 categories of significant
learning values or goals. Each of these categories contains more
specific learning values that are all important to the learner
(Fink, 2003).

FIGURE 2,4 The Taxonomy of Significant Learning
Significant Learning Value Categories

1. Foundational Knowledge: The basics, what students bring to
the table.
2. Application: Doing, can be playing the piano, managing a
complex task
3. Integration: When students are able to see and understand
the connections between different things, an important kind
of learning has occurred
4. Human Dimension: Relates the learning to the learner. This
kind of learning informs students about the human
significance of what they are learning
5. Caring: When students care about something, they then have
the energy they need for learning more about it and making
it a part of their lives. Without the energy for learning,
nothing significant happens.
6. Learning How to Learn: This kind of learning enables
students to continue learning in the future and to do so with
greater effectiveness.

Individual learning styles are important in Fink's
taxonomy. Each learning value can address multiple learning
styles. Fink stresses that these learning values do not exist alone
and that they are typically synergetic with each other. When
faculty creates activities that incorporate multiple learning
values they in turn are influencing multiple learning styles. This
becomes important when it is realized that classes are made up
of learners with different learning styles. While it would be
difficult to develop exercises after inventorying the variety of
learning styles that a particular class processes it is important to
try and address as many different learning styles as possible.
This is accomplished by creating learning activities that
incorporate different values - which in turn will impact multiple
learning styles. The more types of learning the teacher can
promote the greater the potential is for creating a deeper change
in the learner.
CREATIVE LEARNING.
In education, the term creativity is often used but seldom

defined. Baghetto (2005) points out, teachers might ask students
to use their creativity in the design of a project, or might refer to
a student‘s response as creative, without explaining what they
mean. A lack of definition of this concept might result in
erroneous assumptions (Baghetto, 2005), leading educational
actors (including teachers, students, parents, and policy makers)
to identify creativity only with talent, the arts and personal
characteristics. Creativity is often seen as a talent, or as a
characteristic of eminent people. Distinctive personality traits
have been identified to exemplify a creative mind. A number of
studies recognize that creativity can be enhanced and cultivated.
What is then creativity for education? And what is creative
learning? Creativity is currently defined as a combination of

‗newness and value which have to coexist in a creative
outcome.(Sternbeg & Lubart, 1999). The balance between the two
concepts is important; something original which has no value
could also have negative characteristics (Beghetto, 2005). The
application of this definition to education – and to young people
in particular – raises a series of questions about the suitability of
‗newness and value‘ to learners‘ development and achievement.
It might be questionable to assume that young children and
teenagers could have revolutionary breakthrough ideas that are
both original and valuable for society. Originality and value
have therefore to be understood in their everyday and mundane
meaning (Runco, 2003). Focusing on the potential of all
individuals to be or to become creative (Esquivel, 1995). It is
important therefore to consider each child at their stage of
development (Sharp, 2004) and to allow for a wide spectrum of
creative outputs. For instance, we would expect a greater depth
of ability and knowledge in a 16-year old drawing than in that of
a five-year old (Craft,2005). There is a shared agreement on
youth‘s and children‘s creative potential (Robinson, 2006; Runco,
2003).
The creative outputs of children are often original and
valuable (hence creative) for the children themselves, but not in
comparison with larger norms (Runco, 2007). At the same time,
children‘s and youth‘s new ideas and ability to see things in a
new perspective cannot be dismissed as ‗non-creative‘. It is thus
necessary to rethink the concept of value. It has been recognized
that the value of a creative expression should be judged by the
learners themselves (Craft, 2005; Runco, 2003)
Another aspect of the emphasis is on the process instead of
the product (Sharp, 2004). If we look at products and
achievements, children will seldom have an opportunity to be
judged or to judge themselves creative when compared to adults

(Runco, 2003). A similar point can be found in Malaguzzi (1993),
who maintains that creativity is more visible when adults pay
attention to the process and not to the product. Michalco, (2008)
considers that the secret of creativity is collaboration, insisting
on the fact that creavity depends on the way in which the
participants combine their talent and effort, keeping their
personal note at the same time. Simplicio (2000) sees creativity
as a method and an approach to thinking and living. The focus
on the development of thinking skills can be understood as a
priority of the process over the product.
While it has been proven that intelligence is not a necessary
prerequisite for creativity (Sternbeg, 1999), knowledge seems to
be a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for creativity (Boden,
2001). It is nevertheless, still unclear how knowledge proficiency
shapes creative outputs, as research findings seem to be
contradictory, stating on the one hand that extreme expertise
will hinder creative outcomes (Simonton, 1990) and on the other
that there is no limit to the amount of knowledge needed to be
creative (Weisberg, 1999). Knowledge and expertise are
unquestionable attributes of the creative eminent mind,
regardless of the debate about the amount and the kind of
knowledge needed (Scott, 1999).
Knowledge is of substantial importance to trigger a creative
outcome; but the reverse is also true. Creativity allows for the
making of connections across different areas of knowledge
(Burke, 2007). This is an important point, as research shows that
students, and especially young children, find it very difficult to
transfer learning from one area to another, or to apply former
knowledge to new topic (Sharp, 2004). They need to be trained
and taught how to make connections and to build on previous
understanding. In turn, this scaffolding allows an expansion of
knowledge. The relationship between creativity and knowledge

could therefore be seen as a virtuous circle, where creativity
stimulates knowledge acquisition and new knowledge permits
new and creative thinking paths. In addition, building a creative
bridge between different domains provide results in holistic
approach to knowledge. Taking the individual as the reference
for the originality and value of outcome leads to an assumption
of creativity as a model of understanding and of knowledge
creation. Craft (2005) and Runco (2003) certainly support this
view. Runco (2003) sees creativity as the construction of personal
meaning and Craft (2005) views creativity as a form of
knowledge creation.
Learning in a creative way is certainly a form of meaning
making. Constructivist approaches to learning involve
understanding and making new and valuable connections
between old and new knowledge. As Piaget (1973) had claimed,
‘to understand is to invent‘. Understanding is a form of meaning
creation- just as creativity is. Therefore, creativity is an aspect of
learning (Craft, 2005). Creative learning is hence any learning
which requires understanding, invention, making new
connections, seeing things in a different perspective. Non-
creative learning, on the contrary, comprises all learning
privileging memorization over understanding; rote learning and
learning of facts.
The notion of innovative teaching stems for the creative
learning. Innovation is the implementation‘ (OECD, 2005) or the
‗intentional introduction and application‘ (West & Richards,
1999) of a novelty which aims to ameliorate a particular
situation. Teaching can be seen as the implementation of
methods and pedagogies, of curricula and contents. Any kind of
teaching which addresses creativity and applies it to methods
and contents can be seen as innovative teaching. The first term
refers to the possibility for learners to develop their creative

skills and to learn in a new creative way. The second term
includes both the process of teaching for creativity and the
application of innovation to teaching practices. Creativity is not
only desirable but also necessary because it involves co-
construction of meaning and promotes an active role of the
learners. At the same time, it requires new methods, formats and
approaches, thus asking for an innovative role of the teacher.
EFFECTIVE LEARNING
Effective learning is the ability to accomplish a purpose of

learning; functioning effectively. People who will do nothing
unless they get something out of it for themselves are often
highly effective persons. The other definition is ‗Producing or
capable of producing an intended result or having a striking
effect. Futhermore, Hewitt (2008) states that Effective Learning is
an understanding and conscious reflection on learning strategies
which are insufficient for effective learning: the learner must
know which strategy is right, how to use it and when to use it
most appropriately.
Research has identified numerous broad-based principles
that characterize current knowledge about effective teaching. We
encourage readers not to interpret these principles as ‗dictums‘
for educators to follow, but to use them as guides to either
confirm or disconfirm personal beliefs about teaching.
Brown (2001) adapted from Brophy stated effective praise
for creating a classroom climate that is positive, stimulating, and
energizing as the followings; a teacher :
- shows genuine pleasure and concern,
- shows verbal and nonverbal variety,
- specifies the particular of an accomplishment, so students
know exactly what was performed well,
- is offered in recognition of noteworthy effort on difficult

task,
- attributes success to effort, implying that similar success can
be expected in the future,
- fosters intrinsic motivation to continue to pursue goals,
- is delivered without distrupting the communicative flow of
ongoing interaction.
Cooper, P and Donald Mclntyr (1998) have stated that the

dominant model of the 1970s for research into teaching
effectiveness was the process-product model, at the heart of which
was the examination of correlations between product measures
of, for example, desired pupil attainments and selected process
measures of classroom activities hypothesized to be conducive to
these desired outcomes. These concern with what teachers and
pupils try to achieve in their classroom work, and with how they
try to achieve these things, offer an important perspective on the
work of schools.
Most obviously, any serious attempts to improve the
quality and effectiveness of teaching and learning in schools
must start from an understanding of what people in classrooms
do at present. More specifically, the initial and continuing
professional education of teachers needs to be informed by
understandings both of how experienced teachers do their work
and of the ways in which pupils set about their classroom
learning. Similarly, the curriculum frameworks within which
teachers are asked to plan and conduct their teaching, and the
assessment and reporting frameworks through which both
teachers and pupils are held accountable for their work, will be
sensible and useful only in so far as they take account of how
teachers and pupils do their work and of why they work as they
do.

Futhermore, Cooper and Donald Mclntyr (1998) claim that
the way forward must be one which recognizes the dangers of
making assumptions about what happens in classrooms or what
effective teaching involves and which takes as its starting point
the attempt to understand what people in classrooms are trying
to do, and how they go about trying to do it effectively. There is
no suggestion here that the people who work in classrooms
already know all about effective teaching and learning, but three
things are suggested.
1. First and most important, the things that teachers and pupils
try to achieve in their classroom teaching and learning, the
ways they try to achieve these things and the problems they
encounter offer very fruitful starting points for generating
hypotheses about effective classroom teaching and learning.
2. Only through knowing about teachers' and pupils' classroom
practices and the thinking that underlies them will it be
possible to theorize incisively about the limitations of current
classroom practice.
3. Only through knowing about teachers' and pupils' classroom
practices and the thinking that underlies them will it be
possible to educate beginning teachers or to plan curricula or
in other ways to plan intelligently for the development of
classroom practice.
The use of the analogy does not imply any further

preconceptions about the knowledge that guides teachers'
classroom practice. Teachers of course do have other kinds of
knowledge, which they use for other purposes, and their craft
knowledge is likely to be more or less integrated with the totality
of their professional knowledge; but it is with their professional
craft knowledge, the knowledge that informs their everyday
classroom teaching, that we are especially concerned.

