THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CO-OP JIGSAW TEAM PROJECTS TO TEACH

SPEAKING VIEWED FROM STUDENTS' SPEAKING ANXIETY

Diaz Innova Citra Arum, Ngadiso, Sujoko

English Education Department of Graduate School
Sebelas Maret university
diaz.citraarum@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
This article reveals an experiment study to teach speaking in a senior high school
in East Java. It discusses about the effectiveness of Coop Jigsaw Team Projects to teach
speaking influenced by students speaking anxiety. It also shows whether there is
interaction or not between teaching method and students speaking anxiety in student
speaking skill. The population of this research was the tenth grade students. The sample
of this research was 40 students of experimental group taught using Coop Jigsaw team
projects and 40 students of control group taught using Direct Instruction. The sampling
applied was cluster random sampling. To obtain the data of students speaking score, a
speaking test was conducted and a close questionnaire was used to obtain the data of
students speaking anxiety. Then, those data were analyzed through descriptive and
inferential analysis using ANOVA and Tukey test. The research findings are as follows:
(1) Coop jigsaw Team projects is more effective that Direct instruction method to teach
speaking for the tenth grade students; (2) both students with low and high speaking
anxiety have similar speaking skill; and (3) there is an interaction between teaching
methods and students speaking anxiety in teaching speaking for the tenth grade
students.
Keywords: speaking, Coop Jigsaw Team Projects, Direct instruction, Students speaking
anxiety, experimental study.
INTRODUCTION
An effective speaking activity involves

pronounce

active students to participate and create

speakgrammatically

ideal

many vocabularies so that their diction

condition of English speaking class

is good, speak fluently, and they should

involves the students effectiveness in

be able to understand everything they

participating

say.

life

communication.

teaching

The

and

learning

process. Besides that, they should be

able to master all aspects of speaking,
which

consist

grammatical

of

accuracy,

pronunciation,
vocabulary,

fluency, and content relevance.It means

that the students should be able to

all

utterances
correct,

clearly,
master

Practically, teachers must be aware

that students still face many problems
in learning speaking.There are a lot of
problems faced by Indonesian students
in

learning

English

especially

in

speaking skill. Some problems that are

faced by many students of tenth grade

also more complete, compels testers to

are they often get nervous to speak in

take a variety of factors into account,

front of many people when they are

and contains the analytic score that the

asked to present their work to their

performance

is

friends. It is a little bit easier when they

under

language

have

pronunciation,

to

present

it

by

their

own

the

language, but they will feel hard when

fluency,

they

scale.

have

to

speak

English.

Some

and

The

observed

separately

components:

grammar,

vocabulary,

comprehension

researcher

uses

in

1-5

content

students get anxious symptom when

instead of comprehension since she

they are asked to show their speaking

wants to score the students in one-way

skill.

speaking.

They

are

afraid

of

others

perception when they make mistakes

whether it is on purpose or not.

Based on the problem that most

students at tenth grade face, they need

Clark and Clark (1997: 223) states

some classroom activities which enable

that speaking is a process of uttering

them

words,

sentences,

participate in oral interactions.Besides

meaningfully using oral language in

using different methods from time to

order to give information and ideas. It is

time, teachers of English also try to find

clear that speaking is not just producing

out the most effective method to help

sound but there must be a meaning of

the students master English easily and

that sound production which is going to

effectively. The teacher cannot only

be

deliver

phrases,

delivered

and

by

the

speakers.

The

to

develop

the

lesson

their

skills

through

to

oral

aspects analyzed in oral competence

explanation and writing on the board,

stated by Weir (1998: 147-148) are

but alsobe as creative as possible in

appropriateness, vocabulary, grammar,

choosing method to help them deliver

pronunciation, fluency, and content. To

the material of English more effectively.

master speaking, students are claimed

to have all those aspects. Those aspects
are

also

used

to

score

students

speaking skill so that teachers are able

to measure whether the students have
already been good enough or not yet. In
this

study,

analytical

the

scoring

researcher
by

Haris.

