Aprilia Annisa Sanie¹⁾, Ashadi²⁾, Kartika Qiyara W²⁾

¹⁾ 4 Pakem Junior High School

²⁾ English Language Education Department, Yogyakarta State University

email: apriliaa.sanie@gmail.com

Abstract

In the last two decades, training students in self-assessment has shown that it helps them think higher-order and reflectively and has been investigated in several studies including in English Language Teaching (ELT). In line with this background and the difficulties faced by English teachers in assessing and motivating learners, this study aims to investigate the potential of self-assessment for attitudes, knowledge, and skills developments in learning English, particularly in oral productive skills. Thirty-two students at a top public junior high school in a district in northern Yogyakarta participated in the study in a classroom action research design. They were observed, gave their voice, and participated in tests and self-grading activities to provide this study with rich data which were analyzed thematically and statistically. The results show elements of improvements in some areas of learning because of implementing self-reported grades in English language teaching. These include self-confidence, motivation to learn, and reflective thinking skills. Further implications on productive oral skills in the context of English Language Teaching is discussed.

Keywords: self-reported grades, speaking skills, higher-order thinking

MENINGKATKAN KETERAMPILAN BERBICARA DAN BERPIKIR TINGKAT TINGGI PESERTA DIDIK SMP MELALUI SELF-REPORTED GRADE

Abstrak

Sejak dua dekade terakhir, melatih peserta didik dalam penilaian diri telah menunjukkan bahwa membantu mereka berpikir tingkat tinggi dan reflektif dan telah diselidiki dalam sejumlah penelitian. Sejalan dengan latar belakang ini dan kesulitan yang dihadapi guru bahasa Inggris dalam menilai dan memotivasi peserta didik, penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menyelidiki potensi kemampuan penilaian diri atas sikap, pengetahuan, dan keterampilan pembelajaran bahasa Inggris. Tiga puluh dua peserta didik SMP negeri terbaik di sebuah Kabupaten di Yogyakarta utara berpartisipasi dalam penelitian dalam desain penelitian tindakan kelas. Peserta didik diamati, mengungkapkan pendapat dan menyelesaikan tes dan mengisi pelacak nilai yang selanjutnya data-data yang dihasilkan dianalisis. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan peningkatan di beberapa aspek pembelajaran karena penerapan pelacak nilai pribadi. Peningkatan yang dialami meliputi kepercayaan diri, motivasi untuk belajar, dan keterampilan berpikir reflektif. Terdapat pembahasan implikasi lebih lanjut pada keterampilan lisan produktif dalam konteks pengajaran bahasa Inggris.

Kata kunci: self-reported grades, keterampilan berbicara, berpikir tingkat tinggi

INTRODUCTION

Measuring and examining speaking skill is complex and time-consuming. The problem is primarily because speech is momentary, and a teacher needs to conduct assessment right after the learner is talking and frequently rely on memory to provide an accurate assessment and response. Today, the use of technology can help solve this problem with recordings of students’ oral performance constituting a practical alternative. Assessment of speaking skills is also a very subjective procedure with many factors influencing the teacher’s decision. Such problems can be lessened by constructing and following visible scales. Varied scales are now accessible, and their benefits and shortcomings are debated in the relevant measurement literature (Hughes 2011).

Despite its theoretical and instructional value for investigating the nature of assessment of students’ foreign language speaking, the difficulty lies in that the learners are both recipients and providers of feedback for learning (Adams, Nuevo, & Egi, 2011). When the emphasis lies on the students’ role as evaluators, examining if their assessments are suitable with teacher’s becomes significant.

Self-reported grades are pedagogical practices that learners engage in assessing the quality of their own work or their level of mastery of a particular goal. With an effect size of 1.33, according to Hattie (2008), such grades can provide up to three years of additional learning growth for each year. This substantial impact needs to be considered by teachers who want to improve their students’ learning.

Using self-reported values ​​is a win-win option in the classroom. Not only does it reduce student anxiety, but it also makes students feel that they have control over their own learning and evaluation. In addition, when students assess their own work, they can see exactly where they made mistakes. They get this feedback much more quickly than when the teacher collects the work, grades it, and then returns it later. Therefore, this kind of grading is worth trying in English classes.