JOYFUL LEARNING
The goal of joyful learning is to make learners to be joyful

and feel pleasure during the process of teaching and learning so
that they are brave to express their ideas and give response to
someone‘s idea as well as to behave and act out joyfully Then
the ultimate goal of A-C-E-J learning is to make learners active
and creative in a joyful condition and situation to create
harmonious interactions between the teacher and the learners
and among learners themselves within sufficient and limited
time in order to achieve teaching and learning objectives.
Price (2005) has stated a model of joyful learning on a case
study depicts a choral play where all players are members of a
chorus: speaking or singing together as a collective story teller,
while simultaneosly observing the unfolding action of the story.
Individuals take it in turn to step out of the group and become a
character. When they have played their part, they melt back into
the group and once more become storyteller and audience. The
children remain continually engaged in the storytelling while
individuals have scope for playing character parts without being
overstretched. Using this formula, teachers can effectively
introduce singing, movement, dance and recitation, together
with parts for individuals who relish a challenge, provided this
is done in such a way that the children do not get bored or
marginalised. The teacher using the medium of the choral play
can be confident that rehearsals and the performance stay well
disciplined for the children remain absorbed in the story they are
telling. Being both audience and performers keeps everyone
thoroughly engaged.
Hayness (2007) claims that applying joyful learning is by
stimulating and motivating children in the classroom.
Responding to children‘s questions creates situation in which it

is more likely that children will be motivated and able to ask
them in the first place. Then, one of the most important
judgements teachers make on a daily basis is the choice of
resources to use for teaching. The judgement influences the kind
of learning interaction that is likely to take place. Teachers
should avoid those sources that seem to tell them exactly what to
think and to choose starting points that are genuinely thought
provoking. Luckily, there is plenty of this kind of material
around. We might want to begin from a work of art or music, a
photograph, a poem, a cartoon or a real-life event.
Futhermore, Haynes (2007) states that one of the most
accessible places to find material that stimulates deeper
questioning is in high-quality children‘s literature, particularly
picture books. There are practical, educational reasons why
pictures and picture books are so suited to encouraging
questioning and to teaching thinking. Pictorial material offers
easier access to ideas for a greater number of children – ideal for
young readers or children with reading problems. Picture books
can be funny and imaginative, and they are short, entire stories
that can be managed in a single lesson slot. A good selection of
picture books can include a wide variety of aesthetic styles and
cultures, offering children a rich source of ideas. The aesthetic
quality of the book enhances the power with which ideas are
conveyed – the better a book is illustrated, the more thoughts,
feelings and images the reader can work with. The best picture
books can be used with any age group to generate stirring and
memorable conversations.
Classroom interaction such as questioning, reasoning and
dialogue able to apply joyful learning for children in teaching
and learning process. Doddingdon (2001: 273) states that talking
is a fundamental form of expression for each individual located
‗between‘ persons as conversation. It is the basic vehicle for

personal engagement with others and serves to develop thought
and identity. This implies that educational practice in speaking
and listening should support and give opportunity for talk and
opportunity to listen in ways that are authentic rather than
contrived. Each speech event relates to the particularity in which
it is embedded; the objective of classroom talk should enable
speakers to become perceptive listeners, interpreters and
versatile participants rather than to be programmed.
The classroom is a very different kind of learning context
from the worlds that children have experienced before they
come to school. In schools pupils talk far less and much more
rarely initiate the kind of verbal interaction that leads to deep
intellectual quests for understanding. In the classroom teachers
are in charge and most verbal interaction is planned and
initiated by them. Teachers know how important questions are
but, even when they encourage questioning and keep a careful
log of questions asked, they can be disappointed by both the
quantity and quality of pupil questioning and the resulting
interaction. The vast majority of teachers‘ questions, perhaps
necessarily, are ‗closed‘, i.e. they already know the answer and
they are ‗fishing‘ to check whether pupils do as well. While this
kind of questioning is an essential part of the teaching repertoire,
if it happens too frequently or is the only type of teacher–pupil
interaction that takes place, children can quickly learn that there
is usually only one ‗right answer‘ to a question.
As seen from some of the children‘s questions mentioned
already, not all questions have a single answer and vast areas of
human knowledge are much more uncertain and provisional.
When it comes to these deeper questions about the world or how
we live, a distinctive kind of interaction is valuable in helping to
create meaning and in encouraging deeper thinking and
independent reasoning. Fisher (1990) claims that the teachers

need to thoughtfully cultivate the kind of teaching space where
conversation is kept open and where everyone feels confident
and free to explore ideas in progress. This is all very well in
spontaneous interaction between adults and children, but how
can these qualities of learning be nurtured in the more formal
and organised setting of the primary classroom? How can we
generate the kind of activity of minds sometimes referred to as
‗higher order‘ thinking and interaction. Children describe it as
the kind of thinking that makes their minds burst or their brains
hurt.
Brown (2001) states how to create a positive classroom
climate by establishing rapport. Rapport is a somewhat slippery
but important concept in creating positive energy in the
classroom. Rapport is the relationship or connection the teacher
establishes with his/her students a relationship built on trust
and respect that leads to students‘ feeling capable, competent
and creative as well as joyful learning. Here are how a teacher
sets up such a connection by:
- showing interest in each student as a person,
- giving feedback on each person‘s progress,
- openly soliciting students‘ ideas and feelings,
- valuing and respecting what students think and say,
ACHIEVEMENT.
Morgan (1981) states that the word ‗achievement‘ refers to

what someone has done. This word should be distinguished
from ‗ability‘ which refers to something a person can do. In
addition, Morgan gives a definition that ‗achievement‘ is
accomplishment on a test of knowledge or skill, also a personal
motive. In brief, ‗achievement .is the result that is gained by
someone after learning the materials of a subject matter within
certain period of time.

Achievement is closely related to learning because learning
itself is the process, while the achievement is the result. Learning
as a process of getting knowledge and a new skill will be
definitely influenced by learning factors. The mastery of the
knowledge and the new skill will not be successfully achieved if
it is not supported by the learning factors.
According to Best and Kahn (1989), achievement tests
attempt to measure what an individual has learned. They are
particularly helpful in determining individual or group status in
academic learning. Achievement test scores are used in
diagnosing strengths and weaknesses and as a basis for
awarding prizes, scholarships, or degrees. Then, Carter and
Nunan (2001) stated that language achievement is the extent to
which the students have learned the contents or achieved the
objectives of a particular curriculum of a language program.
MOTIVATION
In teaching and learning process of active. Creative,

effective and joyful learning, motivation is the most important
affective factors to be owned by the learners, the higher the
motivation, the better the learning achievement will be.
Definition and two types of motivation are clearified as follows:
Winne (2004) defined that ‗motivation‘ is as cause that
motivated individuals to act in ‗forms of behavior‘. Furthermore,
Harlen and Crick (2003) say that motivation is a multifaceted
concept, deeply related to a number of psychological factors,
personal determination, self-esteem, self efficacy, effort, self
regulation, locus of control and goal orientation. Similarly, the
concept of achievement motivation is not a single concept,
rather, it is a complex thought that involves a number of factors
that motivate students to achieve. Then, Escribe and Huet (2005)
defined achievement motivation as the individuals‘ perception

or purpose towards their achievement, while Carol, Kaplan, and
Michael (2001) described it as ‘the purposes for behavior that are
perceived or pursued in a competence-relevant setting‘.
Achievement motivation includes several areas such as goals
orientation, intrinsic motivation, short and long terms goals‘
However, this study was designed and restricted to goals
orientation namely mastery goal performance goal and
performance-avoidance goal orientations in learning English.
The mastery goal addresses students‘ reasons to engage in
learning English during their teaching and learning process
using deeper cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies to acquire
knowledge. Mastery goal orientation refers to how students
engage in learning for the sake of knowledge. Performance goal
deals with students‘ reasons to engage in learning for the
purpose of grades or competition. Performance-avoidance goal
is related to students‘ low ability perception, and avoidance
behaviors of it refers to students‘ motivation to avoid negative
results and perceived failure as a result of insufficient capacity.
(Elizabeth and Pintrich 2003)
Salwa (1999) provides extensive evidence and documented
findings to conclude that theory of achievement motivation
merges several motivational factors, such extrinsic incentive,
students‘ perception toward learning activities, parents and
home influence, teachers‘ interaction and methods of teaching,
learning environments and peers‘ effects, goals and task value
among others.
Motivation is classified into two main types as follows:
1. Integrative Motivation
A learner is said to be integratively motivated when

he/she wishes to identify with another ethno-linguistic
group (Gardner and Lambert,1959). This concept is further

advocated by Brown (1987: 115) An integrative motive is
employed when learners wish to integrate themselves within
the culture of the second language group, to identify
themselves with and become a part of that society‖
According to Brown (1987) integrative motivation may
indeed be an important requirement for successful language
learning. Many of Lambert‘s studies (1972) and a study by
Spolsky (1969) found that ; integrative motivation generally
accompanied higher scores on proficiency tests in a foreign
language. The conclusion from these studies was that
integrative motivation may indeed be an important
requirement for successful language learning. And some
teachers, generally, have even gone so far as to claim that
Integrative motivation is absolutely essential for successful
second language learning.
In an expansion of integrative motivation, Graham
(1984) claims that integrative motivation is the desire on the
part of a language learner to learn the second language in
order to communicate with, or find out about members of the
second language culture. It does not necessarily imply direct
contact with the second language group..
The most dominant work in SLA studies of motivation
has been done by Gardner and his associates (1991). In his
socio-cultural approach, attitudes play an important role. He
stated that ―motivation to learn a second language is
influenced by group related and context related
integrativeness and attitudes toward the learning situation
respectively‖. A person who has positive attitudes toward
the target culture and people is thus considered well-
motivated.

McDonough. (1986) notes that there are two types of
integrative motivation. The first one is motivation to
―belong‖ to the target group and acquire a psychological
character, or ―assimilative motivation‖. The other is called
―affiliative motivation‖, a general desire for wider social
contact with the language speaker. So we can divide
―integrative motivation‖ types into two, assimilative, which
means to participate in a foreign society and affiliative which
means to be friend with foreign people or to travel and stay
in a foreign country.
2. Instrumental Motivation
In contrast to integrative motivation, Gardner and

associates (1972) described ―instrumental motivation‖ as a
motivation to acquire some advantages by learning a second
language. A learner with instrumental motivation regards
languages as an instrument to get a reward. Though
―instrumental motivation‖ also influences second language
learning to the extent that an instrumental motive is tied to a
specific goal, its influence would tend to be maintained only
until that goal is achieved. Once, any chance for acquiring the
reward is disturbed, the learner will stop making anymore
efforts.
Brown (1987) refers to instrumental motivation as
motivation to acquire language as means for instrumental
goals, for example, furthering a career, reading technical
material, translating a text and so forth. Instrumental rewards
are a motivating source when individuals believe that the
behaviors they engage in will lead to certain outcomes as
pay, praise and others of such.
Futhermore. Gardner & Lambert (1972) claimed that
integrative orientation (desire to learn a language stemming

from a positive affect toward a community of its speakers)
was more strongly linked to success in learning a second
language than an instrumental orientation (desire To learn a
language in order to attain certain career, educational, or
financial goals), later studies showed that both could be
associated with success.
Two important points based on the research by
Gardner and his colleagues centered on a dichotomy of
orientation, not moti vation. Orientation means a context or
purpose for ; motivation refers to the intensity of one‘s
impetus to learn. An integrative orientation simply means the
learner is pursuing a second language for social ans or
cultural purposes, and within that purpose, a learner could
be driven by a high level of motivation or a low level.
Likewise, in an instrumental motivation, learners are
studying a language in order to further a career or academic
goal. (Brown, 2001)

CHAPTER IV
STRATEGIES FOR THE VARIOUS SKILL AREAS
This section provides a sampling of the literature on

language learner strategies in the skill areas of listening, reading,
speaking, writing, vocabulary learning, and grammar. With
regard to strategy instruction in general, interest in enhancing
the learning and use of an L2 through strategy instruction has
been on the rise at the elementary and secondary schools and at
the university level, adult centers, as well as in self-access
centers (Rubin, Chamot, Harris, & Anderson, 2007; Chamot,
2008). While strategy instruction may vary in form, it is likely to
have the following features: (1) raising awareness of the
strategies that learners are already using; (2) presenting and
modeling strategies so that learners become increasingly aware
of their own thinking and learning processes; (3) providing
multiple practice opportunities to help learners move toward
autonomous use of the strategies through gradual withdrawal of
teacher scaffolding; and (4) getting learners to evaluate the
effectiveness of the strategies used and any efforts that they have
made to transfer these strategies to new tasks.
A review of listening strategy research looked at studies
on approaches to strategy elicitation, on the relationship
between strategy use and listening success, on prior knowledge
as a processing strategy, and on efforts to improve strategy use
(Macaro, Graham, & Vanderplank, 2007)
Listening Strategies
The conclusions were that the relationship between

successful listening and strategy use needs to be explored more

rigorously, that prior knowledge can easily be misused, and that,
although there is a considerable body of literature exploring
listening strategy use, the literature related to strategy
instruction is more sparse.
A qualitative, classroom-based investigation serves as an
illustrative study of listening strategies (Farrell & Mallard, 2006).
The study described the types and frequency of receptive
strategies used by 14 learners at three different proficiency levels
in French while engaged in a two-way information gap task. The
findings were that the learners at all proficiency levels were able
to use three types of strategies: (1) obtaining new information
from interlocutors (forward inference, uptaking—indicating they
were listening and presumably understanding, and faking—
indicating comprehension when they had not understood); (2)
confirming old information (hypothesis testing and text-level
reprise—repeating the speaker‘s words with a rising or falling
intonation); and (3) clarifying old information (sentence-level
reprise—repeating a word or words without understanding
them at the sentence level, and global reprise—signaling a
comprehension problem but without indicating what). Despite
the findings that learners across proficiency levels used these
strategies when needed, the researchers still recommended
strategy instruction, especially for beginning L2 learners.
A recent study looked at the impact of strategy instruction
in listening (and reading) relative to other powerful factors such
as socio-economic background (Harris & Grenfell, 2008). The
researchers conducted a quasi-experimental study, involving 120
from intact experimental and control classes of 12-to-13-year-
olds learning French. Whereas the experimental class was
exposed to explicit strategy instruction in listening and reading
during their French lessons, the control class was not. Over a
nine-month period, the experimental classes were taught 25