adapts
Haris

scoring rubric is used in this research

because the language is much more
understandable, this scoring rubric is

The researcher gets the idea firstly

from getting inspired by Spencer and
Kagan that create classic cooperative
learning. Cooperative learning can be
one of the alternatives to cope with the
students speaking difficulty.
Based on the problems above, the
researcherconsiders

using

one

of

cooperative learning method that called

Coop Jigsaw Team Projects to solve the

problems. This method divides the

Besides all problem stated above,

students into some teammates. Each

language anxiety also has very big

teammate will get team topics and each

influence

student in it will have an expert topic to

process of speaking. Horwitz (cited in

be

discussion,

Talebinejad and Nekouei, 2013: 1) states

teammates will have a chance to present

that anxiety is the subjective feeling of

their last project in front of the class.

tension,

Based on the steps of Coop Jigsaw Team

and worry associated with an arousal of

Projects above, this kind of cooperative

the automatic nervous system. Mesri

learning is very suitable method to be

(2012: 1) states that Foreign language

applied to tenth grade students of

anxiety is widely used to describe the

Senior

feeling of tension and apprehension,

discussed.

High

curriculum

After

School

because

using

this

2013

method

is

students-centered and integrated skill.

Another method that is usually
used by teacher in teaching speaking is
Direct Instruction Method. This method
is teacher-centered that is dominated by
the teacher to take a part in teaching
and learning process. Students do not
have

many

chances

to

show

their

in

teaching

and

apprehension,

learning

nervousness,

which is specifically associated with

foreign

language

learning

contexts,

including listening, speaking, reading,

and writing. It can be concluded that
students language anxiety in speaking
is students feeling of tension and
apprehension,
associated

which

with

is

specifically

speaking

foreign

language.

speaking skill. According to Arends

Foreign Language anxiety is used

(2000: 264), Direct Instructional model

because it can represent an emotionally

is a teaching model that is aimed at

andphysically uncomfortable experience

helping students learn basic skills and

for some students in EFL classes. If the

knowledge that can be taught in a step-

students are very anxious in class,they

by-step fashion. From the definition

are probably not actively involved in

above it can be concluded that Direct

teaching learning process. It is because

Instruction takes learners through the

anxiety

steps of learning systematically, helping

problems for EFL students so that it can

them see both the purpose and the

interfere with the acquisition, retention,

result of each step. The teacher usually

and production of new language. To

spends some time lecturing, breaks the

reduce

problems down into some steps, and

teachers should be able to create a

gives students problems that should be

comfortable atmosphere in teaching and

accomplished on their own.

learning process. As stated by Johnson,

poses

students

several

speaking

potential

anxiety,

Johnson,&Holubec (1990); Oxford (1997)

and Slavin (1991) in Duxbury and Ling-

In techniques of analyzing data,

ling Journal (2010), cooperative learning

the researcher used descriptive and

has been suggested as one possible

inferential analysis.Descriptive analysis

means

was used to know the mean, median,

of

reducing

anxiety

in

classrooms.

mode, and standard deviation of the

students

RESEARCH METHOD

scores

in

speaking

test.

Inferential analysis was applied to test

This research was included as an

the hypothesis. Before that, it was

experimental research with quantitative

necessary to know datas normality and

approach since the purpose of this

homogeneity.

research was investigating some cause-

tested the hypothesis by using ANOVA

and-effect interactions of a number of

and Tukey test. Anova was used to find

variables. It is supported by Fraenkel et.

out the difference between columns and

Al.,

rows. Tukey test was used to identify

(2009:

261)

that

experimental

The

research is type of research that directly

the

attempts

groups or cells.

to

influence

particular

significant

researcher,

difference

then,

between

variable, and when properly applied, it

is the best type for testing hypotheses

RESEARCH FINDINGS
After gathering the research data,

about cause and effect relationship.