Valiga (1987) examined the accuracy of course taking and self-reported grades for approximately 1,000 learners from twenty-six Kentucky and Illinois high schools who applied to take the ACT in April or June 1983. In that study, the correlation between self-reported grades and transcripts ranged from 0.75 for Computer Science to 0.92 for English 11 with a median correlation of 0.86. Overall, about 80% of students accurately reported their grades.  Self-reported values ​​are widely used in research and applied settings because of their importance and ease of obtaining self-reports. The study by (Kuncel, Crede, and Thomas, 2005) reviewed and meta-analytically summarized the literature on the accuracy of self-reported grades, grade ratings, and test scores. Results based on a paired sample of 60,926 subjects indicate that self-reported scores are not free from systematic biases particularly among low achieving students. These findings suggest that self-reported values ​​should be used with caution for their utilization to be useful and effective for the teaching process.

ACT (2013) investigated the accuracy of self-reported HSGPA for nearly 2,000 ACT-tested high school students in eleven school districts from the 2010 and 2011 graduation classes. The study found that 83% of learners accurately reported their HSGPA within 0.50 units, and 58% accurately reported their HSGPA in 0.25 units. Furthermore, this study found that the correlation between HSGPA reported by secondary school students and HSGPA self-reported by students was 0.84. It was also found that overall, students tended to overreport their HSGPA by 0.07 points. In addition, the study found that lower achievers tended to overreport their HSGPA to a greater extent than higher achievers.

These studies consistently show a high correlation between self-reported data and transcripts. However, some studies were more than twenty years old and included a small number of learners. More recent studies have focused on HSGPA but have not examined the accuracy of self-reported courses. This study updates previous research on course taking and grade accuracy concurrently as well as providing further information on HSGPA accuracy. However, little is still known about the impacts of self-reported grades on foreign language speaking skills. Research results are also mixed in the way such grades are employed and combined in a language classroom. The areas of students’ learning improvement also remain unclear because of the limited number of research in self-reported grades. Therefore, it is necessary to know what kind of learning improvement the students experience because of implementing self-reported grades in a speaking class.

METHOD                                                                                                                                         

In line with the objective, this study employed classroom-action research by following the Kemmis and McTaggart model which consists of cycles. In each cycle, there were steps in a spiral process consisting of planning, action, observation, and reflection.

The study was done from October 1st until November 20th, 2021 (7 weeks). Before implementing actions, the researchers conducted a pre-observation used to identify problems that reasonable solutions could be generated. As for the materials, they were parallel to the ongoing curriculum, introducing self & others. The strategies then were arranged by preparing: (1) the lesson plans; (2) students’ worksheets; (3) self-reported grade rubric; (4) an observation checklist and interview guideline for students and teachers; and (5) equipment related to the research.

As researchers detected shortcomings from the reflection in the first cycle, the researcher continued to Cycle 2 by modifying the interventions. In total, there were two cycles consisting of two meetings each.

The research subjects were seventh graders from a top junior high school in Sleman, Yogyakarta. Thirty-two students consisting of 14 male and 18 female students in their first semester of the academic year of 2020/2021 participated in this study. They belonged to the same class with varied cognitive skills, learning styles, socio-economic status, religion, and cultural background.

To verify triangulation, both qualitative and quantitative data were gathered in this study. Hence, observation, interview, and test were conducted systematically through the following scheme.

The data were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively thus the use of Self-reported Grade toward the students’ speaking skills before and after treatment can be well contrasted. The former was conducted through collecting data in observation, interview, and self-reported grades. Meanwhile, the latter was done by analyzing the students’ speaking performance results gathered from tests. The researcher then inferred a comparison between the test results to reveal if there was an improvement in students’ speaking skills.

In analyzing the interview transcript, the researcher referred to the stages of data analysis proposed by Burns (1999: 157-160). First, the researchers assembled the collected data. Then, the data were labelled with some codes to be developed for identifying patterns in a specific way. This was done to reduce large raw data into more manageable categories. The implementation of this stage could be seen from the use of several codes such as “percaya diri,” “termotivasi,” and “evaluasi diri.”

