17 EEJ 11 (1) (2021) 17-26 English Education Journal http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/eej The Effectiveness of Team Teaching and Blended Learning Strategies in Speaking Class to Students with Different Personalities Chilyatul Mazizah , Suwandi Suwandi, Rudi Hartono Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia Article Info ________________ Article History: Accepted 20 September 2020 Approved 18 November 2020 Published 15 March 2021 ________________ Keywords: Team-teaching, Blended Learning, Speaking Skills, Personalities ________________ Abstract The aim of this research is to investigate how effective was the Team-teaching strategy and Blended learning to teach speaking to students with different personality types. This paper showed the result of experimental research on speaking skills to the introvert and extrovert students at Airlines Business Career Semarang. A 2x2 factorial design of experimental research was used to collect the data from 52 students which was divided into two groups; they were experimental group 1 and experimental group 2. They were treated with different strategies: Team-teaching and Blended learning strategies. In the Team-teaching class, there are two teachers taught in one class. Meanwhile, in Blended learning class, the teacher blended the face-to-face meeting and also the online meeting. The instrument of this research was observation checklist, questionnaire, pre-test, and post-test. The data was analyzed using ANOVA to prove the hypotheses. The result showed that Team-teaching was more effective to teach speaking to the students with introvert and extrovert personality. Based on the analysis of ANOVA there were no interaction among team teaching and blended learning strategies, students’ personality, and speaking skill  Correspondence Address: Jl. Kelud Utara 3 smapangan Semarang, Indonesia E-mail: chilyabdan@gmail.com p-ISSN 2087-0108 e-ISSN 2502-4566 Chilyatul Mazizah, et al./ English Education Journal 11 (1) (2021) 17-26 18 INTRODUCTION English has been studied for several years, but many students still have difficulty in understanding and applying English in daily life. In English there are four skill which should be mastered by the students, they are namely: listening, reading, speaking, and writing. As we know that, speaking become the most important skill in English. When someone said that they can master in English, it can be signed with their speaking skill. Shuruq (2016) stated that Speaking is one of the important thing in language whether to know the listener or hearer understand what we are talking about. Speaking is interaction between two or more people to state their arguments and ideas about something. Speaking become a complex skill in English because it includes several elements on that. Moreover, showed in the study (Suryanto, 2014, as cited in Ati Mau et al., 2018) that as foreign language, English is rarely used outside the classroom context. It is not easy because we know that English itself is not only has main skills but it also has sub-skills like, grammar, vocabulary, and also pronunciation. To speak fluently, we need to master all those skills because we are learning English as a foreign language with different grammar, different vocabulary, and also different pronunciation. To overcome the lack of speaking ability of the students, the teacher applied some strategies to prove whether the differences of the achievement of the students using these two strategies. They are team-teaching and blended learning. General concept of team teaching is group of teachers, working together, plan, conduct and evaluate the learning activities for the same group of students (Martiningsih, 2007). Furthermore, it is learning strategy of learning process activities carried out by more than one teacher with the division of roles and responsibilities of each teacher. It is also a learning strategy in which educators teach more than one person, each of them has the different task. This concept is that teachers are given responsibility, working together, for all or a significant part of the instruction of the same group of students. Degan (2018) focuses on determining the impact of team teaching on teacher efficacy, burnout, and students’ engagement in an elementary school. This study used qualitative methodology to collect data from three participants who are team teaching at the same elementary school who are interviewed twice. Participants are also observed during a team teaching lesson. As a result of team teaching, whereby they modeled collaboration, demonstrated how to build and maintain relationships, and learned together, teachers felt more effective, energized, and excited to teacher their students, thereby curbing burnout and increasing student engagement. This study found that team teaching at this site increased school wide collaboration and led to a stronger school community. Hooda’s study (2016) had the objective of his research is to find out the effectiveness of Team teaching on academic achievement