In this research, the population
was the tenth grade students. The
researcher took 2 classes consisting 40
students for each to be experimental
group and control group as the sample.
To achieve the research finding, the
researcher needed data to be analysed.
The

required

data

were

students

speaking score to measure the students

speaking skill and speaking anxiety
questionnaire to know the level of
students speaking anxiety.To obtain the
data, it was needed some instruments.
They were speaking test to obtain the
students speaking score and close-

the researcher required to test the

datas normality and homogeneity. The
data are in normal distribution if L o is
lower than Ltin the level of significance

= 0.05. Based on table 1, it can be

identified that the data are in normal
distribution.
Table 1. Summary of Normality Test
No

Variables

Number
of Data

Lo

Lt

Description

1
2
3

A1
A2
B1

40
40
40

0.124
0.091
0.116

0.140
0.140
0.140

Normal
Normal
Normal

B2

40

0.117

0.140

Normal

A1B1

20

0.148

0.190

Normal

6
7
8

A1B2
A2B1
A2B2

20
20
20

0.102
0.109
0.139

0.190
0.190
0.190

Normal
Normal
Normal

The

data

are

considered

questionnaire to obtain the data of

homogeneous when o2 (obtain) is lower

students speaking anxiety.

than t2 (table) at the level of significance

= 0.05. Based on data calculation, it

can be identified that the data are

significance = 0.05. It means the

homogeneous.

difference

Table 2. Summary of Homogeneity Test

between

columns

is

significant. Ho is rejected. It can be

Sample

Df

1/df

19

0.0526

26.57

1.42

27.06

19

0.0526

21.89

1.34

25.47

19

0.0526

26.73

1.43

27.11

than Direct Instruction method to

19

0.0526

45.25

1.66

31.46

teach speaking.

76

0.2105

log

df log

concluded that Coop Jigsaw team

111.10

projects method is more effective

2.

2.94

Fo between rows (1.12) is lower than

Ft(3.664) at the level significance =

7.82

0.05.

After fulfilling the requirement of

It

means

the

difference

between rows is not significant. Ho

normality and homogeneity, the data

is accepted.

It can be concluded

were analyzed by using Multifactor

that the difference of speaking skill

Analysis of Variance 2x2 (ANOVA). Ho is

between the students with low level

rejected if Fo is higher than Ft. It means

of

there is a significant effect of two

students with high level of speaking

independent

anxiety is not significant.

variable.

variables

After

to

knowing

dependent
that

Ho

is

3.

rejected, the analysis is continued by

speaking

anxiety

and

the

Fo interaction (7.23) is higher than

Ft(3.664) at the level significance =

performing the comparison between

0.05. It means there is interaction

cells using Tukey test to see where the

between the two variables: teaching

significant difference is.

techniques and self-concept. Ho is

Table 3. Summary of Multifactor Analysis of

Variance (ANOVA) 2 x 2
Source of
variance
Between
columns
(A1-A2)
Between
rows
(B1-B2)
Column by
row
(interactio
n)
Between
group
Within
Group
Total

rejected.

SS

df

MS

Fo

Ft
(0.05)

Status

204.80

204.8

6.80

3.664

Ho is
rejected

33.80

217.80

33.8

217.8

456.40

152

2288.40

76

30.15

2744.80

79

Ho is
rejected

7.23

with

of teaching methods on students

speaking performance depends on
the level of speaking anxiety.
Table 4. Summary of Tukey Test
No

Data

Sample

qo

qt

Status

1.
2.

A1 and A2
B1 and B2

80
80

3.69
1.50

2.86
2.86

Significant
Not Significant

3.

A1B1 and A2B1

40

5.30

2.95

Significant

4.

A1B2 and A2B2

40

0.08

2.95

Not Significant

From the analysis of Tukey test, it

Based on the table, it can be concluded

can be concluded as follows:

that:

1.

1.

the

result, it can be said that the effect

Ho is
accepte
d

1.12

Accordance

Because qo between columns A1-

Fo between columns (6.80) is higher

A2(3.69) is higher than qt (2.86) at

than

the level of significance = 0.05, the

Ft(3.664)

in

the

level

of

difference

2.

between

columns

is

teaching

speaking

using

Coop

significant. Further, the mean score

Jigsaw Team Projects and Direct

of A1 (82.30) is higher than the

Instruction for students having high

mean score of A2(79.10). Hence, it

level of speaking anxiety is not

can be concluded that Coop Jigsaw

significant. It can be infered that the

Team Projects is more effective to

students with high speaking anxiety

teach

get similar speaking performance

speaking

than

Direct

Instruction.

when they are taught using Coop

Because qo between rows B1- B2

Jigsaw Team

(1.50) is lower than qt (2.86) at the

Instruction.