After categorizing the data in some way, comparisons were conducted to find if patterns are repeated or developed across different data collecting techniques. Then, researchers made sense of the displayed data. The data patterns were used for gaining new discoveries or interpretations and noting down insights. At last, the researchers reported all of the processes done in this research.

The students’ speaking performances were assessed referring to the arranged speaking rubric. The results of the speaking performances were used to determine whether there were any improvements in the students’ speaking skills. The speaking score in the form of numbers (1-100) was analyzed using Microsoft Excel thus the average score was obtained. This later became the basis of score comparison.

Following validity criteria by Anderson et al. in Burns (1999), the researchers worked collaboratively from planning the research until reflecting findings. Comments and opinions on the situation from collaborators and the subject of the research were welcomed. Also, reflection and modification were done to adjust the actions. In this context, discussions among the researchers were frequently carried out during the research. Apparently, there was an improvement on students’ speaking skills.

More than one technique was used to collect the data such as observation, interview, documentation, and test to gain the data. It was used to minimize researchers’ subjectivity as well as to know whether there might be different information from the same respondent through different data collection techniques.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Classroom observation and interview were conducted as the initial procedure. These activities were done to figure out problems aroused in the learning process, resulting in the teacher’s obstacles in conducting assessment. The time-consuming issue and delayed feedback were faced by the teacher when assessing speaking skill. In addition, numerous varied students’ activities and worksheets were demanded by students. Therefore, several interventions were arranged to solve these problems.

Cycle 1 was done in two meetings. In every meeting, the researchers did the observation of students’ speaking skills and attitude toward speaking practice. While a test was administered at the end of each cycle.

From two meetings conducted in a row, the entire students attended the English class and completed given tasks. The teacher began the class by doing the class routine and asked the students to individually complete their worksheets in Liveworksheet.com, an open electronic worksheet website. After submitting their work, a discussion was done through a virtual meeting using Zoom for about 45 minutes. This virtual meeting was done to facilitate the discussion of the students’ work and was used to explain the materials to the related topic.         In the first meeting, the teacher delivered an introduction to Unit 2: Introducing Self by displaying “ABC song” to alleviate students’ misspelling. The majority of the students were enthusiastic to sing the song altogether, including having a guessing game. The next activity was watching a video “It’s nice to meet you” and identifying the social functions and dialogue structures by matching words and phrases as well as completing the True/False/Not Given table. The students were allowed to consult their dictionaries and e-course book as well as browse the materials on the internet.

Meanwhile, in the second meeting, the teacher implemented the same learning steps in which the students should send their work in Liveworksheet at the agreed time. The difference was that the input text was written. In this meeting, the focus was on the expression of asking and giving information about self, preposition, and pronoun. The tasks were in the form of information transfer, matching, and dialogue completion.

At the end of the cycle, a test of speaking practice was conducted. In the second meeting of cycle I, all students were asked to compose a simple conversation. They might refer to given situations or make their situation themselves. The students’ speaking average score was 88. Although the mean score was above 84, the expected minimum mastery for productive skill, nearly 70% of students still faced difficulties in presenting the dialogue resulting from their self-reported grade form. Mostly, the students reported confusion in selecting appropriate pronouns, phrases, and expressions related to introducing self. One of which is S5 expressing “Confused how to choose suitable words and the expressions are monotonous as we repeat them over again:@” Also, other students wrote several shortcomings such as misspelling and mispronouncing expressions like S18 writing “I think I’m not that careful as I didn’t check the pronunciation prior to the speaking test”.

In addition, the self-reported grade elicited students’ view of their satisfaction in completing the tasks which turned out to be “fairly satisfactory” as they believed that they could perform better. However, there was not any narration on how they would improve their speaking performance. This was in line with the previous shortcomings in word choice, misspelling, and mispronunciation. For instance, S9 wrote “I should study even harder and put more effort to complete the task”. Unfortunately, the students were still not sure how to troubleshoot the issues in the future in a more concrete way.