lessons or parts of lessons incorporating strategy instruction. The
results were that listening strategy instruction benefited all
students regardless of their prior attainment or prior attitude,
their gender, or bilingual status.
Another study involving strategy instruction investigated
the effects of a meta-cognitive, process based approach to
teaching L2 listening over a semester (Vandergrift &
Tafaghodatari 2010). The 106 participants came from six intact
sections of a French L2 course at the University of Ottawa,
Canada. The 60 students in the experimental group listened to
texts using a methodology that led them through the meta-
cognitive processes (prediction/planning, monitoring,
evaluating and problem-solving) that underlie successful L2
listening. The 46 control-group students, taught by the same
teacher, listened to the same texts the same number of times, but
without any guided attention to process. As hypothesized, the
experimental group significantly outperformed the control
group on the final comprehension measure, after statistical
adjustment for initial differences. Transcript data from
stimulated-recall sessions provided further evidence of a
growing learner awareness of the meta-cognitive processes
underlying successful L2 listening, as student responses on the
Meta-cognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire changed
over the duration of the study.
Speaking Strategies.
A review article by Nakatani and Goh (2007) examined

trends in L2 communication strategy research from both an
interactional approach (i.e., a focus on the way learners use
strategies during interaction that could help to improve
negotiation of meaning and the overall effectiveness of their
message) and a psycholinguistic view (i.e., a focus on mental

processes that underlie learners‘ language behavior when
dealing with lexical and discourse problems). They highlighted
how different researchers have described communication
strategies and how the use of such strategies is examined in
relation to learner and task variables in different contexts. They
also examined intervention studies involving strategy
instruction and their pedagogical implications.
A recent study of speaking strategies at the group level
involved 94 Taiwanese junior-college English majors (Wu &
Gitsaki, 2007). The study found that in general the higher-level
English speakers reported themselves as using more oral
communication strategies than the lower-level speakers. The
only two strategies with an opposite result were ―message
reduction and alteration strategies‖ and ―nonverbal strategies
while speaking.‖ The results showed that the high-proficiency
subjects reported making significantly more use of fluency-
maintaining, accuracy-oriented, and social affective strategies
than the low-proficiency subjects.
One study involved 30 participants receiving one week of
strategy instruction and 30 receiving two weeks, with 15 in a
control group (Iwai, 2006). The main finding was that teaching
communication strategies have a potential for L2 learners‘
declarative knowledge to become procedural knowledge, thus
enhancing oral performance. A second study looked at strategies
for oral communication, the degree to which these strategies
could be explicitly taught, and the impact of strategy use on
communicative ability (Nakatani, 2005). In a 12-week EFL course
based on a communicative approach, 28 female learners received
meta-cognitive strategy instruction, focusing on strategy use for
oral communication, whereas the 343 females in the control
group received only the normal communicative course, with no
explicit focus on communication strategies. The findings

revealed that participants in the strategy instruction group
significantly improved their oral proficiency test scores, whereas
improvements in the control group were not significant. The
results of transcription and retrospective protocol data analyses
confirmed that the participants‘ success was partly due to an
increased general awareness of oral communication strategies to
the use of specific strategies, such as maintenance of fluency and
negotiation of meaning to solve interactional difficulties.
A third study focused on the effect of a cooperative
strategy instruction program on the patterns of interaction that
arose as small groups of students participated in an oral
discussion task (Naughton, 2006). Intact classes of Spanish EFL
students from the University of Granada were randomly
assigned to three experimental groups (n = 24) and two control
groups (n = 21), and triads from within each group were
videotaped at the beginning and end of the experimental
intervention. The pretest showed that prior to strategy
instruction, interaction patterns frequently did not reflect those
interactions deemed important for language acquisition as
identified within both traditional L2 acquisition and socio-
cultural research. The posttest revealed, however, that the
program of strategy instruction was largely successful in
encouraging students to engage in these types of interactional
sequences (i.e., use of follow-up questions, requesting and giving
clarification, repair, and requesting and giving help.
Reading Strategies.
A review of reading strategy research presents an overview

of empirical research published since the 1970s on strategies for
L2 reading comprehension, beginning with a conceptualization
of the processes involved in reading, and noting that research
findings are still not conclusive as to whether these processes

are, on the whole, universal or language specific (Erler &
Finkbeiner, 2007). Researchers look at various aspects of how
first language (L1) reading impacts L2 reading, and consider the
nonlinguistic factors as well, such as cultural knowledge,
motivation, and interest.
An illustrative example of a group study of reading
strategies is that by Ho and Teng (2007). The participants of the
study were 152 11th-grade EFL students at a vocational high
school in northern Taiwan. The study administered two
instruments to these low-intermediate-level English students:
(1) a 32-item questionnaire asking participants to report the
frequency with which they use certain EFL reading strategies;
and (2) an interview guide used to probe participants‘ reading
strategies. The results showed that compensatory strategies were
reportedly used the most frequently, with translation being the
most frequently-reported strategy in this category. Meta-
cognitive strategies were reportedly the strategies least used by
these vocational high-school students. In addition, female
students had higher mean scores on most of the reading strategy
items, and proficient students used more strategies than less
proficient ones. The explanation offered was that the proficient
students chose to use various EFL reading strategies in order to
comprehend the text, while less proficient students tended to
skip the unknown parts.
A case study illustrative of work on reading strategies
examined the socio-cultural variables that influenced the
strategy choices of two international students studying in the
US, one at law school and the other doing a masters in business
administration (Uhrig, 2006). The study documented how the
two students used language strategies differently to succeed in
their respective programs. The researcher used verbal report
protocols, strategy logs, and interviews to arrive at a picture of

how these students handled assigned readings and other course
demands. Uhrig found that learning style preferences had a
notable influence on language strategy choices. This finding
confirmed and expanded the hypothesis that strategy use can be
predicted by an analysis of task and learning style (Cohen, 2003).
For example, the business student‘s response to the teamwork
requirement of the MBA program was to worry about
communication in English. Because of his concrete-sequential
and introverted learning style, he adapted to this challenge by
creating and relying on summaries, and by working individually
and comparing results with team members after establishing his
own understanding. The law student, on the other hand,
responded to the workload in his program with a general
strategy of extending the minimum effort sufficient for getting
by. His abstract-intuitive and extroverted learning styles led him
to rely on his background knowledge and on other students as
resources to minimize his efforts.
Strategy Instruction in Reading
Two studies were illustrative of strategy instruction in

reading, one involving elementary-level students and the other
involving college-bound students. The first study was of strategy
instruction at the upper elementary level in Singapore, where
learning to read in English was regarded as essential because it
was the medium of instruction in the education system, although
the majority still learned it as an L2 (Zhang, Gu, & Hu, 2008).
The participants were 18 pupils in grades 4, 5, and 6 from three
neighborhood primary schools. The results suggested that the
use of reading strategies varied according to language
proficiency and grade level. High-proficiency learners seemed to
be more concerned about meaning and knew that they needed to
predict, summarize, infer meaning, and monitor their

comprehension processes. For the low-proficiency learners, the
attempt to read in English possibly terminated at the perceptual
processing stage, and in other cases wild speculation and
guessing permeated the process.
The second study examined the willingness of English-as-a-
second-language (ESL) students to be engaged in strategic
reading instruction in Singapore (Zhang, 2008). The study
involved classroom activities over two months, following a
social constructivist approach where meaning was constructed
through dialog between an ‗‗expert‖ (i.e., a more competent
learner/peer) and a ‗‗novice,‖ during which the latter
internalized the new concepts under the teacher‘s guidance as
facilitator, participant, and interact throughout each lesson. This
quasi-experimental study involved an experimental and a
control group of 99 college-bound ESL students from the
People‘s Republic of China (average age of 18). The strategy
instruction program started with awareness-raising activities,
followed by explaining, modeling, monitoring, and evaluating
strategy use. The results showed that the teacher‘s strategy-
based instructional intervention evolving around participatory
activities affected changes in the ESL students‘ use of reading
strategies and improvement in comprehension. The
experimental group benefited more than the control group from
group sharing and discussion of many of the instances or
contexts where particular strategies were used. The two most
prominent strategies distinguishing the two groups were
previewing or survey texts and identifying organizational
patterns of text.

Writing Strategies.
A study of strategy instruction for business writing was

conducted at a technical college in Taiwan (Huang, 2007). The
instructor-researcher drew heavily on a meta-cognitive
framework in her approach to teaching 34 3rd-year students the
basics of business writing—including explicit instruction,
scaffolded instruction, expert modeling, think-aloud training,
and self-questioning. While the study intended to explore how a
meta-cognitive approach could enhance students‘ ability to deal
with business English writing tasks, low proficiency level and
lack of motivation shifted the focus to describing reasons why
learners did not make use of meta-cognitive strategies in dealing
with problems in their business correspondence. Qualitative
data were collected through: (1) information about work
experience from a pre-course questionnaire; (2) students‘
reactions to the instruction from a mid-term course feedback; (3)
students‘ comments in class, including oral feedback, group
discussions and presentations, and individual students‘ verbal
report protocols; (4) students‘ written assignments, feedback,
and responses on test; and (5) the instructor‘s reflective notes.
Manchón, Roca de Larios, and Murphy (2007) conducted a
systematic review of the empirical research on composing
strategies published in English since 1980. They analyze how the
strategy construct has been conceptualized in the empirical
research on composing and identify the frameworks informing
these conceptualizations. They summarize the main research
insights regarding descriptive studies of the strategies used by
L2 writers, and the impact of strategy instruction on writing
strategy use. They also discuss the use of the L1 in planning,
writing, revising, and monitoring L2 writing; strategies internal
to the writer and socio-cognitive variables that are external to the

writer; and studies dealing with the transfer of strategies across
languages.
Vocabulary Strategies.
Nyikos and Fan (2007) consider the lexical dimension of

language learning in a report on studies that describe strategies
through which L2 learners discover the meaning of unknown
words, and integrate and consolidate newly acquired
vocabulary. This chapter examines vocabulary learning
strategies (VLS) with particular focus on learner voice (i.e., how
learners report their own perceptions regarding their actual use
of VLS). They look both at de-contextualized VLS (memorization
strategies, repetition, association, and keyword mnemonics) and
at contextualized vocabulary inferencing strategies, as well as at
dictionary and electronic look-up strategies. They also consider
factors that affect VLS use, including proficiency, individual
variation, and learning environment.
A study looked at word-decision strategies while reading
among 40 US college learners of Chinese at the beginning and
advanced levels (Shen, 2008). The study compared the strategies
used by these two groups and then identified the most effective
out of 100 strategies. It was found that both the beginning and
the advanced learners accessed their mental lexicon in the
decision process. Other strategies both groups used included
making guesses based on intuition, combining the semantic
information of each constituent character, deriving word
meaning based on the semantic information about the
constituent characters, applying knowledge of parts of speech to
the target item or adjacent characters, and using contextual
information. The advanced learners were more likely to use
contextual knowledge. Word-decision accuracy rating for

beginners was 50%, and perhaps surprisingly, only somewhat
higher (54%) for advanced learners.
Out of 106 college English majors in Hong Kong who
responded to a questionnaire about their dictionary use, 25
agreed to participate in a strategy-instruction workshop (Chan,
2005). The participants were given a list of 25 erroneous
sentences and were asked to use the dictionary that they would
regularly consult. Areas of incorrect usage included the
transitivity of verbs, countability of nouns, choice of verb forms,
and choice of prepositions. Verbal report was used for recording
the process of locating a target word, searching for the
appropriate usage, and determining which was correct.
Although students regularly consulted one or more dictionaries
in their ESL learning, their dictionary skills were found to be
inadequate and the recommendation was that they get
instruction in it.
Grammar Strategies.
Although it was the intention of Oxford and Lee (2007) to