Projects or

Direct

level of significance = 0.05, the

difference between columns is not
significant.

3.

be

The research reveals that Coop

concluded that the students having

Jigsaw team projects is more effective

los speaking anxiety have similar

than

speaking performance with those

speaking. Logically, Coop Jigsaw Team

having high speaking anxiety.

Project is an effective method applied in

Because qo between columns A1B1

teaching speaking of ESL instead of

and A2B1 (5.30) is higher than qt

Direct Instruction since CJTP claims the

(32.95) at the level of significance

students to be more active in the class.

As

0.05,

teaching

4.

Hence,

the

it

can

DISCUSSION

difference

speaking

between

using

Coop

Direct

known,

speaking

Instruction

an

class

ideal
is

to

teach

condition
the

of

students

Jigsaw Team Projects and Direct

effectiveness in participating teaching

Instruction for students with low

and learning process. Students should

speaking

actively

anxiety

is

significant.

participate

in

classroom

Further, the mean score of A1B1

activities since speaking is an activity

(84.60) is higher than the mean

that asks the students to get along in

score of A2B1(78.10). Hence, it can

class and talk a lot. As stated by Clark

be infered that Coop Jigsaw Team

and Clark (1997: 223), speaking is a

Projects

process of uttering words, phrases, and

is

more

effective

than

Direct Instruction to teach speaking

sentences,

for the students with low speaking

language in order to give information

anxiety.

and ideas. Students are claimed to utter

Because qo between columns for

words means that they should talk to

A1B2 and A2B2(0.08) is lower than qt

share ideas or information. If students

(2.95) at the level of significance =

want

0.05,

the

difference

between

to

meaningfully

get

using

successful

oral

speaking

performance,

they

should

practice

talking many times.

chance to express their creative ideas

and share it to other members.

Coop Jigsaw Team Projects is

On

the

contrary,

Direct

the combination of Co-op Co-op and

Instruction method is done under the

Jigsaw

is

teachers

strict

direction

included in cooperative approach that

students

must

follow

divides

structure with specific steps to guide

elements.
the

This

students

method
into

some

the

definite

teammates. Slavin (1990: 3) states that

them

cooperative approach shares the idea

outcomes. As stated by Carnine in Miller

that students work together to learn

(2001: 3), Direct Instruction is a method

and responsible for their teammates

of skill-oriented and teacher-directed. It

learning as well as their own. Therefore,

emphasizes the use of small group, face

it persuades all the students to work

to face instruction by teachers and aides

together to solve the problems given. It

using carefully articulated lessons in

also encourages them to be able to

which cognitive skills are broken down

understand and master the task. This

into small units, sequenced deliberately,

method gives a chance for them that

and

need time to think individually before

emphasizes in the teaching direction on

going to discuss it in a group.

classroom activities. Students totally

Students

taught

achieving

explicitly.

learning

This

method

many

take a concern on teachers explanation.

English,

In this case, teacher has an important

especially speaking. Many factors will

role in the implementation of Direct

influence their ability, for example;

Instruction method. She takes control of

students anxiety, students self-esteem,

the class condition. It is also supported

students basic knowledge, etc. CJTP has

by Harmer (2001: 94) that there is

a chronological steps allowing students

nothing wrong with teachers getting

to think individually, share it to the

involved, of course, provided they do

group and present it to the larger one

not start to dominate. It means that it

that ease the students having difference

does not matter if teacher has control in

characteristics to learn speaking much

the class activities as long as students

better. As stated by Kagan and Kagan

still able to get chance to show their

(2009: 17.14), CJTP has the advantage of

oral ability.

characteristics

producing

have

toward

and

in

learning

expression

and

allowing

Teaching learning procedures in

comprehensive coverage of a topic while

Direct

allowing

creative

providing objectives of the lesson. Then,

allowing

application-level

expression

and

thinking.

Hence, all members have the same

teacher

Instruction
presents

are
step

started
by

by
step

information or material to the class.