In completing the rubric, there appeared to be a multi-interpretation as the students hesitated to jot down the follow-up of their reflection. This case possibly happened due to the minimum explanation in the self-reported grade rubric. As this was the first time the students filled in the form, there were several constraints aroused. The teacher elaborated the first trial saying “Providing the self-reported grade was risky as the students should fully understand how they will interpret the questions. There didn’t seem to be any clear instruction or example written in the rubric leading to biases” (Gay, et al, 2011).

Moreover, S5, S15, S18, S21, S23, S24, S29 reported their anxiety to reflect their performance. S5 saying “It is actually difficult to spot our own mistakes. I’m not sure if I accurately assess myself.” It seems evident and in line with what Malouff & Thorsteinsson (2016) argue that the students as young learners do not have adequate theoretical mastery as well as experience in self-correcting. Therefore, a clear and explicit instruction needs to be explained prior to the implementation of self-assessment.

In terms of students’ participation and engagement, the observation uncovered several findings such as there were still many students who did not actively participate in the learning process. Although all students attended the class and completed their work, most of them did not want to present theirs. It can be seen from 8 of 32 students who had the will to voluntarily present their work. When it came to the question-and-answer session, not all students also took part. The interview sought the reason behind the passiveness as stated by S3, S6, and S7. Directly, S7 wrote “I rarely speak in the classroom since I’m not sure about the pronunciation and afraid of making mistakes.”

This phenomenon might also have emerged from the limited time in the discussion; the number of students who had a chance to speak out was also limited. Once they got the opportunity to speak, they tended to use Indonesian. Hence, a modification of the setting of task completion into pair and group work would hopefully alter the habit (Willis, 2021).

On the other hand, the students’ motivation and confidence in speaking could be seen through their self-reported grade rubric. They were motivated to excel their speaking practice in the following meetings as approximately 80% of them were sure to improve their performance. The students were aware of their strengths and weaknesses during the task completion. S23 expressed the impression of self-reported grade saying, “assessing my own self gives us the awareness of what we are already good at, and which part is needed to be improved.” They generally had realized their mistakes and foreshadowed the possible betterment.

In addition, the implementation of this single-point self-reported grade rubric likely provides the students with their individualized reflection and plan without strict boundaries as in the standardized rubric. It somehow encourages them to always pursue a betterment in each and every task. S23 saying “Assessing my performance gives me spirit and courage to always improve.” Accordingly, this possibly leads to higher motivation and self-esteem. Luoma (2004) highlighted that self-directed progressive learning is an important aspect in the adjustment of the learning objectives and collaboration between teachers and students.

Before Cycle 2 was conducted, several modified strategies were made concerning the conduct of cycles with regard to the result of the reflection of Cycle 1.

There were two meetings in Cycle 2. The researchers also observed students’ speaking skills and attitudes toward speaking practice. In addition, a test was administered at the end of the second meeting.

The core activity in the first meeting began with the students reading aloud two dialogues about self-introduction. Purposely, the teacher chose the students with speaking problems to practice the dialogue. Next, the students whose better pronunciation and fluency were asked to reread the dialogues as a model for other students. After that, with breakout room features, the students were split into groups of four to compare the dialogue and answer open-ended questions. There was not any dualism among the answers. It was more into creating a stance and providing logical explanations to support the arguments. The students were more enthusiastic and confident in the group work discussion. They would easily express their thoughts and responses. The last activity was presenting the group discussion in the main room. The overall presentation was lively and fun since more students made meaningful contributions.

Meanwhile, in the second meeting, the students were arranged in pairs to have a speaking project. At first, they made their imaginative poster description in Liveworksheet as the speaking guidelines. They then composed a conversation and presented the result in the form of video or audio recordings. The project duration was seven days. Lastly, then students would assess their performance using the modified self-reported grade rubric.

As mentioned earlier, a speaking test was administered at the end of Cycle 2 with the following result.

Figure 1. Students’ Average Score Cycle 1 to Cycle 2

Figure 1 depicts the increasing average score from Cycle 1 to Cycle 2. The final score is 91 which is far above the minimum learning mastery. This achieved mark aligns targeted micro and macro skills of speaking from the previous cycle.