review the literature on grammar strategy studies, they found
that there was such a paucity of studies that instead they wrote a
position paper instead on how grammar strategies had largely
been ignored in the research literature. Their chapter starts by
offering an overview of the instructional modes that teachers
employ for dealing with grammar in L2 classrooms. The first
two entail either implicit instructional treatment of grammar
with a focus on meaning or with a focus on form. The third and
fourth entail either an explicit instructional treatment of
grammar with an inductive focus on forms or a deductive
focused on forms. Next, the authors explore diverse types of
grammar strategies in connection with different kinds of
grammar learning. As a link to the real world, they quote from a

teacher‘s diary about grammar instruction and grammar
strategies.
One recent study conducted during a 20-week course
entitled ―English for Living and Working in New Zealand,‖
investigated the students‘ attitudes about ways that grammar
could be dealt with in the course (Bade, 2008). The 14 students
taking the course were all immigrants to New Zealand with less
than two years in the country. The students responded to a 20-
item questionnaire in the first week of the course, with 15 of the
items focused, and another five open-ended (e.g., what they
were doing with their knowledge and why they were doing it).
The questionnaire related grammar to course content, inquiring
about the kinds of resources that students used to assist in
language learning, and the students‘ preferred teaching
methodology, kinds of feedback, and types of error correction.
Reported strategies included using time outside of class to
practice each grammar point for 10 minutes, trying out grammar
forms in their own sentences based on a model sentence, and
basing their learning of a grammar point on explicit rules and a
text that exemplified these rules so that they could learn the
points accurately.
In another study, 20 highly-motivated students of Spanish
were asked to describe their strategies primarily for dealing with
grammar (Morales & Smith, 2008b). These were students who
had attained high levels of proficiency on the ACTFL proficiency
scale as compared to average students of Spanish. Nine were
studying Spanish in university classes and 11 were home-
schooled. The authors give examples of how the students used
strategies involving mental images in order to remember the
correct use of grammatical forms (verb inflections, por-para, ser-
estar, direct vs. indirect pronouns, gender of nouns, and article
use).

While much attention is focused on the teaching of
grammar, not much attention has been paid to how learners are
to go about learning and performing it. And the somewhat
unfortunate reality is that grammar forms are not just magically
acquired. Even though in this era of communicative language
teaching, there is a tendency to play down the issue of grammar
and even relegate grammar learning to homework assignments,
the hard fact is that learners encounter grammar forms that are
problematic and may well cause them repeated difficulties,
regardless of how well they are presented in textbooks, drilled in
class, or exercised in homework assignments. As Oxford and Lee
note in their review of grammar strategy issues, ―grammar
learning might or might not occur for a particular student. At
heart, learning depends on the student‖. (Oxford & Lee, 2007 :
119)
One strategy instruction study focusing on grammar
entailed exposing American university students of Spanish to
mental image associations in order to assist them in
differentiating the uses of the verbs ser and estar (Morales &
Smith, 2008a). The reason for the strategy instruction was that
the uses of these verbs were seen to present special challenges to
the learners, for whom the verb ―to be‖ was generally used for
both ser and estar. The study demonstrates that the 113 students
with brief exposure to visual images associated with the uses of
ser and estar showed a greater improvement in their ability to
distinguish the correct use of each verb than did the 90 students
in the control group who did not get exposure to visual images
to help in learning the distinction. The article provides useful
samples of the instructional materials used to teach the
distinction.
Another effort at grammar strategy instruction involved
the construction of a website featuring over 70 strategies

deployed successfully by learners of Spanish grammar,
including strategies from nonnative teachers of Spanish—who
need to learn Spanish grammar in order to teach it (Cohen &
Pinilla-Herrera, 2009). The website has audio- and video-clip
descriptions from learners and nonnative teachers of Spanish
about strategies that they have used for successfully learning
problematic grammar forms. The website also includes
diagrams, mental maps, charts, visual schemes, and drawings
used to convey strategy information. The website can be used for
obtaining strategies to enhance the learning of specific grammar
forms, or to get ideas for strategies that could be applied to the
learning of various grammar forms.
In the summer of 2008, 12 learners of Spanish participated
in a usability testing of the website, and changes were made to
the site based on the feedback. In the spring of 2009, two
University of Minnesota undergraduates similar in age and
status to the website potential users conducted evaluation
research with 18 undergraduate students of Spanish to
determine the strategies that they chose to incorporate into their
grammar strategy repertoire and what they thought of the
experience. The study consisted of a website orientation session
and two follow-up interviews. Findings suggested that students
appreciated the practical nature of the website and the
usefulness of the strategies. They tended to find that the
strategies that they incorporated into their repertoire helped to
improve their oral and written work, and had a positive effect on
their achievement in class (Cohen, Pinilla-Herrera, Thompson, &
Witzig, in press).

Teaching Integrated Skills and Language Components.
Language skills consist of listening, speaking, reading and

writing, and language components which refer to vocabulary,
grammar and pronunciation. There is a recent trend toward skill
integration rather than treating the four skills in separate of a
curriculum. Curriculum designers for English language at the
elementary school level in Indonesia take more of a whole
language approach where by reading is treated as one of two or
more interrelated skills. A course that deals with reading
skill,then, will also deal with related listening, speaking and
writing skills and they are also related to language components
like vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation. Abdullah Hasan,
et.al (2017) state that in teaching English as a foreign language
(TEFL), the teachers or the candidates of teachers should
consider the four skills in English – listening, speaking, reading
and writing as the achievement to be reached.
Brown (2001) states that some English experts may argue
that the integration of the four skills diminished the importance
of the rules of listening, speaking, reading and writing that are
unique to each separate skill. Such an argument rarely holds up
under careful scrutiny of integrated-skills courses. If anything,
the added richness of the latter gives students greater motivation
that converts to better retention of principles of effective
listening, speaking, reading and writing. Rather than being
forced to plod along through a course that limits itself to one
mode of performance, students are given a chance to diversify
their efforts in more meaningful tasks. Such integration can, of
course, still utilize a strong, principles approach to the separate
unique charateristics of each skill.

Teaching Listening
Listening as a major component in language learning and

teaching first hit the spot-light in the late 1970s with James
Asher‘s (1977) work on Total Physical Response. In TPR, the role
of comprehension was given prominence as learners were given
great quantities of language to listen before they were
encouraged to respond orally. Similarly, the Natural Approach
recommended a significant ―silent period‖ during which
learners were allowed the security of listening without being
forced to go through the anxiety of speaking before they were
ready to do so.
Technique purpose for beginners in listening is to focus on
components (phonemes, words, intonation, pronunciation, etc)
of discourse may be considered to be intensive – as opposed to
extensive – in the requirement that students single out certain
elements of spoken language. They include the bottom-up skills
that are important at all levels of proficiency. Brown (2001) gives
examples of intensive listening performance include these:
 Students listen for cues in certain choral or individual drills.
 The teacher repeats a word or sentence several times to
imprint it in the students‘ mind.
 The teacher asks students to listen to a sentence or a longer
stretch of discourse and to notice a specified element, such as,
intonation, stress, a contraction, a grammar structure, etc.
When teaching listening for beginning-level listeners,

Brown (2001) claims that bottom-up exercises are appropriate
especially these aim to discriminate between intonation
countours in sentences, to discriminate between phonemes, such
as listening to pairs of words; to listen selectively for
morphological endings such as to listen to a series of sentences

or to choose true or false sentences; and to listen selectively
details from word recognition, such as, match a word with its
picture.
Teaching Speaking
From a communicative, pragmatic view of the language

classroom, listening and speaking skills are closely intertwined.
Curricula that treat oral communication skills will simply be
labeled as ―Listening/Speaking‖ courses. The interaction
between these two modes of performance applies especially
strongly to conversation, the most popular discourse category in
the profession. Some of the components of teaching spoken
language were covered closely at teaching listening
comprehension types of spoken language, and listening
microskill becomes a factor of the oral code. In teaching English
skills for children, Brown (2001) states that the teachers should
consider five categories that may help give some practical
approaches. They cover (1) intelectual development, (2) attention
span, (3) sensory input (4) affective factors and (5) authentic,
meaningful language. Specifically for teaching speaking, the
material given to the students should involve concrete operation,
authentic and meaningful language based on real situation.
An example of teaching speaking through song with the
procedure as follows:
- Teacher turns on a song and the students listen to it.
- Teacher reads lyrics of the song and the students repeat
it.
- Teacher turns on a song and the students follow it
slowly.
- Teacher gives a model by asking two students to sing and
then, change some lyrics to the real one

- Teacher asks the students to practice it in a pair work,
then in a group work.
- Teacher turns on the song and ask the students to sing
together by deviding into two groups, and then
interchange the parts.
The lyrics of the song : WHAT‘S YOUR NAME?

A: Hello, friend! What‘s your name?
B: My name is SUZANA ( SUSANTO)
A: How do you spell it? 2x
B: S – U – Z – A -N - A. ( S-U-S-A-N-T-O)
A: What is your nick name?2x
B: Just call me ANA ( ANTO)
A: Where.are you from?2x
B: I am from Pekanbaru
(Bangkinang) A: Where do you live?
B: At 6
Sudirman street (At 10 A.Yani street) A:
Thank you 2x
B: You‘re welcome.
Another example of teaching speaking through a pair work

and a group work.
The teacher gives a model first, then the students try to
practice it by answering wi the real condition and situation.
Question & Answer ( PAIR WORK) & SELF INTRODUCTION
No Questions No A n s w e rs
1 What is your name? 1
2 What is your nick name? 2
3 Where are you from? 3
4 Where do you live? 4
5 Where do you go to school? 5

6 What class are you now? 6
7 What is your hobby? 7
8 What is your favorite drink? 8
9 What is your favorite food? 9
10 What is your favorite subject? 10
Teaching Reading
As it was mentioned beforehand, integrated approaches to

language teaching emphasize the interrelationship of skills.
Reading ability will be developed best in association with
writing, listening and speaking activities as well as the
involvement of language components such as vocabulary and
grammar. Even those courses that may be labeled as ―reading‖,
will be best achieved by capitalizing on the interrelationship of
skills, especially the reading-writing connection. It is important
to focus on reading as a component of general second language
proficiency, but ultimately reading must be considered only in
the perspective of the whole picture of interactive language
teaching.
For most second language learners who are already literate
in a previous language, reading comprehension is primarily a
matter of developing appropriate, efficient comprehension
strategies. The strategies of teaching reading for beginners or
children are related to bottom up procedures. At the beginning
levels of learning English, one of the difficulties, students
encounter in learning to read is making the correspondences
between spoken and written English. In many cases, learners
have become acquainted with oral language and have some
difficulty learning English spelling conventions. They may need
hints and explanations about certain English orthographic rules
and pecularities. While it can be assumed that one-to-one
grapheme-phoneme correspondences will be acquired with ease,

other relationships might prove difficult. At the beginning level,
Brown (2001) states oral reading can:
a. serve as an evaluative check on bottom-up processing
skills.
b. double a pronuncation check, and
c. serve to add some extra student participation if the
teacher wants to highlight a certain short segment of
a reading passage.
1. The procedures of reading aloud:

a. The teacher reads a paragraph of reading text.
Mr. and Mrs. Amir have a small family. They have two
children, a son and a daughter. Their son is Rudy, and he is
handsome and tall. He is 13 years old. He is at Grade VII of
MTsN 2 Pekanbaru. He is a smart student and he masters 2
foreign languages; English and Arabic. He is the best student at
his class. Their daughter is Mary. She is 16 years old. She is at
the tenth year of State Islamic Senior High School 2 Pekanbaru.
She speaks English , Arabic and German. Both of the children
are diligent and clever. Their parents love them very much.
b. The teacher reads a sentence by a sentence and all

students repeat
c. The teacher asks the students to close the book and to

repeat the first sentence twice or 3 times.
d. The teacher continues reading the second sentence and

the students repeat the sentence twice or three times.
e. The teacher reads the first sentence and continued to

the second sentence, and the students repeat twice or
three times.

f. The teacher reads the third sentence, and he/she asks
the students to repeat twice or three times.
g. The teacher reads again the first, the second and the
third sentence and he/she asks the students to repeat
twice or three times.
h. The teacher does the same thing up to the end of a

paragraph, until the students memorize the whole
paragraph.
2. The procedures of reading comprehension by using

Directed Reading Activities (DRA)
Alan Crawford, et.al (2005) states the procedure of
DRA methods is as follows:
a). The teacher begins with one or two anticipation

activities designed to motivate students and to
activate or install needed background knowledge.
b). The teacher should chunk the text by dividing it into

manageable pieces for the students to read silently.
Then, the teacher should prepare one or two
comprehension level questions for each chunk to be
read by the students.
c). The teacher provides a culminating activity that allows

students to review their understanding of the text and
to apply them.