Next, teacher gives tasks for guiding

control in the class, students do not

practice to the students. At last, teacher

have many chances to practice or show

checks the students understanding of

their ability.

the lesson and give feedback. The

So, from the discussion and the

teachers domination in the teaching

result

and

concluded

learning

process

makes

the

of

this

research,

that

Coop

it

can

Jigsaw

be

Team

students passive so that they cannot

Projects is more effective than Direct

practice ESL for often. So, it makes the

Instruction in teaching speaking for

ideal condition of speaking class is hard

tenth grade students.

to be achieved since the students do not

The second result of this study

actively talk and share their ideas in the

shows

that

class.

difference in

there

is

no significant

speaking between

the

In relation with the discussion

students having low level of speaking

above, it can be concluded that there are

anxiety and those having high level of

some differences between Coop Jigsaw

speaking anxiety. In a learning process,

team projects and Direct Instruction

the students with low level of anxiety

method. In the implementation of CJTP,

tend to be able to come up with a high

students are claimed to be more active

confidence in speaking rather than the

than the teacher. They are asked to

students with high level of anxiety. As a

practice

when

result, students having low speaking

Direct Instruction is applied in the class.

anxiety will express his ideas and speak

Students are given chance to think

more confident in front of others.

individually, then share it to their group

Students who have low speaking anxiety

and presents it to the whole students. It

seem to be more active in class because

trains

low

they do not have any problem in

confidence and high level of anxiety to

producing new language. They are not

present it to the small group before

afraid of making mistakes. They are

going to the larger one. The role of the

willing to take a risk in every word they

teacher in the implementation of CJTP

say.

is only as a learning facilitator.

speaking anxiety tend to be more silent.

more

the

speaking

students

who

than

have

However,

students

with

high

On the other hand, the activities

They are afraid of producing wrong new

stated before do not happen in the

language. They avoid getting comment

implementation of Direct Instruction. In

from their friends or teacher that will

this method, teachers have bigger role

make them down. However, comment

than the students. They tend to more

from other friends will establish their

dominated in controlling the activities

speaking skill.

in the class. Since teachers take more

After conducting this research,

influence students performance, the

it is found that the students having high

students should be able to manage their

level of speaking anxiety have almost

anxiety so that they are not getting

similar result with those who have low

burdened with it. It is linked with the

level of speaking anxiety on speaking

first factor that causes anxiety that is

performance. The logical reason behind

students

this result is that students speaking

influence their speaking performance.

anxiety is uncertain aspect that is able

Horwitz (2001: 128) states that anxiety

to

performance

can lead the students to make error

whether will give a better performance

even for the bright students. It means

or not depending on any conditions.

that students with high level of English

Williams (2008: 1) claims that although

proficiency do not always have good

there are some kind of anxiety which

English performance if they have a high

give

students

level of anxiety and they can not control

learning, there can be a good kind of

it. As stated by Griffin and Tyrrell

anxiety that is facilitating anxiety which

(2007:5) that the students will reach

can give positive effect on students

optimal performance if they can control

learning. It means that students having

their

low language anxiety will not always

instead of being controlled by it.

influence

bad

students

contribution

to

characteristics.

anxiety

into

It

positive

can

feeling

have better speaking performance than

The example of how to manage

students having high level of speaking

students anxiety into positive feeling is

anxiety depending on how they manage

when they are lack of preparation. The

their speaking anxiety.

study conducted by Marwan (2007: 48)

The

there

reveled that lack of preparation was the

were some factors causing speaking

primary causes of students anxiety. The

anxiety in some researches. It is also

purpose of the preparation is to make

supported by Liu (2007: 128) that there

the quality of the subsequent speaking

were

reach a higher level than it would

two

researcher

main

found

factors

that

cause

speaking anxiety. The first is learners

without

characteristics

&Newton,

such

as

low

English

the

preparation

2009:

155).

(Nation
Therefore,

proficiency, lack of preparation, lack of

preparation is seem to be important

practice, fear of making mistakes and

when going to give a presentation orally

being laughed at, and personality. The

especially for the anxious students. The

second factor is classroom procedures

preparation itself is different from one

including teaching method.

student

Since
uncertain

speaking

aspect

that

anxiety
is

able

to

another.