This quantitative data matches the qualitative data in self-reported grades about students’ strategy. It is written in the improvement section from S25 “I will compose the dialogue with varied vocabulary so the dialogue will not be monotonous. Also, I will recheck my pronunciation.” Addition to this, S26 wrote “I want to be able to well-organize my dialogue with my partners and practice to be more fluent.” These transcripts show that the students were setting their own goal regarding the macro & micro speaking skills. This would likely help them to figure out how they will proceed.

Unfortunately, students’ limited knowledge and experience could affect the validity of their score. In this second attempt of completing a self-reported grade, the students still hesitate to mark their performance. Therefore, assessment from the teacher still is considered significant. By combining these two assessments, it is expected to minimize the over or underrating. Therefore, Kuncel, Crede and Thomas (2005) advise the safe implementation of self-reported grade to benefit learning more.

As the students were able to reflect and plan the changes more comprehensively in the second project, not only did the students showcase better performance in speaking, they also had their own standard of success. For instance, to nail the project, S31 elaborated her content into a more detailed conversation and learned to say numbers. In contrast, S29 tended to opt for varied expressions of asking and giving information about herself that her content will sound more interesting. Therefore, also referring to different backgrounds of cognitive and social skills, the self-reported grade certainly accommodates varied improvements. These very personalized targets represent the differentiated learning in the classroom. Consequently, the diversity of students somehow becomes a uniqueness to be embraced. As Nurov (2000) stated, making judgments about their own learning may bring about positive attitudes as well as higher motivation and confidence building towards the learning. Hence, allowing students to feel success apparently grows their confidence and motivation to speak in English.

On the other hand, part of its advantage, this rubric puts the feedforward into the next level. It allows students to get more immediate feedforward than when teachers evaluate them. The sooner students spot mistakes, the faster they revise them.  In addition, by giving the self-reported grade periodically, there is a space for the students to track their progress. It is generally agreed that self-check and self-monitor skills are also beneficial. This similar idea was suggested by Rock in 2005 highlighting the advantages of self-monitoring, namely increasing students’ awareness, producing positive results, and practicing incorporating academic and social skills.

Lastly, adjusting the students’ setting into pair and group work likely leads to higher English exposure and intensity. First, the students have more time to use English with their team and the moment they present their work. Second, from the observation, the students seemed to enjoy interacting with their peers using English. The students show their participation and engagement much better which is in line with Woodward & Munns (2003) who view self-assessment as a way of focusing attention on the processes of student reflection and encouraging them to feel and think more deeply about their performance and achievement.

CONCLUSION

Self-reported grade as the assessment for and of learning can eventually improve speaking and higher order thinking skills as shown in the previous section. The way students assessed their own performance led them to track progress, aim personalized improvement, and map strategies. The self-reported grade assisted them to have immediate feedforward for better results. Not only this trained them to be evaluative, but the rubric completion also guided them to be more practical and evaluative with their own mastery of speaking.

The improvement can be seen from students’ increasing ability to showcase the micro and macro speaking skills when introducing themselves. Students’ ability to deliver more comprehensive and interesting dialogues are reflected from their content elaboration and presentation. The former can be inferred from how they ask and put detailed information about self, used varied expressions, and did some spontaneous improvisations. Also, they could spend more time practicing their dialogue. In terms of presentation, they became more fluent and used more accurate pronunciations. Even, they elevated their presentation with intonations and facial expressions. In accordance, the quantitative data support this improvement. However, as what this study has found and relevant literature has warned, self-reported grades need to be used carefully with clear prior instructions to avoid biases and poor validity as well as reliability.

REFERENCES

Adams, R., Nuevo, A., & Egi, T. (2011). Explicit and implicit feedback, modified output, and SLA: Does explicit and implicit feedback promote learning and learner–learner interactions? The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 42-63.

Alek, A., Marzuki, A. G., Farkhan, M., & Deni, R. (2020). Self-assessment in exploring EFL students’ speaking skill. Al-Ta lim Journal, 27(2), 208-214.

Babaii, E., Taghaddomi, S., & Pashmforoosh, R. (2015). Speaking self-assessment: Mismatches between learners’ and teachers’ criteria. Language Testing, 3(1), 411-437.

Bearman, M., & Ajjawi, R. (2021). Can a rubric do more than be transparent? Invitation as a new metaphor for assessment criteria. Studies in Higher Education, 46(2), 359-368.