TEACHING WRITING
Trends in the teaching of writing in ESL and EFL have, not

surprisingly, coincided with those of the teaching of other skills,
especially listening and speaking. Communicative language
teaching gathered momentum in the 1980s, teachers learned
more and more about how to teach fluency, not just accuracy,
how to use authentic text and context in the classroom, how to
focus on the purposes of linguistic communication, and how to
capitalize on learners‘ intrinsic motives to learn. Those same
trends and the principles that undergirded them also applied to
advances in the teaching of writing in the second language
context.
At the beginning level of learning to write, Brown (2001)
states that students will simply ―write down‖ English letters,
words and possibly sentences in order to learn the conventions
of the orthograpic code. Some forms of dictation fall into this
category, although dictations can serve to teach and test higher-
order processing as well. Dictations typically involve the
following steps:
a. Teacher reads a short paragraph once or twice at normal
speed.
b. Teacher reads the paragraph in short phrase units of three
or four words each, and each unit is followed by a pause.
c. During the pause, students write exactly what they hear.
d. Teacher then reads the whole paragraph once more at
normal speed so students can check their writing.
e. Scoring of students‘ written work can utilize a number of
rubrics for assigning points. Usually spelling and
punctuation errors are not considered as severe as
grammatical errors.

TEACHING VOCABULARY
Vocabulary as one of English components of language

learning has been the object of numerous studies each of which
has its own contribution to the field. Laufer (1997) states that
vocabulary learning is the heart of language learning and
language use. In fact, it is what makes the essence of a language.
Without vocabulary speakers cannot convey meaning and
communicate with each other in a particular language.
Vocabulary is viewed as a significant component of
standardized language tests; and attention is being given by
methodologists and program planners to the most effective ways
to promote the command of vocabulary among learners.
There are various techniques and devices for teaching of
vocabulary in methodology textbooks. Weatherford (1990) stated
that there are a variety of classroom techniques for second
language vocabulary learning. The techniques include rote
rehearsal; the use of visual aids; role-playing; vocabulary
learning in a specific cultural context; vocabulary learning
through art activities; the root-word approach; mnemonic
techniques, such as the key word approach; use of the notion of
semantic fields to illustrate conceptual relationships between
words; two types of vocabulary learning through music (simple
song, and the suggestopedia method); physical activities, as in
Total Physical Response (TPR) instruction; study of cognates and
direct borrowing; study of loan translations; use of soap-opera
style drama tapes in the language laboratory; analogies;
computer-assisted instruction through drills and games; and
synonyms.
The former way to add new words to one‘s vocabularies is
by locating words in the dictionary and learning what they
mean, and memorize it in a single word. But this is a slow

process to increase word power. The other way to improve
vocabulary is through context. As we listen and read, we often
meet new words in contexts. O‘Harra (1984) claimed that context
is the setting or surroundings of a word; therefore, when we
listen to someone‘s talk, the context of a word is the statement
that includes the word. Sometimes we read words in a written
context. Thus, the paragraph may tell us what the new word
means, or enough clues may be provided in the sentence which
contains the word; or even one or two nearby words may
explain the meaning of a new word we find in the text when
reading.
O‘Harra (1984) claims pictures can help the teachers and
students in teaching and learning vocabulary, and other
components of language. As a matter of fact pictures can help
students to imagine the real object. In short, the concept of
picture is the shared experience of many people because of their
matching ability which enables them to match the words with
pictures. It should be mentioned that pictures as mental
representation of mind can better affect learning. Pictures are
used in the classrooms as teaching devices and can be found to
give practice in most skills and components and in most stages
of teaching. Pictures can motivate students and nowadays,
motivation is found to be an important factor in learning
everything. Allen (1983) also has shown that the more modalities
are involved in association, the more readily items will become
available in various situations. Items should therefore be
presented in association with visual representations (pictures,
objects), aurally, and in association with activities of all kinds.
Hence, there is a great need for research into the vocabulary
teaching methods to guide us toward the most effective one.
Different techniques to teach vocabularies are used by
teachers, such as teaching the words: through lists, translation,

synonyms, antonyms, contexts, realia, and songs. Some teachers
believe before teaching vocabulary to their students, they should
have been taught the grammar of the foreign language.
Therefore, they give little or no attention to vocabulary. Allen
(1983) also states that in many English language classes, even
where teachers have devoted much time to vocabulary teaching,
the results have been disappointing. Sometimes, after months or
even years of English, many of the words most needed have
never been learned. Especially in countries where English is not
the main language of communication, many teachers want more
help with vocabulary instruction than they used to receive.
In this study, vocabularies is focused more on teaching
through real manipulatives and people through action and
function, games, pictures and songs. For example, in teaching
things in the classroom. The teacher can start with the song:
―That is a window‖. The song is as follows:
That is a window.
That is the door.
That is a whiteboard.
This is the floor.
That is a table.
That is a chair
That is a cupboard.
This is the wall.
That is a picture.
That is a clock.
That is a duster.
This is a pen
(Adopted from English text book for SMP).

While singing a song, the teacher and the students point to
the things mentioned in the song. After the song, it is continued
by action and function through things around the classroom. For
instance:
―Teacher asks a student to stand up and come to the door,
touch the door, and describe it to the class. When the student
touches the door, he/she says to the class, ―Hello, friends. This is
the door. It is brown and it is made of wood. Look! I am opening
the door now.‖ The teacher continues by giving some models
before asking the students to do in a pair work and in groups.
Although vocabulary has been the subject of many studies,
few studies have revealed the effective techniques of vocabulary
teaching. So it is of prime importance to attempt to find the most
effective technique of vocabulary teaching. According to Allen
(1983), all experienced language teachers confirm the important
role of words and know that the lack of them leads to feeling of
insecurity; on the other hand, the teachers‘ attitude toward
teaching vocabulary and the classroom techniques varies
enormously.
A model of games in teaching vocabulary for young learners:
PESONA 13 GAME
Procedure of Pesona 13 Game: Students are divided into two groups.
Each group consists of 4 persons.They are an instructor and 3
guessers. The judge leads the game.
Personnels: - One timer, one scorer and one
judge/juror
- Time for guessing Maximum : 1
minute, if it can be answered less
than 20 second , the team is given
bonus : 50
- If the answer is correct = 100 , if
wrong means zero.

1. Parts of the Body - Upper part:Outside : head, forehead, eyes, ears,
nose, mouth, hair, chin, eyebrow, eye-lace, cheek, neck, beard, mustache,
adam’s apple
Inside : brain , skull, tongue, teeth, throat, blood, bone
Middle Part: Outside: fingers, - thumb, middle
finger, middle finger, little finger
 Wrist, hand, elbow, arm. shoulder,
back, stomach, waist, chest, arm-fit
 Inside : heart, lung,
- Lower Part : thigh, knee, culf, heel, toes,
-
2. Animals: Wild animals: tiger, lion, rhinosaurs, deer, bear, pig, elephant,
zebra,wolf, giraffe, deer, leopard, gorilla, bison hippopotamus,
kangoro, blackbuck, alligator, fox
Tame animals: camel, goat, cow, buffalo, horse,
Pets: cats, dogs, rabbit, a kind of birds :owl, peacock, hen.
3. Professions: teacher, student,headmaster, housewife, midwife, singer,

policeman, postman, public servant, employee, town major,
secretary, manager, president, headmaster, chef, waiter,
waitress, driver, nurse. Doctor, internist, dentist, surgery,
blacksmith, machinist, tourist, bricklayer, dean, rector,
4. Vegetables: bean, spinach, cabbage, carrot, broccoli, celery, tomato,

string-bean, radish, asparagus, onion, garlic, potato, lettuce,
pea, cauli flower, chili, pumpkin, mushroom, etc.
5. Transportation: - Air transportation : plane, helicopter, jet, Apollo,

glider, blimp, ballon
- Land Transportation: car, bus, taxi, motor-cycle, tri-cycle,
bicycle, truck, carriage, tractor,
ambulance, fire truck, etc.
- Water transportation: Ship, canoo, sailboat, boat,
submarine, etc.

6: Fruits: water melon, melon, mango, papaya, apple, avocado, lychee,
coconut, banana, pineapple, pearblackberry, cherry, grape,
lemon, etc.
7. Food : sate, meatball, soto, cheese, fried chicken, fried rice, noodle, fried
egg, peanuts, chocolate, biscuits, cakes, dougnuts, bread,
sandwich, pastry, candy, etc
8. Drink: ice-cream, juice, apple juice, mango juice, coke, milk, coffee,
mineral water,etc.
9 Sports : Football, volleyball , badminton, archery, swimming, polo,
basketball, baseball, table tennis, tennis, boxing, rugby, golf,
hockey, shooting, rowing, hockey, diving, hiking,, judo, water
polo, gymnastics, athletic,etc
10. Buildings: Offices, hotel. School, townhall, governor office, mosque,
church, vihara, mall, SKA Mall, post office, super market and
etc.
11. Things: furniture , In the classroom: teacher, table, fan , cupboard,
ceiling, air condition, picture,
At home, in the dining-room, in the bedroom: pillow,
mattress, bed, blanket, bolster, carpet
In the kitchen.: plate, knife, fork, spoon, frying pan, pot, stove,
basin, etc
Outside : trees, road, park, etc
At the sea: water, beach, sand etc.
12. Accessories: ring, earring, blacelet, necklace, wallet, purse,
handkerchief, etc.
13. Lessons: Mathematics, Social sciences, Natural Sciences, Islamic

Religion, Indonesian language, English language, sports, arts
and handicraft, civic and moral education, chemistry, biology
and etc.
TEACHING GRAMMAR.
Teaching grammar in English has always been one of the

controversial issues in language teaching. Some experts claim
that grammar should be taught explicitely and some others

convey it should be taught implicitly. There have always been
many arguments about the best way of teaching grammar.
Different methods, techniques and strategies have permanently
waxed and waned in popularity. According to Piaget (1972), the
children up to the age of about eleven are still in an intellectual
stage and called ―concrete operations‖, we need to remember
their limitations. Rules, explanation, and other evenslightly
abstract talk about language must be approached with extreme
caution. Children are centered on the here and now, on the
functional purposes of language. Futhermore, Brown (2001)
states: ―Don‘t explain grammar using terms like ‗present
progressive or relative clause‖, rules stated in abstract terms
should be avoided; some grammatical concepts, especially at the
upper levels of childhood, can be called to learners‘ attention by
showing them certain patterns and examples with concrete or
real situation; certain more difficult concepts or patterns require
more repetition than adults need.
Richards and Schmidt (2002) defined grammar as a
description of the structure of a language and the way in which
linguistic units such as words and phrases are combined to
produce sentences in a language. It usually takes into account
the meanings and functions these sentences have in the overall
system of the language. Nunan (2003) distinguished two types of
grammar, namely prescriptive grammar, which refers to rules
concerned with right and wrong, and descriptive grammar
which deals with the ways people actually use language.
According to Richards and Schmidt (2002), in the past
teaching language in general and teaching grammar were
synonymous. A number of methodologies have emerged with
regard to teaching grammar, one of which was the audio lingual
method replete with usually monotonous and mechanical drills.
Two recent trends have emerged: focus on form (Doughty and