Some

students

is

study hard, train themselves to perform

to

their speaking in front of mirror or their

close friends, and many others. A good

there are many things that have to be

preparation will lead to a good speaking

taken into consideration. One of those

performance.

things is students speaking anxiety.

Related to the discussion above,

it

reveals

that

speaking anxiety

is

Speaking anxiety can influence

students

speaking

performance.

uncertain in any conditions. All of the

Students with low level of anxiety will

students can manage their Speaking

be

anxiety

implementation

to

improve

their

speaking

very

suitable
of

CJTP

in

the

classroom

role in helping them. In conclusion, not

characteristics that are confident and

all the students having low level of

more active. As stated by Horwitz, cited

speaking anxiety have better speaking

in Tallon, (2011), if the students are

skills. From the result, it can be stated

very anxious in class, they are probably

that the difference in speaking between

not

the

learning

having

low

level

of

actively

considering

the

ability. Therefore, teachers have a great

students

by

with

involved

process.
has

their

in

teaching

Foreign

language

speaking anxiety and those having high

anxiety

been

found

to

have

level of speaking anxiety for the tenth

potential negative effects on academic

grade students.

achievement, cognitive processes, the

The third result of this study

social context, and the reaction for the

reveals that there is interaction between

language learner. It means students with

teaching methods and speaking anxiety

low level of anxiety tend to be more

in

Appropriate

active and often get involved in the

teaching methods can give a significant

class. They will practice speaking with

effect

speaking

no doubt. It indicates that the students

appropriate

with low speaking anxiety are more

teaching methods is Coop Jigsaw Team

appropriate to be taught by using Coop

projects. This method is cooperative

Jigsaw Team Projects.

teaching
on

performance.

speaking.
the

students

One

of

method that can increase students

Students with high level of

confidence to speak in front of many

anxiety tend to be less confident and

people. It is supported by Barkley et al.

stay silent in the class rather than those

(2005: 156) that this teaching method

having low anxiety. They are afraid of

trains the students to work in small

making mistakes, getting feedback from

groups

about

the teacher or their friends, and also

given topic and formulating effective

scared of procuring negative evaluation.

ways of teaching it to others. This is

All those fears guide them into passive

able to increase students speaking

performance. As stated by Zeidners

performance. Besides teaching methods,

(1998: 293), people with high levels of

developing

knowledge

trait anxiety are often quite easily

Therefore, both student-centered and

stressed and anxious. Students in this

teacher-centered methods give the same

case will talk less and give the control to

effect to the students with high level of

the teacher. These characteristics is

speaking anxiety. Those methods can

suitable with the implementation of

increase

Direct Instruction in the teaching and

performance. It is also supported by

learning process since DI is teacher-

findings of this research that the result

centered method that does not claim

of Tukey Test of students with high

the students to be more active in the

level of speaking anxiety who were

class since teacher takes control of the

taught by using Coop Jigsaw Team

whole class activites. However, Williams

Projects and Direct Instruction is not

(2008: 1) claims that although there are

significant that means they have similar

some kind of anxiety which give bad

speaking performance.

students

speaking

contribution to students learning, there

can be a good kind of anxiety, that is
facilitating

anxiety

which

can

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION

give

As the research result and the

positive effect on students learning.

discussion

Thus, the teachers real job would be to

findings are follows: (1) Coop Jigsaw

help students keep adequate anxiety,

Team Projects is more effective than

neither too high nor too low, because a

Direct Instruction to teach speaking at

proper level of anxiety plays a positive

the tenth grade students; (2) There is no

role and can motivate students to

significant difference in speaking skill

maintain their efforts in learning.

between the students having low level

Logically,

the

of speaking anxiety and those who have

better

high level of speaking anxiety of the

speaking performance than students

tenth grade students; (3) There is an

having high speaking anxiety. However,

interaction between teaching methods

it is not totally right. When students are

and

able to control their anxiety, their

teaching speaking at the tenth grade

speaking

students.

of

anxiety

will

performance

influenced.

To

with

above,

low

level

students

elaborated

have

will

manage

not

be

students

students

Dealing

speaking

with

anxiety

the

in

research

speaking anxiety, the implementation of

findings,Coop Jigsaw Team Projects can

teaching method will be very helpful.

give effect to students speaking skills.