of 9th graders in Science. The sample is 50 students. The research method used to conduct the study is pre-test, posttest Quasi experimental design in which two groups are selected as experimental and control group. In the beginning both groups are administrated the pre-test by self-constructed achievement test in Science. The experimental group is taught by a team of two science teachers and control group by traditional method. The same post-test is administrated on both the groups and t-value is equated. Results of the study revealed that there is a significant positive effect of team teaching on academic achievement of students in Science. Furthermore, Jenkins and Crawford (2017), in their research about Blended Learning and Team teaching: Adapting pedagogy in response to the changing digital tertiary environment. The objective of this study is to explore students understandings of blended learning and team teaching and the overall impact on their learning in this context. From the data, that team teaching had a positive impact overall, while blended learning had a Chilyatul Mazizah, et al./ English Education Journal 11 (1) (2021) 17-26 19 gradual and more conservative influence on the students cohort. Meanwhile, another strategy that can be used by the teacher in speaking class is blended learning. Procter (2003, as cited in Bryan & Volchenkova, 2016) defines blended learning as the effective combination of different modes delivery, models of teaching, and styles of learning. Chew et al. (2003, as cited in Bryan, 2016) blended learning involves the combination of two fields of concern: education and educational technology. Graham and Dziuban (2008) suggested classifying blended learning models according to four dimensions. His four dimensions were space (face-to-face/ virtual), time (synchronous/asynchronous), sensual richness (high, all senses/low, text only), and humanness (high human, no machine/ low human, high machine). The relationship between personality and second language ability has received some research interest in the last few years. The results that are available, however, it has sometimes been inconsistent, it often because of methodological and conceptual differences in the way the studies performed (Sharp, 2008, p.17). Unlike Sharp, Soleimani et al. (2013, p.212) state the different result asserting lately that students personality is influential enough to illustrate a moderate percentage of the difference in the academic performance. In other words, the research method will influence the result of the study whether or not the students’ personality has relationship with the second language ability. In this case, the study was trying to see the relationship between students’ personality and language ability should be conducted carefully by considering the method employed. This introvert personality is identified by Cook et al. (1994 as cited in Suliman, 2014), as sociable to be engaged into the group conversation inside-outside the classroom. Thus, they will be considered becoming the successful language learner. In addition, this research is about the personality especially about the introverted and extroverted, so the writer found the previous research from Anggara et al. (2018)this research is about the effectiveness of Coop-Disc-Q and Literature Circle Strategies in teaching reading comprehension to students with different personalities. In this result of the study showed that there is no difference between extrovert and introvert personalities in teaching reading comprehension since the value of p= 0.310. It was found that the p of strategy type value is 0.638 so there is no interaction between teaching reading comprehension strategies and types of personality on the achievement of reading comprehension which proves that personality does not influence students’ reading comprehension achievement. The next research is from Mujahadah et al. (2018), which discusses about analyze and explain the realization of communication strategies by extrovert and introvert students in conversation. The subject was the fourth semester students in Walisongo State Islamic University. The instruments is questionnaire to determine the students’ personality. The result reveals that extrovert students realized four kinds of communication strategies and do introvert. The similarities are found in the percentage rating of realization which stalling or time-gaining strategies was most used in the conversation. Students tended to use this strategy to maintain the conversation. The next similarity was the way of their realization of communication strategies. They also used those strategies for the same purpose and function. For the differences between extrovert and introvert students, it was found that frequency of the realization was different. The extrovert students often used achievement strategies, stalling or time-gaining strategies, and self-monitoring strategies than introvert. In interactional strategies, the introvert tended to use interactional strategies more often than