Williams, 1998) and consciousness raising.
Spada (1997) defined form focused instruction as "any
pedagogical effort which is used to draw the learners' attention
to language form either implicitly or explicitly." Consciousness-
raising according to Larsen-Freeman (2001) does not require
students to produce target structures. In-stead, students are
made aware of the target grammatical item through discovery-
oriented tasks. Finally, Brown (2001) postulated that whether
you choose to explain grammatical rules or not depends on your
context of teaching. If you are teaching in an EFL context in
which students share the same native language elaborating on
grammatical minutiae will not be an activity in vain. On the
other hand, in an ESL setting explaining grammatical rules
might overwhelm students and will not prove an efficacious
strategy. The first technique employed in the present study was
dialogue practiced through role-plays.
Literally, according to Brown (2001: 183), "Role play
minimally involves (a) giving a role to one or the other members
of a group and (b) assigning an objective or purpose that
participants must accomplish." Brown suggested role play can be
conducted with a single per-son, in pairs or in groups, with each
person being assigned a role to accomplish an objective. Also as
Larsen-Freeman (2000) pointed out, role-plays give students the
chance of interacting and practicing communication acts in
different contexts and because of this they are of primary
importance in language teaching.
A model of teaching grammar through a song:

An English Song: Doing activities
I am washing 3x my face. ( He is- his / She is – her /
They are – their / We are-
our)

I am brushing 3x my teeth
I am eating 3x my food
I am drinking 3x water.
I am going 3 x to school.
I am taking 3x my bag
I am waving3x my hands
It is the time 2x for me to say Goodbye
The procedures of teaching grammar through a song:

a. The teacher turns on the song and he or she asks the
students to listen
b. The teacher turns on the song and he or she asks the
students to repeat.
c. After the students master the lyrics of the song, then the
teacher changes:
Subject pronoun “I’ into “he” and be (am) into “is” and
possessive adjective “my”into his.
Subject pronoun ―I‘ into ―she‖ and be (am) into ―is‖ and
possessive adjective ―my‖into her.
Subject pronoun ―I‘ into ―they‖ and be (am) into ―are‖ and
possessive adjective ―my‖into their.
Subject pronoun ―I‘ into ―we‖ and be (am) into ―are‖ and
possessive adjective ―my‖into our.
d. The teacher asks the students to sing a song with action and
function or activity and oral
TEACHING INTEGRATED SKILLS THROUGH SCIENTIFIC

APPROACH
The scientific approach includes three competencies of

attitude, skill and knowledge. Learning outcomes are able to

produce students become productive, creative, innovative and
effective through the integration of the thrength of attitude, skill
and knowledge. The aspect of attitude makes the students able
to transform the teaching materials in order to lead them ―why
to know‖; and the aspect of skill makes the students able to
transform the teaching materials the students able ―how to
know‖; the aspect of knowledge makes the students able to
transform the teaching materials able ―what to know‖; and the
last result is to improve and to make the students to have
balance between softskill and hardskill which covers the aspects
of attitude, skill and knowledge competencies. (Guidelines of
Curriculum, 2013).
The scientific approach focuses on the dimension of
modern paedagogy in teaching and learning process. The
communicative approach places emphasis on developing the
communicative competence, viewed as ―the overall underlying
knowledge and ability for language use which the speaker-
listener possesses‖ (Brumfit and Johnson 1983). Futhermore, it
also integrates information communication and technology (ICT)
to all subject matters of syllabuses. The consequency of this
integration, subject matter of Information Technology has been
dismissed at junior high school level and it is integrated to every
subject matter. Five steps consist of observing, questioning,
associating, experimenting and networking are administered in
teaching and learning process of scientific approach of every
subject matter. The approach is conducted on student centered
instruction, and the roles of a teacher in teaching and learning
process are as controler, organiser, assessor, prompter,
participant, resourcer, tutor and observer.( Harmer.J 2001,p.56-
62). The students are arranged into pairs and groups.
Futhermore, Harmer (2001.p.120) states a key consideration
when putting students in pair or groups is to make sure that we

put friends with friends, rather than risking the possibility of
people working with others whom they find difficult or
unpleasant. The use of student –centered activities allows
teacher to spend more of their time diagnosing and correcting
student problems, consulting with individual students, and
teaching one-on-one and in a small group.(Smaldino, 2008).
Intertion is the collaborative exchange of thoughts, feelings,
ideas between two or more people, resulting in a reciprocal
effect to interract on each other.( Brown, 2001)
The procedures of teaching integrated skills through the
scientific Approach are divided into three steps:
a. Pre-activities consist of opening the lesson, motivating
strategy, apperception and presenting the learning objective..
b. Whilst- activities cover five steps of observing, questioning,
associating, experimenting and networking.
In observing step, the teacher asks the students to observe
video or picture and to listen to the song which depend on
the facilities provided by the teacher.
In questioning step, the teacher facilitates the students to
give question and answer based on the video, picture or
English song. The teacher just starts one or two questions and
then, he/she asks the students to do question and answer
among them.
In associating step, the teacher facilitates the students to do
the tasks in a pair work or in a group work and to get more
resources about teaching materials either from printed
materials like books, magazines , newspapers; or internet
resources and realia.
In experimenting step, the teacher asks the students to do the
task or an experiment in a group work in written form.

In networking step, the teacher facilitates the students in
groups to share their work or ideas and to communicate
among groups by questioning and answering.
c. Post-activities implement reflexion, conclusion and closure.
In the whilst-activities, the teachers needed to use ICT like
multimedia teaching aids to implement the five steps that
made the students became more active, creative, effective and
joyful learning to achieve the objectives of the lesson. Besides,
teaching and learning process tended to be a student centered
instruction with modern pedagogy through the integration of
the thrength of attitude, skill and knowledge.
SUMMARY
Learning strategies are specific action taken by the
learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self
directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situation..
Learning strategies are divided into major classes: direct and
indirect strategies. These two classes are subdivided into a total
of six groups. The direct strategies consist of memory strategies,
cognitive strategies, and compensation strategies. The direct
strategies are composed of meta-cognitive strategies, affective
strategies, and social strategies. The identification and
description of learning strategies used by the language learners,
many researchers have correlated these strategies with other
learner variables such as proficiency level, age, field of study,
gender, attitude, motivation, anxiety and cultural background.
Wenden (2003) also stated that learner training is especially
necessary in the area of second and foreign language because
language learning in these contexts require active self-direction
on the part of learners.
At last, the English teachers are fully hoped to be able to
find out the solutions of students‘ problems in learning English

by mastering various teaching and learning strategies. The
teachers apply student centered instruction in teaching and
learning process in order to create the students‘positive attitude,
motivation, interest and self confidence. Teaching students of
young learners, the teachers have the capability to apply active,
creative, effective and joyful learning strategies. The teachers
really master how to implement the scientific approach which
combines three aspects of attitude, skill and knowledge. They
appropriately implement five steps of observing, questioning,
associating, experimenting and networking that focus on student
centered instruction and able to achieve the desired goal of
English.

REFERENCES
Abdullah Hasan. 2012. Teachers‟ role toward students‟ affective factors in

English teaching and learning process. Journal on English and
Arabic Language Teaching. 4(2):167-176
Abdullah Hasan, Rizky Gushendra and Ferry Yonantha. 2017. The
Influence of Prior Knowledge on Students‘ Listening and
Reading Comprehension. Indonesian Journal of English
Education. 4 (1): 1-15 – 15-15.
Abraham, R. G., & Vann. R.J. 1987. Strategies of two language learners: A
case study. In A.L. Wenden & J. Rubin (eds), Learner Strategies in
Language Learning (pp.85-102) Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice-
Hall.
Adams, S., Burns, M., Adams, S., & Burns, M. 1999. Connecting Student
Learning and Technology. Retrieved from
http://www.southcentralrtec.org/ products/cslt.html.
Akbari, Omid. 2008. Teaching vocabulary items through contextualization
and picture to elementary Iranian EFL students Universiti Putra
Malaysia.
Allen, V. 1983. Techniques in teaching vocabulary. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan, 2005. Standar kompetensi dasar
bahasa Inggeris SMP/SMA.Jakarta
Bade, M. 2008. Grammar and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.),
Lessons from good language learners (pp. 174–184).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bambang Setiadi, Ag. 2004. Redesigning language learning strategy
classification. TEFLIN Journal volume 15, (2), pp. 76-91.
Yogyakarta,

Beghetto, R.A. 2005. Does assessment kill student creativity? The
Educational Forum, 69, 254-263
Bell. D & Kahrhooff, J. 2006. Active learning handbook. Webster
University. St. Louis, Missouri.
Berg, B.L. 1998. Qualitative research method for social sciences. 3rd ed.
Boston Allyn & Bacon
Best, J.W., & Kahn, J.V. 2003. Research in education. Pearson Education
Company, Boston.
Bialystok, E. 1978. A theoretical model of second language learning.

Language Learning, 28, 69-83
Boden, M. 2001. Creativity and knowledge. In A. Craft, B. Jeffrey & M.
Leibling (Eds), Creativity in Education, 95-102, London:
Continuum.
Bonwell, C. & Eison, J. (1991) Active learning : creating excitement in the
classroom. AEHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1.
Washington, D.C.: Jossey-Bass 1-87838-00-87.
Brown, H.Douglas. 2001. Principles of language learning and teaching:
Longman.
Brown, H. Douglas. 1994. Teaching by principles:. Prentice Hall
Regents.
Brown, T.S., & Perry, F.L. Jr 1991. A comparison of three learning
strategies for ESL vocabulary acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 25,
655-670.,
Bryman, A. 2001. Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Burke, C. 2007. Inspiring spaces: creating creative classrooms, Curriculum
Briefing, 5(2), 35-39.

Carol, M., Kaplan, A. & Michael, M. 2001. Performance approach goals:
good for what ,for whom, under what circumstances, and at what
cost? Educational Psychology 93 (1): 30-40
Campbell, D.T., & Stanley, J.C. 1963. Experimental and quasi-experimental
designs for research. Chicago: Rand-McNally& Company.
Cannon, R.A. and Arlianti, R. 2008. Review of education development
models. Report prepared for The World Bank, Jakarta, 30
November 2008.
Carey, S.J., & Bowen, S. 2000. Engaged learning: are we on the same page?
Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/peerreview/pr-
wi05/pr-wi05feature1.cfm
Celce-Murcia, Marianne. 1991. Teaching English as a second or foreign
language: Heinle & Heinle Publisher.
Chamot, A.U., Barnhardt,S., El-Dinary,P.B., & Robbins,J. 1996. Methods
for teaching learning strategies in the foreign language classroom. In
R,I., Oxford (ed.). Language learning strategies around the world:
Cross-cultural perspectives (Tech, Rep. No. 13, pp. 175-187).
Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai Press
Chamot, A.U., & El-Dinary, P.B. 1999. Children‟s learning strategies in
immersion classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83 (3), 319-
341.
Chamot, A.U., & Keatley, C.W. 2004. Learning strategies of students of
less commonly taught languages. Paper presented at the 2004
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Diego, CA.
Chan, A. Y. W. 2005. Tactics employed and problems encountered by
university English majors in Hong Kong in using a dictionary.
Applied Language Learning, 15(1 & 2), 1–27.
Chong Poh Wan, 2003.Effects of cooperative learning on critical thinking
skills and English language efficacy beliefs on pre-service TESl
teachers Ph.D thesis Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Chuzaimah. D. 2011. 3 LS: A model for teaching young learners. TEFLIN
Journal volume 22, (2), pp. 125-149 Yogyakarta.
Cohen, A.D. 1990. Language learning insights for learners, teachers, and
researchers. Boston: Heinlei.
Cohen, A.D. 1998. Strategies in learning and using as Second language.
New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Cohen, A. D. 2003. The learner‟s side of foreign language learning: Where do
styles, strategies, and tasks meet? IRAL, 41(4), 279–291.
Cohen, A. D., & Pinilla-Herrera, A. 2009. Communicating grammatically:
Constructing a learner strategies website for Spanish. In 2009 LTTC
International Conference on English Language Teaching and
Testing. A new look at language teaching and testing: English
as subject and vehicle (pp. 62–74). Taipei: Language Teaching
and Testing Center.
Cohen, A. D., Pinilla-Herrera, A., Thompson, J. R., & Witzig, L. E. (in
press). Communicating grammatically: Evaluating a learner
strategies website for Spanish grammar. CALICO Journal, 29(1).
Cooper, Paul., & Donald-McIntyre. 1998. Effective teaching and learning
teachers‟ and students‟ perspectives. Philadelphia: Open
university press.
Craft, A. 2005. Creativity in schools: tensions and dilemmas. London:
Routlege.
Creswell, John,W. 2008. Educational research. Pearson Education, Inc.,
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Dickinson, L. 1987. Self instruction in language learning. Cambridge
University Press.
Dinica, M. Diniscu, L., Miron, C & Barna, E. 2010. The promotion of
active and creative learning within the context of using information
technology. University of Bucharest, Magurele Str. Atomistilor.
Romania.