Based on the characteristics of CJTP and

The result of the research has proven

DI,

the

that the students who are taught using

students having high level of speaking

Coop Jigsaw Team Projects have better

both

anxiety

to

methods
get

will

better

guide

performance.

speaking skills than those who are

Foreign Language Anxiety: A

taught using Direct Instruction.

Comparative

The activities of Coop Jigsaw team

Study

Taiwanese

and

of

American

Projects push the students to be more

Universities.

active

Journal of Instruction, Vol.3.

and

cooperative

in

learning

speaking since CJTP is a cooperative

teaching

approach

that

claims

International

Fraenkel J. R., and Wallen N. E. (2009).

the

How to Design and Evaluate

students to be more active in speaking

Research in Education: Seventh

and sharing their ideas.The students are

Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill

giventime to work with the topic given

Companies, Inc.

individually before they come to the

Griffin, J., and Tyrrell, I. (2007).How to

group (small group). CJTP pushes the

Master

Anxiety

(A

students to work together with their

Handbook). United kingdom: HG

friends in their team. The students get

Publishing,

good opportunity to gain and explore

human Givens Publishing Ltd.

an

Practical

imprint

of

their ideas in their team. All students in

Harmer, J. (2001).How to Teach English

a team have the same opportunity to

(An Introduction to the Practice

share

of English Language Teaching).

and

gain

knowledge

and

to

practice their speaking before come in

front of the class (larger group).

Malaysia: VVP.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J.
A.

(1986).

Foreign

Language

REFERENCES

Classroom Anxiety. The Modern

Arends, Richard I. (2000). Learning to

Language Journal, Vol. 70.

Teach

Fifth

Edition.Boston:

Kagan, S., and Kagan, M. (2009).Kagan

McGraw Hill.

Cooperative

Barkley, E. F., Cross K. P., and Major C.

H.

(2005).

Learning

Collaborative

Techniques.

Learning.

San

Clemente: Kagan Publishing.

Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1975).

United

Learning Together and Alone.

States of America: John Wiley &

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice

Sons, Inc.

Hall.

Clark, H. Herbert & Clark, V. Eve.(1997).

Psychology

and

Hartcourt:

Liu, Meihua. (2007). Anxiety in Oral

Language.

English

HartcourtBracec

Study

Jovanich, Inc.
The

Cooperative

in

China.

Case

Indonesian

Journal of English Language

Doxbury, John G., and Ling-ling T.

(2010).

Classrooms:

Effect

of

Learning

on

Teaching.Volume 3.
Marwan

A.

(2007).

Students

Investigating

Foreign

Language

Anxiety. Malaysian Journal of

ELT research, Vol. 3.
Mesri,

F.

(2012).The

Relationship

Foreign

Classroom

Miller,

(1998).Communicative

Prentice Hall.
Williams, K.E. (2008). Is Facilitating
Anxiety All in Your Head?

(FLCA).

Sophia Junior College Faculty

Journal

of

Journal. Vol. 28.

Academic Research in Business

Zeidner, M. (1998).Test Anxiety (The

and Social Sciences June 2012,

State of the Art). New York,

Vol. 2.

Boston,

James

H.

(2001).

Direct

Instruction and the Teaching of

Early Reading. Winconsin Policy
Research

Institute

Report.

Volume 14.
Nation,I.S.P.

&Newthon,

Teaching

J.

ESL/EFL

(2009).
Listening/

Speaking. New York: Routledge.

Slavin,

J.

Language

Anxiety

International

Cyril

Language Testing. New York:

between Gender and Iranian EFL

Learners

Weir,

R.

E.

(1990).

Cooperative

Learning: Theory, Research, and

Practice. New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
Talebinejad, M. R. And Razieh N. (2013).
The

Relationship

between

Foreign Language Anxiety and

Belief

toward

Children

EFL

FLL

among

Learners.Basic

research Journal of Education

Research and Review, Vol.2.
Tallon, M. (2008).A Culture of Caring:
Reducing

Anxiety

and

Increasing Engagement in FirstYear

Foreign

Courses.University
Incarnate Word.

Language
of

the

Moscow:

Dordrencht,
Kluwer

Plenum Publisher.

London,

Academic/