extrovert. Previous research suggest that introverted learners tend to be reflective thinkers and prefer connecting and integrating information in the Chilyatul Mazizah, et al./ English Education Journal 11 (1) (2021) 17-26 20 assumption that knowledge is the interaction of information through the world. Introverted learners tend to be keep quiet, be passive, thoughtful, and reflective, avoid interference, and concentrate on the topic longer (Prawira, 2013, p.216). Therefore, they may actively participate when they have enough time to think. In addition, the introvert people are described by Naiman et al. (1978) and McDonough (1981, as cited in Omidavri et al., 2016) as anxious learners which are less willing to take part in activities. However, Razamjoo and Shaban (2008, as cited in Sarani et al., 2011) argue that this introvert people are interested on reading and writing activity. Further, Swain and Burn bay (1976, as cited in Lestari et al., 2015) also emphasize that introvert learner as well organized and serious so that they are also seen as better language learner. On the other hand, Prawira (2013, p.217) describe that the extroverted learners actively express their thought verbally, like learning together with groups, and enjoy cooperative problem-solving processes. They tend to involve themselves more in groups’ activities because that are social, prefer verbal communication, act spontaneously, and are not influenced by other’s inference. Therefore, the extroverted students will look more active in the teaching and learning processes than the introverted students. In addition, Jung (1920, as cited in Sol, 2012) state that there is no pure extroversion or introversion in someone’s personality since the change of personality type can occur from one pole to another. Related to that, it is suggested to see the dominant type between extroversion and introversion for identifying the people’s personality. Thus, Eysenck Personality Questionnaire was also developed and revised by Eysenck and Eysenck in 1985 to be used as one way to identify whether people had extrovert or introvert personality. Based on those previous studies, the difference between the previous researchers and the present research was that the writer wrote about learning strategy and the students was divided into introvert and extrovert personality. In this paper, the writer aimed to find out the effectiveness of team teaching and blended learning strategy in teaching speaking to students with introvert and extrovert personality. METHODS This research applied an experimental method with 2x2 factorial design using a statistical analysis ANOVA (Analysis of Variance). The object of the study was to teach speaking by using two strategies. They are team- teaching and blended learning. The population of the study was the whole students of Airlines Business Career Semarang, then two classes were chosen as the sample of the study. Therefore, there were two groups involved, experimental group I treated by the Team teaching and experimental group II treated by the Blended learning. There were several instruments of this research. The first was observation checklist. It was used to gather information about the students’ condition before the researcher doing the research. The second step to gather the data is choosing questionnaire. This was to determine students’ personality type. The students should give their responds to the 57 questions which was to measure their personality. After that, pre-test has done, and the treatments gave to them. Experimental group I was taught by using team-teaching. They taught by two teachers in one time. Meanwhile, in experimental group II was taught by using blended learning. In blended learning class, the teachers blend both the face-to-face meeting and also online meeting. The online media which was used by the teachers in blended learning strategy was Whatsapp Group, Zoom Meeting, and Google Classroom. The last instrument was post-test. This was to measure their speaking ability after conducting treatment. Paired sample T-test was used to prove the effectiveness of team-teaching and blended learning in teaching speaking skill with introvert and extrovert personality. Two-way ANOVA was used to compare the result of those groups and to find out the interaction among the Chilyatul Mazizah, et al./ English Education Journal 11 (1) (2021) 17-26 21 strategies, skill, and the students’ personality type. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This part showed the explanation and the interpretation of the data research of team- teaching compared with blended learning strategy in teaching speaking to introvert and extrovert students. The experimental group I was taught by using team-teaching, while experimental group II was taught by blended learning. The main goal of this research was to find out the effectiveness of team-teaching and blended learning strategy in teaching speaking skill to students with introvert and extrovert at Airlines Business Career Semarang. Before conducting the treatment, the result of pre-test should be analysed their normality and homogeneity. The result showed that the experimental group I (team teaching) had sig 0.162 and for experimental group II (blended learning) had sig 0.220, since the sig. value of both experimental classes was more than 0.05, it could be concluded that the data of pre-test of both groups had normal distribution. Further, for the homogeneity test of pre-test based on teaching strategies and personality type showed the value of Sig. 0.808. It indicated that Sig. value was higher than 0.05. It meant that the data of pre-test based on the teaching strategies and personality types were homogenous. After getting the normality and homogeneity of pre-test, then treatment should be done. During the treatment, the experimental group I was taught by team-teaching. There were two teachers in one class and they taught together. Meanwhile, in the experimental group II was taught by blended-learning. Here, the teacher blend the way they teach between the face-to-face meeting and online meeting. There were six meetings. After conducting the treatments, students on both experimental classes had their post-test. The result of post-test should be tested their normality and homogeneity. The result showed that the experimental group I had Sig. value 0.082, meanwhile for the experimental group II had Sig. Value 0.119. Since the Sig. value of both experimental groups was more than 0.05, it could be concluded that the data of post-test from both experimental classes had normal distribution. After that, homogeneity test of post-test based on teaching strategies and personality types showed the Sig. Value 0.277 and 0.285. It meant that Sig. Value was higher than 0.05. It implied that the data of the post-test were homogenous. Since the data of post-test had normal distribution and homogenous, then statistical computation could be involved to test some hypotheses on this study. To answer the first research question about how is the interaction among speaking skill, teaching strategy, and students’ personality types in speaking class among students of Airlines Business Career Semarang, the This part discusses about the interaction among the strategies, students’ personality, and speaking skill. From the calculation, the significant value (0.119) was higher than 0.05. It means that there was no interaction among team teaching and blended learning strategies, students’ personality, and speaking skill. The finding of this research indicates team teaching strategy was more effective teach the students with introvert and extrovert personality. This findings is in line with the other studies Lestari, Sada, and Suhartono (2013) it can be claimed that at least some individual characteristics such as introversion/ extroversion may have little bearings on students’ success in mastering speaking. Furthermore, the implication of understanding the students’ personality in the classroom situation that do not match the students’ learning style. The teacher or lecture should also try to accommodate and facilitate the students based on their preferred learning style. Personality is too complex and changeable in different situation and with different people (Schultz and Schults, 2009). Dealing with the second research question that seeks whether using team-teaching is effective in teaching speaking to introvert students, the pre-test and post-test result of team- teaching class to the introvert students was Chilyatul Mazizah, et al./ English Education Journal 11 (1) (2021) 17-26 22 calculated. The mean of pre-test (25) was lower than the mean score of post-test (71.4). It means that the students with introvert personality have the high score and showed improvement. It was also supported by t-value. The result of the test showed t-table (0.05.13) was 2.16 and t-account was -14.903. It can be said that t-account was lower than t-table or Ha was accepted. It means that using team teaching strategy was effective to enhance speaking skills of students to introvert personality. As stated also by Jung (1971) who said that introverts are withdrawn and often shy, and they tend to focus on themselves, on their own thoughts and feelings. They did not like being in crowded situation because they need to concentrate well. This findings is similar to the study conducted by Erlin (2015). It seems that they need full concentration because they were easily distracting especially from the noisy. Moreover, the students who had this personality prefer to learnt individually and independently. To answer the third research question that searches for whether using team-teaching strategy is effective in teaching speaking to extrovert students, then the pre-test and post-test of this group is calculated. The mean score of pre-test of students with extrovert personality who were taught by team teaching was (30). While the post-test mean score result for this group showed that there was also significant improvement. It means that team teaching was also effective to teach speaking for