Doughty, C.& Williams, J. 1998. Focus on form in classroom and second
language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dreyer,C., & Oxford, R.L. 1996 Learning strategies and other predictors of
ESL proficiency among Afrikaans-speakers in South Africa. In
Oxford, R.L. (Ed), Language learning strategies around the world:
Cross-cultural perspectives (pp.61-74). Manoa: University of
Hawaii Press.
Drozdial-Szelest, K. 1997. Language learning strategies in the process of
acquiring a foreign language. Poznan, Poland; Motives.
Dunkin, M.J., and B.J. Biddle. 1974. The study of teaching. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston Inc.
Dwi Lestari & Nuning Widyaningsih. 2011. LOGIKA English textbook
for SD/MI. CV Viva Pakarindo.
Dykeman, C., Chris W. & Edwin L.H. 2003. Career development
interventions and academic self-efficacy and motivation: A Pilot
Study. National Dissemination Center for Career and Technical
Education the Chio State University. U.S.A.
Edge, Julian. 1993. Essentials of English language teaching:Longman
Group UK Limited.
Ehrman, M.E., & Oxford, R.L. 1990. Adult language learning styles and
strategies in an intensive training setting. Modern Language
Journal, 74, 311
Ehrman, M.E., & Oxford, R.L. 1995. Cognition plus; correlates of adult
language proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 79, 67-89.
El-Dibb,M.A.B. 2004 Language learning strategies in Kuwait; Links to
gender, language level, and culture in a hybrid context. Foreign
Language Annals, 37, 85-95.
Elizabeth A. L. & Pintrich. P.R. 2003. The role of self-efficacy beliefs in
students engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading &
Writing Quarterly, 19: 1197137.

Elley, W.B., and F. Mangubhai. 1983. The impact of reading on second
Language Learning. In Reading research quarterly. XIX.
Erler, L., & Finkbeiner, C. 2007. A review of reading strategies: Focus on
the impact of first language. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.),
Language learner strategies: 30 years of research and practice
(pp. 187–206). Oxford: Oxford University Press
Escribe, C. & Huet, N. 2005. Knowledge accessibility,achievement, Goals
and Memory Strategy Maintenance. British Jounal of
Educational Psychology 7(75) : 87-93.
Esquivel, G.B. 1995. Teacher behaviors that foster creativity, Educational
Psychology Review, 7(2), 185-202.
Farrell, T. C., & Mallard, C. 2006. The use of reception strategies by
learners of French as a foreign language. Modern Language
Journal, 90(3), 338–352.
Feyten, C.M., Flaitz, J.J., & LaRocca, M.A. 1999. Consciousness raising
and strategy use. Applied Language Learning, 10 (1) 15-38.
Fink, L.D. 2003. Creating Significant Learning Experiences : An
Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses. San
Francisco Jossey-Bass
Fisher, R. (1990) Teaching Children to Think. Hemel Hempstead: Simon
& Schuster Education.
Gay, L. R., & Airisian,P. 2003.Educational research competencies for
analysis and application. 7th ed. New Jersey: Prentice hall.
Graddol. 1997. The future of English. London: Gletton Press.
Green, J.M., & Oxford, R. 1995. A closer look at learning strategies, L2
proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29 (2), 261-297.
Griffith, C & Jordan, D. 2005 Strategies for success in ELTS. AIS St.
Helens, Auckland, New Zealand.
Guidelines of Curriculum 2013.

Halliwell, S. 1993. Teaching English in the primary classroom. London:
Longman.
Harlen, W. & Crick, R.D. 2003. Testing and motivation for learning
assessment in education 10,(2): 50-60.
Harmer, Jeremy, 1995. The practice of English language teaching:
Longman.
Harris, V., & Grenfell, M. 2008. Learning to learn languages: The
differential response of learners to strategy instruction. Unpublished
manuscript, London: Department of Educational Studies,
University of London.
Haslam,S.A., & McGarty, C. 2003. Research methods and statistics in
psychology. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Haynes, J. (2007) Freedom and the urge to think in philosophy with
children, in Gifted Education International, Special Edition on
Philosophy with Children, 22 (2/3), 229–38. Bicester: A.B.
Academic Publishers.
Hewitt, Des. 2008. Understanding effective learning strategies for the
classroom. Great Britain: open university press
Ho, P.-Y., & Teng, H.-C. 2007. A study of EFL reading strategies used by
vocational high school students in Taiwan. In Y. Leung et al. (Eds.),
Selected papers from the 16th International Symposium and
Book Fair on English Teaching (pp. 95–103). Taipei: English
Teachers‘ Association, Republic of China.
Ho Wa Kam. 1999. English language teaching in Southeast Asian countries.
Unpublished Paper. Singapore: RELC.
Hsiao,T.Y. 2001. Classifying language learning strategies by learning task.
Paper presented at the 35th Annual Convention of Teachers of
English to Speakers of Other Languages, St. Louis, MO.
Hatch, E.,& Farhady, H. 1982. Research methods and statistics for applied
linguistics, Rowley, MA:Newbury House

Huang, P.-C. 2007. A meta-cognitive approach to the task demands
encountered in business English writing. Taipei: English Teachers‘
Association—Republic of China.
Iwai, C. 2006. Linguistic and pedagogical values of teaching communication
strategies: Integrating the notion of communication strategies with
studies of second language acquisition. Hiroshima: Hiroshima City
University.
Jackson, Sherri,L. 2003. Research methods and statistics a critical thinking
approach.Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc.
Johnson, D.W.,Johnson, R.T, & Smith, K.A. 1998. Active learning:
cooperation in the coolege classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book.
Julian, 1993. Essentials of English language teaching. Longman Group UK
Limited.
Krahnke, Karl. 1987. Approaches to syllabus design for foreign language
teaching: Prentice-Hall.
Lan R., & Oxford, R.L. 2003. Language learning strategy profiles of
elementary school students in Taiwan. International Review of
Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 41, 339-379.
Larsen-Freeman, D. 2001. Teaching grammar. In M Celce-Murcia (Ed.),
Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. (pp. 251-266).
Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Laufer, B. 1997. The lexical plight in second language reading. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lee, H. & Oh, J. 2001. The relationship between attitudes and proficiency in
learning English. English Teaching,55 (4), 389-409
Lee, K.R. & Oxford, R.L 2008 Understanding EFL learners‟ strategy use
and stratega awareness. The Asean EFL Journal Quarterly, 10 (1),
7-32.
Lightbown, M, Patsy and Biba Spada. 1997. How languages are learned:
Oxford University Press.

Littlewood, William. 1991. Communicative language teaching: Cambridge
University Press.
Littlewood, William. 1996. Self-: Why do we want it and what can it do?
London: Longman
Macaro, E., Graham, S., & Vanderplank, R. (2007). A review of
listening strategies: Focus on sources of knowledge and on
success. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner
strategies: 30 years of research and practice (pp. 165–185).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Maclntyre, P.D.,1994. Toward a social psychological model of strategy use.
Foreign Language Annals, 27, 185-195
Maclntyre, P.D., & Noels, K.A. 1996. Using sociap psychological variables
to predict the use of language learning strategies. Foreign Language
Annals, 29, 373-386.
Mahmood,M.A, Tariq. M & Javed, S. 2011. Strategies for active learning:
an alternative to passive learning. Government College
University. Faisalabad, Pakistan.
Malaguzzi, L. 1993. History ideas, and basic philosophy: an interview with
Lella Gandini, in C.Edwards, L.Gandini & G.Forman (Eds.), The
Hundred Languages of Chidren: The Reggio Emilia Approach-
Advanced Reflections, Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing.
Manchón, R. M., Roca de Larios, J., & Murphy, L. 2007. A review of
writing strategies: Focus on conceptualizations and impact of first
language. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner
strategies: 30 years of research and practice(pp. 229–250).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Manfred, W. 2007 The Relationship between the use of metacognitive
language-learning strategies and anguage-learning motivation
among chinese-speaking ESL earners at a Vocational Education
Institute in Hong Kong. The Asean EFL Journal Quarterly, 9 (3),
93-117.

McDonough, Jo and Christopher Shaw. 1998. Material and method in
ELT: Blackwell.
Maleki, A. & Zangani, E. 2007. A Survey on the relationship between
English language proficiency and the academic achievement of
Iranian EFL students. The Asean EFL Journal Quarterly, 9 (1),
64-72.
Mayer, R. 2004. “Should there be a three-strike rule against pure discovery
learning? The case for guided methods of instruction‖
American Psychologist. 59 (1) : 14 – 19.
Michalco, M. 2008. Cracking creativity : the secrets of creative genius.
Amaltea, Bucharest.
Minister of Education and Culture. 1993. Curriculum of basic education.
Basic Program and Development. The department of Education
and Culture. Jakarta.
Mohammed Amin Embi 1997, Language learning strategies used by
secondary school students in Malaysia: A preliminary Study,
Bangi: Fakulti Pendidikan Malaysia.
Mohammed Amin Embi 2000, Language learning strategies, Bangi:
Fakulti Pendidikan, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Mohammed Amin Embi 2000b A web-based learner training model,
Bangi: Fakulti Pendidikan, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Mohammed Amin Embi, Juriah Long & Mohd. Isa Hamzah 2001,
Language learning strategies employed by secondary school students
in Malaysia, Journal of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia.
Morales, M., & Smith, D. J. 2008a. Las imágenes mentales en la adquisición
de la gramática de la segunda lengua: El caso de “ser” y “estar” en
espan˜ol (Mental images in the acquisition of L2 grammar: The case of
ser and estar in Spanish. Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada
a la Ensen˜anza de Lenguas, 2(3), 1–24.

Morales, M., & Smith, D. J. 2008b. Spanish learning strategies of some
good language learners. Porta Linguarum, 9, 167–177.
Morse,J.M. 2003. Principles of mixed method and multi-method research
design. In C.Teddlie and A. Tashakkori, Handbook of Mixed
Methods in Social and Behavioural Research. London: Sage
Mukarto. 2011. Grow with English, Basic English for beginners. Erlangga,
Intimedia.
Nakatani, Y. 2005. The effects of awareness-raising training on oral
communication strategy use. Modern Language Journal,89(1), 76–
91.
Nakatani, Y., & Goh, C. 2007. A review of oral communication strategies:
Focus on interactionist and psycholinguistic perspectives. In A. D.
Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies: 30 years
of research and practice (pp. 207–227). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Naughton, D. 2006. Cooperative strategy training and oral interaction:
Enhancing small group communication in the language classroom.
The Modern Language Journal, 90(2), 169–184.
Nikovola, Daniela 2008, English-teaching in elementary schools in Japan: A
Review of a Current Government Survey, Internatianal
Christian University, Tokyo, Japan.
Nunan, David. 1991. Language teaching methodology: A Textbook for
Teachers. London: Prentice Hall International. (UK) Ltd
Nunan, D.2003. Practical English language teaching. New York: MC
Graw- Hill.
Nyikos, M., & Fan, M. 2007. A review of vocabulary learning strategies: A
focus on language proficiency and learner voice. In A. D. Cohen &
E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies: 30 years of
research and practice (pp. 251–273). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

OECD and EURSTAT 2005. Oslo Manual: The measurement of scientific
and technological activities, guidelines for collecting and interpreting
innovation data (2005, 3rd edition), Paris:OECD.
O‘Harra, K.E.1984. Vocabulary development through language awareness.
New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
O‘Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U., 1990. Learning strategies in second
language acquisition. New York; Cambridge University Press.
O‘Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U., Stewner-Manzanares,G., Russo,R.P., &
Kupper,L. 1985. Learning strategy applications with students of
English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 19. 557-584.
Oxford, R.L., 1990. Language learning strategies; what every teacher should
know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R.L., & Burry-Stock, J.A. 1995. Assessing the use of language
learning strategies Worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning System, 23 (2),153-
175
Oxford ,R,L.., Cho, Y., Leung, S., & Kim, H-J. 2004. Effect of the presence
and difficulty of task on strategy use: An Exploratory Study,
International Review of Applied Linguistics, 42, 1-47.
Oxford ,R,L., & Cohen, A.D. 1992. Language learning strategies: what
every teacher should know. Boston Heinle.
Oxford ,R,L., & Cohen, A.D. 1992. Language learning strategies: Crucial
issues of concept and classification. Applied Language Learning,
1-35
Oxford ,R,L., & Ehrman, M.E. 1995. Adult‟s language learning strategies
in an intensive foreign language program in the United States.
System, 23 (3), 359–386.
Oxford ,R,L., & Leaver, B.L., 1996. Asysthesis of strategy instruction for
language learners. In R.L. Oxford (Ed), Language learning strategy
around the world: Cross-cultural Perspectives (Tech. Rep. No. 13,
pp. 227-246) Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘I Press.