Black, C. S. (2020). Examining effects of choice assessments on engagement and achievement of K-12 students with self-advocacy IEP goals. Dissertations, Theses, and Projects. 341. Retrieved from https://red.mnstate.edu/thesis/341.

Burns, A. (2009). Doing action research in English language teaching. New York: Routledge.

Cholifah, P. S., Rini, T. A., Nuraini, N. L. S., Satriani, F. Y., & Saidah, K. (2020). Improving student engagement in online learning: How the online learning readiness scale and self-assessment matter? In 2020 6th International Conference on Education and Technology (ICET), 218-223.

Dawson, P. (2017). Assessment rubrics: Towards clearer and more replicable design, research, and practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(3), 347-360.

Estell, J. K., Sapp, H. M., & Reeping, D. (2016). Work in progress: Developing single point rubrics for formative assessment. In 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.

Fluckiger, J. (2010). Single point rubric: A tool for responsible student self-assessment. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 76(4), 18.

Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (2011). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications. Pearson Higher Ed.

Handley, G., Lebed, A., & Morling, B. (2021). Self-graded homework helps students learn and promotes accurate metacognition. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000287

Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.

Holmboe, E. S., Yamazaki, K., & Hamstra, S. J. (2020). The evolution of assessment: thinking longitudinally and developmentally. Academic Medicine, 95(11S), S7-S9.

Huberman, A. M., Miles, M. B., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Washington DC: SAGE Publication Inc.

Hughes, R. (2011). Teaching and researching speaking. Harlow: Pearson Education

Kuncel, N. R., Credé, M., & Thomas, L. L. (2005). The validity of self-reported grade point averages, class ranks, and test scores: A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75(1), 63-82.

Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Margana, & Widyantoro, A. (2017). Developing english textbooks oriented to higher order thinking skills for students of vocational high schools in Yogyakarta. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(1), 26-38.

Malouff, J. M., & Thorsteinsson, E. B. (2016). Bias in grading: A meta-analysis of experimental research findings. Australian Journal of Education, 60(3), 245-256.

Mettasari, G. (2013). The contribution of self-esteem, achievement motivation, and self-efficacy on the first semester students’ anxiety and speaking competency at English Education Department of Ganesha University of Education. Unpublished Thesis of Ganesha University of Education.

Papanthymou, A., & Darra, M. (2019). The contribution of learner self-assessment for improvement of learning and teaching Process: A review. Journal of Education and Learning, 8(1), 48-64.

Pinto Avilez, A., & Díaz Larenas, C. (2020). Enhancing English speaking skills through self-assessment-based action research. IJAR–International Journal of Action Research, 16(2), 9-10.

Ragupathi, K., & Lee, A. (2020). Beyond fairness and consistency in grading: The Role of Rubrics in Higher Education. In Diversity and inclusion in global higher education, 73-95.

Rock, M.L. (2005). The use of strategic self-monitoring to enhance academic engagement, productivity, and accuracy in students with and without exceptionalities. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 7(1), 3-17.

Vasileiadou, D., & Karadimitriou, K. (2021). Examining the impact of self-assessment with the use of rubrics on primary school students’ performance. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 2(2), 2-9.

Vercellotti, M. L., & McCormick, D. E. (2021). Constructing analytic rubrics for assessing open-ended tasks in the language classroom. TESL-EJ, 24(4), 1-19.

Wilkerson, J. R. (2021). A new rubric format with a focus on “Areas for Improvement” (AFIs). Journal of Education and Social Policy, 8(2), 1-9.

Wilson, J. (2018). Write outside the boxes: The single point rubric in the secondary ELA classroom. The Journal of Writing Assessment, 11(1), 1-9.

Woodward, H., & Munns, G. (2003, November). Insiders’ voices: Self-assessment and student engagement. In New Zealand Association for Research in Education (NZARE) and Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) Joint Conference.

Yan, Z. (2020). Self-assessment in the process of self-regulated learning and its relationship with academic achievement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(2), 224-238.

Yeti, M. (2015). Keterampilan berbahasa SD. Jakarta: Universitas Terbuka.