students with extrovert personality. It was supported by the result of t-table (0.05.11) was 2.20 and the t- account was -27.08 It can be said that the t- account was lower than the t-table or Ha was accepted. Meanwhile, based on the probability p-value was 0.000 or lower than 0.05. It meant that it was highly significant. Therefore, the result demonstrated that Ha was accepted, the use of Team teaching was effective for extrovert students. Extrovert personality is someone’s personality that is more sociable to others. They have many friends and want to be happy and like going to the parties. The people who have the extrovert personality are sensation-seekers and risk-takers. They like jokes, energetic, and more active. Someone who is extraverted, he hypothesized, has good, strong inhibition (Eysenck, 1947). The results gave a sign that team teaching gives positive effect to students’ speaking skill because it provides many opportunities for students to work with others and more active in class. It was line with Jung (1971), Sabarun (2015), Maghsoudi and Haririan (2013) argued that extraverts are open, sociable, and socially assertive, oriented toward other people and the external world. Thus, it would be better for students to study in group because they enjoy social activities such as being around and working with others. Related to the fourth question that tries to find whether using blended learning strategy is effective in teaching speaking to introvert students, so the pre-test and post-test score of this group is calculated. Their post-test (69.6) was better than the pre-test (30.3). It was also supported by the result of t-table (0.05.12) was 2.178 and t-account was -17.048. It can be said that the t-account was lower than the t-table or Ha is accepted. According to Chew (Jones, Turner, 2008) blended learning involves the combination of two fields of concern: education and educational technology. It showed that this strategy is not only about the material but also how to deliver the material through technology. It was in line with Krasnova (2015) argued that blended learning may be defined as the method of teaching that combines the most effective face-to-face teaching technique and online interactive collaboration, both constituting a system that function in constant correlation and forms a single whole. The fifth research question of this study is about to find whether the blended learning is effective to teach speaking to the extrovert students, thus, the mean score of post-test result of students with extrovert personality who were taught by blended learning was better than the pre-test mean score. Moreover, based on the table 4.28 showed that using blended learning was effective to enhance speaking skills of students with extrovert personality. Chilyatul Mazizah, et al./ English Education Journal 11 (1) (2021) 17-26 23 As stated by Graham (et al, 2003) especially during the recent years, learning practices which have been implemented by blending, face-to-face and online methods together are often faced. In blended learning environment, students can access to learning materials by using web technologies outside the class while attending face-to-face education. It was line with Thome (2003, Graham, 2006) argued that lessons can be supported by discussion groups, chat platforms and various content presentations. In this way advantageous and strong aspects of face-to-face and online learning complete each other. Furthermore, Delialioglu (Yirdim, 2008; Pereira et al., 2007) stated that interaction in online environment supplies individual feedback and guidance. On the other hand, when blended learning is compared to face-to-face learning, there are also studies revealing that the difference between them are not so high in terms of success and attitudes. The sixth research question of this study deals with the team-teaching strategy gave better effect in teaching speaking to introvert and extrovert students. The result showed that there were significant improvement by using team teaching to students with introvert and extrovert personality. The mean score of introvert students (71.83) was lower than mean score of extrovert students (80). These groups have a mean difference of 8.57(80 – 71.43). This result was also supported by p-value. The p-value of post- test (sig(2-tailed) = 0.044 and 0.038) were lower than the level of significance 5% (0.05). It means that the Ha was accepted, there were significant differences in achievement between the introvert and extrovert students using Team Teaching. It was line with Ng Yu Jin (2012) in his article discuss about explores the team norms in team teaching that contribute to optimum lecturers’ and students’ performance. In addition, it investigates the norm content in team teaching with regards to lecturers’ collaboration in the planning, sharing, imparting knowledge, implementing activities, personality styles and assessing students’ work. It is aimed to observe and identify the roles of team teaching participants (team norms and norm