Oxford, R. L., & Lee, K. R. with Park, G. 2007. L2 grammar strategies: The
second Cinderella and beyond. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.),
Language leaner strategies: 30 years of research and practice
(pp. 117–139). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pallant,J. 2001. SPSS Survival manual. A step-by-step guide to data
analysis using SPSS for windows. New South Wales, Australia:
Allen & Unwin.
Pelham, B. W., & Blanton, H. 2007. Conducting research in psychology:
measuring the weight of smoke, 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Thompson
Learning/Wadsworth.
Piaget, J. 1972. To understand is to invent: the future education: New York,
Grossman Publishers.
Pressley, M., & McCormick, C. 1995. Advanced educational
psychology for educators, researchers and policymakers. New York: Harper
Collins
Pressley, M. 2000. What should comprehensioniInstruction of? In M.L.
Kamil, et al. (eds.) Handbook of Reading Research (pp. 545-
561).
Price, C. (2005) Let‟s Do a Play: Eleven Class Plays for Grades 1–5 with
Musical Accompaniments. New York: AWSNA
Rachmajanti, S., G.H. Sulistyo, and Suharmanto. 2000.Analysis of
dominant factors to determine the achievement of elementary school
students in English as a local content. Malang: State University of
Malang.
Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in teaching writing. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Reiss, Jodi, 2005. Teaching content to English languagelLearners, New
York, Longman Pearson Education, Inc.
Richards, Jack C and Theodore S, Rodgers. 2001. Approaches and
methods as language teaching. London; Cambrige University
Press.

Richards, J.C, Olatt, J & Platt, J & Platt,H. 1992 Longman dictionary of
language teaching & Applied Linguistics. Essex. Long man
Richards, J.C.& Schmidt, R. 2002. Longman dictionary of language
teaching and applied linguistics. Essex:Pearson Education.
Rivers, W. M. 1981. Foreign language skills. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Rohaty Mohd.Majzub, Zarina & Abdullah Hasan. 2012. The Effects of
ACEJ Language Learning Streategies Toward Students‘ English
Language Achievement. Research Journal of Applied Sciences 7
(8): 421-425.
Rubin, J. 1981. Study of cognitive process in second language learning,
Applied Linguistics, 11, 117-131.
Rubin, J. 1987. Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research
history and typology.
Rubin, J., Chamot, A. U., Harris, V., & Anderson, N. J. 2007. Intervening
in the use of strategies. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.),
Language learner strategies: 30 years of research and practice
(pp. 141–160). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Runco, M.A. 2003. Education for creative potential, Scandinavian Journal
of Educational Research, 4(3), 317-324.
Runco, M.A. 2007. Creativity: theories and themes: research, development,
and practice. London:Elsevier Academic Press.
Sadtono, E. (Ed.). 1997. The development of TEFL in Indonesia. Malang:
English Department of IKIP MALANG in collaboration with
Bina Budaya Foundation.
Salwa Hj Dato Seri Setia Hj Mahalle. 1999. Students‟ views towards
achievement motivation: A case study of selected secondary schools in
Brunei Darusssalam, International Islamic University Malaysia.

Santoso, H.B. 2004. English performance of Junior High School students
with different educational backgrounds. Unpublished S-2 Thesis.
Malang: Graduate Program, State University of Malang.
Savigon, Sandra J. 1983. Communicative competence: theory and classroom
practice. California: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Scarcella, R.C., & Oxford, R.L., 1992. The tapestry of language learning:
The Individual in the Communicative Classroom. Boston:
Heinle.
Scott, W.A. and L.H. Ytreberg. 1990. Teaching English to children. New
York: Longman.
Scott, T.E. 1999. Knowledge. In M.A. Runco and S.R. Prizker (Eds.),
Encyclopedia od Creativity (Vol.2.), 119-130. San Diego, CA:
Academic.
Sharp, C. 2004. Developing young children‟s creativity: what can we learn
from research? Topic, 32,5-12.
Shen, H. A. 2008. An analysis of word decision strategies among learners of
Chinese. Foreign Language Annals, 41(3), 501–524.
Simonton, D.K. 1990. History, chemistry, psychology, and genius: An
intellectual autobiography of historiometry. In R.S. Albert & M.A.
Runco (Eds.), Theories of creativity, 92-115. Newbury Park;
London: Sage Publications.
Simplicio, L.S.C. 2000. Teaching classroom educators how to be more
effective and creative teachers, Education, 120(4), 675-680.
Smaldino,Sharon E, Lowther D.L, & Russel James D 2008. Instructional
technology and media for learning. Pearson Prentice Hall
Spada, N. 1997. Form focused instruction and second language acquisition:
A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching,
29: 1-15.Vygotsky, L.S. 1987. The Collected Works of L.S.
Vygotsky (vol. 1 ).New York:Plenum

Sri Rachmayanti. 2008. Impact of English instruction at the elementary
schools on the students‟ achievement of English at the lower
secondary school. TEFLIN Journal volume 19, (2), pp. 125-149.
Yogyakarta.
Sternberg, R.J. and Lubart, T.I. 1999. The concept of creativity: Prospects
and paradigms. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity,
pp. 3-15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Suwarsih, 2002. Developing Standard for EFL in Indonesia as Part of the
EFL Teaching Reform, TEFLIN Journal, Vol. 3 Number 2
Yogyakarta.
Sweller, J. 1988. Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning.
Cognitive Science 12 (1):257-258.
Syahdan .2012. Compensatory strategies of first language attrited children.
TEFLIN Journal volume 23, (1), pp. 125-149. Yogyakarta.
Thompson, I., & Rubin, J. 1996. Can strategy instruction improve listening
comprehension? Foreign Langguage Annals, 29. 331-342.
Turian, D. & Alternberg, E.P. 1991. Compensatory strategies of child first
language attrition. In H.W.Seliger and R.M. Vago (Eds.), First
Language Attrition (pp. 207-26). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Uhrig, K. 2006. Sociocognitive influences on strategies for using language in
English for academic purposes: Two case studies. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.
Vandergrift, L., & Tafaghodatari, M. H. 2010. Teaching L2 learners how
to listen does make a difference: An empirical study. Language
Learning, 60(2), 470–497.
Vrasidas, C.. 2000. Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for
interaction, course design and evaluation in distance education.
International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(4), 339-
362.

Weatherford, H.J. 1990. Techniques for learning vocabulary. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Weisberg, R.W. 1999. Creativity and knowledge: a challenge of theories. In
R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity, 226-250.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wenden, A.L. 2003. Conceptual backgroud and utility. In A. Wenden &
J.Rubin (Eds), Learner Strategies in Language Learning (pp.3-
13) Englewood Cliffs, J: Prentice-Hall.
Weinsten, C.E., & Mayer, R.E. 1986. The Teaching of learning strategies.
In M. Wittrock (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd
ed., pp. 315-327) New York: Macmillan.
West, M.A. and Richards, T. 1999. Innovation. In M.A. Runco and S.R.
Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity, 45-56. San Diego,
CA: Academic.
Winne P.H. 2004. Comments on motivation in real-life, Dynamic, and
Interactive learning Environments: Theoretical and
Methodological Challenges When Researching Motivation in
Context. European Psychologist 9 (4): 257-263.
Wu, H.-F., & Gitsaki, C. 2007. Taiwanese EFL junior college learners‟ use of
oral communication strategies. In Y. Leung et al. (Eds.), Selected
papers from the 16th International Symposium and Book Fair
on English Teaching (pp. 259–268). Taipei: English Teachers‘
Association–Republic of China.
Wu, Vivian Wen-chi and Pin-hsiang Natalie Wu 2008. Creating and
authentic EFL learning environment to enhance student motivation
to study English. Chien-kuo Technology University, Taiwan.
Wu, Ya-Ling, 2008. Language learning strategies used by students at
different proficiency levels, National Chin-yi University of
Technology, Taiwan

Yang, M.N. 2007. Language Learning Strategies for Junior College Students
in Taiwan: Investigating Ethnicity and Proficiency. The Asean EFL
Journal Quarterly, 9 (2), 35-57.
Yang, N.D. 1995. Effective awareness-raising in language learning strategy
training. ERIC Document Reproduction Services NO.ED
392278.
Zainil. 2003. Language teaching methods: Universitas Negeri Padang
Press.
Zainil. 2004.. Action and function method: Universitas Negeri Padang
Press.
Zainil. 2005.. Communicative language teaching of English: Universitas
Negeri Padang Press.
Zhang, L. J., Gu, P. Y., & Hu, G. 2008. A cognitive perspective on
Singaporean primary school pupils‟ use of reading strategies in
learning to read English. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 78(2), 245–271.

Abdullah Hasan - Language Learning Teacher Strategies PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abdullah Hasan - Language Learning Teacher Strategies PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abdullah Hasan - Language Learning Teacher Strategies PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the book about?

What is the book about?

What approach does the book discuss for teaching?

What approach does the book discuss for teaching?

Penulis : H. Abdullah Hasan

Layout : Jonri Kasdi

vi, 105 hal (155x230mm)

Lingkup Hak Cipta

1. Barang siapa dengan sengaja melanggar dan tanpa hak melakukan

This book is especially presented for teachers or teachers

UIN Sultan Syarif Kasim Riau, January 2018

PREFACE ................................ iii

Learning strategies are thoughts and actions we engage in,

Language Learning & Teaching Strategies For Young Learners 1

2 Language Learning & Teaching Strategies For Young Learners

One can hardly deny that English plays a very important

Language Learning & Teaching Strategies For Young Learners 3

4 Language Learning & Teaching Strategies For Young Learners

Language Learning & Teaching Strategies For Young Learners 5

TEACHER PROBLEMS IN TEACHING ENGLISH.

The fundamental goal of English teachers at primary

6 Language Learning & Teaching Strategies For Young Learners

Language Learning & Teaching Strategies For Young Learners 7

8 Language Learning & Teaching Strategies For Young Learners

FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEMS.

Based on the problems mentioned dealing with student

Language Learning & Teaching Strategies For Young Learners 9

Learning strategies are the thoughts and actions we engage

10 Language Learning & Teaching Strategies For Young Learners

Language Learning & Teaching Strategies For Young Learners 11

12 Language Learning & Teaching Strategies For Young Learners

Language Learning & Teaching Strategies For Young Learners 13

14 Language Learning & Teaching Strategies For Young Learners

Oxford (1990) divides strategies into two major classes:

III. Social Strategies

FIGURE. 2.1 Diagram of the Strategy System: Overview

‗The direct strategies’ are the language learning strategies

Language Learning & Teaching Strategies For Young Learners 15

A. Creating mental linkages

Indirect strategies refer to language learning strategies

16 Language Learning & Teaching Strategies For Young Learners

FIGURE 2.3. Diagram of Indirect Strategies (Oxford 1990:18)

Oxford (1990) classifies language learning strategies into

Language Learning & Teaching Strategies For Young Learners 17

Memory strategies are techniques that facilitate learners‘

18 Language Learning & Teaching Strategies For Young Learners

Cognitive strategies are strategies that involve

Language Learning & Teaching Strategies For Young Learners 19

20 Language Learning & Teaching Strategies For Young Learners

Compensation strategies are behaviors that help the

Language Learning & Teaching Strategies For Young Learners 21

Meta-cognitive strategies are those behaviors that involve

22 Language Learning & Teaching Strategies For Young Learners

Affective strategies are those used for controlling emotions,

Language Learning & Teaching Strategies For Young Learners 23

Social strategies are the strategies that involve other people

24 Language Learning & Teaching Strategies For Young Learners

Language Learning & Teaching Strategies For Young Learners 25