content), and ultimately to formulate a model for team teaching in higher education. This paper discusses effective team norms in team teaching that enhances the scholarship of teaching and learning in the university. In short, the paper outlines issues encountered and further work that needs to be done in undertaking team teaching. The seventh research question deals with the blended learning strategy gave better effect in teaching speaking to introvert and extrovert students. the mean of introvert students group was 69.62 and the extrovert students group was 74.23. These groups had a mean difference, 4.61 (74.23 – 69.62). Table (4.28) showed that the p- value of the post-test (sig(2-tailed) = 0.217 and 0.220 ) was higher than the level of significance of 5% (0.05). It means that Ho was accepted, there were no significant differences in achievement between introvert and extrovert students’ personality type using blended learning. This is line with Chew (et al, 2008) he argued that blended learning did not implement it in a uniform way, rather allowing departments to place different modules on a spectrum of intensiveness from the minimal (Powerpoint slides) to the wholly-delivered online. Intermediate points on the scale represent access to learning the resources, followed by discussion boards, online assessment and interactive material. This model is extremely flexible and recognizes that different disciplines may implement blended learning in different ways. Chew reject the idea about that only a course which is 30-80% online is blended is an oversimplification, even if it could be agreed what it is that should be measured. However, the model is concerned only with modes of delivery and is theoretically weak. The eighth research question of this study was about teaching speaking using team teaching and blended learning to student with introvert personality. The result showed that there was no significant difference between students who were taught by using team teaching and blended learning to students with Chilyatul Mazizah, et al./ English Education Journal 11 (1) (2021) 17-26 24 introvert personality. It can be seen from the significant value (0.696) in table 4.34 was more than 0.05 which means that there was no significant difference between students who were taught by using team teaching and blended learning with introvert personality. These findings are line with the studies conducted by Mall-Amiri (2013), Jalili and Amiri (2015) which claim that introverts prefer spacious interactions with fewer people. Jung in Schultz and Schultz (2009), everyone has the capacity for both attitudes, but only one becomes dominant in the personality. In addition, introversion personality characteristics were focus on themselves, stolid, less in communication, passive, like being alone, and independent. Therefore, to teach introversion learners, the teacher was recommended to give them the task individually because they do not really like work with other instead of in from of the class The last research question of this study was about teaching speaking using team teaching and blended learning to student with extrovert personality. The result showed that there were significant improvement by using team teaching and blended learning to students with extrovert personality. In this class, the mean of Extrovert students in Team Teaching group was 80 and the Blended Learning group was 74.23. These groups had a mean difference, 5.77 (80 – 74.23). This result was also supported by the p-value of the post-test (sig(2-tailed) = 0.043) was lower than the level of significance of 5% (0.05). It means that Ha was accepted, there were significant differences in achievement of extrovert students treated by team teaching and blended learning. This is line with Crawford and Jenkins (2017) stated in his article which discussed about team teaching and blended learning strategies conclude that from the data that team teaching had a positive impact overall, while blended learning had a gradual and more conservative influence on the student cohort. The development and implementation of blended learning and team teaching strategies had positive outcomes on both the learning and teaching in this pre-service methods unit. Students were also able to draw links between the pedagogical approaches taken in the unit to their own developing teacher practice. While, this was a learning intention, the connection pre- service teachers made developed quite originally because of the combined methods used by the research teachers. CONCLUSION The result aimed to find out whether team teaching and blended learning were effective in teaching speaking for students with introvert and extrovert personality. Based on the result statistical computation before, some conclusions can be drawn. First, the personality types which are introvert and extrovert influence in teaching speaking through using team-teaching and blended learning. Second, in the team-teaching both introvert and extrovert students improve their ability in speaking. Meanwhile, in blended- learning class the extrovert can improve their speaking ability, but for introvert students, there is no significant difference on their speaking ability. However, there was no significant difference both strategies and students’ personality type. REFERENCES Anggara, I. G. A., Saleh, M., & Sofwan, A. (2018). The effectiveness of Coop-Dis-Q and Literature Circle strategies in teaching reading comprehension to students with different personalities Article Info. English Education Journal, 8(1), 66–75. Chew E., Jones N., Turner D. (2008). Critical review of blended learning models Based on Maslow’s and Vygotsky’s educational theory’ in hybrid learning and education. 19(1), (40-53). Crawford, Renee., & Louise Jenkins. (2017). Blended learning and team teaching: adapting pedagogy inresponse to the changing digital tertiary environment. Chilyatul Mazizah, et al./ English Education Journal 11 (1) (2021) 17-26 25 Australasian journal of educational technology, 33 (2), (51-72) Degan, J. C. (2018). Stronger Together : A case for team teaching in the elementary school setting. Delialioglu, O., Yildirim, Z. (2008). Design and Development of a Technology Enhanced Hybrid Instruction Based on MOLTA Model: It’s effectiveness of comparison to traditional instruction. Computers and Education 51, (474-483). Erlin, D.F. (2015). The speaking ability taught by using brainstorming, International Journal of Social Sciences, I (1), (669-680). Eysenck, H.J. (1947). Dimension of Personality. London: Methuen. Eysenck, H.J. & Chan. (1982). General Features of the model. In H.J. Eysenck (Ed.), A model for personality. Berlin: Springer- Verlag. Graham C.R., & Dziuban C.D. Blended Learning Environments. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Mahwah, Lawrence Earlbaum Publ., 2008. Pp. 269-276 Graham C.R. (2006). Blended learning systems: definitions, current trends, and future directions. The Handbook of Blended Learning Global Perspectives, Local Designs. San Fransisco, Pfeiffer Publ., pp. 3-21. Hooda, M., & Sharma, M. (2016). The effect of team teaching on academic achievement Of 9 Th. Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies (SRJIS), 3(23), 1906–1915. Jung, C.G. (1971). Psychological Types, Collected Works of C.G. Jung (4th Ed.). Princetom, N.J.: Priceton University Press. Krasnova T.A. (2015). A paradigm shift: Blended learning integration in Russian higher education. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences.no. 166, pp. 399-403. Lestari, A., Sada, C., Suhartono, L., & Training, T. (2013). Analysis on the relationship of extrovert – introvert personality and students’ speaking performance. 1–14. Maghsoudi, M., & Javad, H. (2013). The impact of brainstroming strategies Iranian EFL learners’ writing skill regarding their social class status. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, I (1), 60-67 Martiningsih, Y.(2010). Team Teaching. http://martiningsih.blogspot.com/2007/ 12/team-teaching.html Mujahadah, S., Rukmini, D., & Faridi, A. (2018). The realization of communication strategies used by extrovert and introvert students in conversation. English Education Journal, 8(2), 178–185. Pereira, J. A., Pleguezuelos, E., Meri, A., Molina-Ros, A., Molina-Tomas, M. C., Masdeu, C. (2007). Effectiveness of Using Blended Learning Strategies for Teaching and Learning Human Anatomy. Medical Education 41: 189-195. Prawira, P.A. (2013). Psikologi Kepribadian Dengan Perspektif Baru. Yogyakarta: Ar- Ruzz Media. Procter C.T. Blended Learning in Practice.https://ece.salford.ac.uk/proceed ings/papers/cp_03.rtf. Sabarun. (2015). The effectiveness of using brainstorming technique in writing paragraph across the different level achievement at the second semester English department students. Proceedings of the 1st National Conference on English Language Teaching (NACELT). Schultz, D.P., & Schults, S. E. (2009). Theories of Personality. Canada: Macmillan Inc. Publishing Sharp, A. (2009). Personality and Second Language Learning. Asian Social Science, 4(11). Shuruq Alsubaie, U. (2016). Speaking Motivation in SLA, Saudi Overview. International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research, 4(7), 1–7. Sol., M. (2012). Ambiversion: The Lost Personality Types. https://lonerwolf.com/ambivert/ Soleimani, H., et al. 2013. Extraversion/ Introversion and Test Performance of Iranian EFL Students on Multiple Choice and True False Comprehension Test. International Chilyatul Mazizah, et al./ English Education Journal 11 (1) (2021) 17-26 26 Journal of English and Education. 2 (2), 211 – 224. Suryanto. (2014). Issues in Teaching English in a Cultural Context : A Case of Indonesia. The Journal of English Literacy Education, 1(2), 75–83. Swain, M., & Burnaby, B. (1976). Personality characteristics and second language learning in young children. Working papers on bilingualism, 11, 76-90. Yu Jin, N. (2012). “Team teaching” in higher education: The relationship between team norms and effectiveness Community Based Disaster Management for Flood Prone Area View project. (June).