JOURNAL

This paper is intended to fulfill the task

Subject : English III
Lecturer : Mr. Dr. Sudirman, MN

Arranged By :
Group 10

1. Yolanda Eka Putri (P1337420316013)

2. Bardan Maula Faza Putra (P1337420316031)
3. M. Noor Aufal M. (P1337420316041)
4. Ulfatul Vaisyah (P1337420316047)
5. Selly Kusumawardani (P1337420316055)

2 Reguler A

POLITEKNIK KESEHATAN KEMENTRIAN KESEHATAN SEMARANG

PRODI DIII KEPERAWATAN PEKALONGAN
TAHUN 2017
Journal 1

Stress-associated eating leads to obesity

Naila Rasheed Department of Medical Biochemistry, College of Medicine,

Qassim University, Buraidah, Saudi Arabia
Obesity is the major health problem worldwide and has now become one
of the leading causes of death globally in both adults and children and its
prevalence is continuously increasing worldwide.1 The World Health
Organization recently reported that 642 million people were obese in 2014 and
this statistics is on the rise globally.2 It is also documented that at least 2.6 million
people die annually due to obesity worldwide.2,3 Health consequences of obesity
range from risk of premature death to major health problems such as
cardiovascular diseases, arthritis, diabetes, and cancer that cause signifi cant
reduction in the overall quality of individuals’ life.1 Authorities from Saudi
Arabia mentioned that obesity is one of the leading causes of deaths in the
country.4 Forbes also listed Saudi Arabia on 29th position with a percentage of
68.3% of Saudis being obese4,5 and now it is well established that it is a leading
concern of the country, where 7 out of 10 Saudi citizens suffering from it.4-6 In
2013, the Ministry of Health of Saudi Arabia conducted a survey on the National
Health Information; the rate of obesity among Saudis in the age group of 15 years
and above was found to be 28.7% whereas this rate of obesity in the schoolgoing
children was 9.3% and in preschoolchildren this rate was 6%. As a result of these
data on obesity, the Ministry of Health of Saudi Arabia had introduced the
program on obesity control.
There are many reasons for the onset of obesity in humans such as
excessive eating, lack of physical activities, and lack of exercise, but most
importantly it is associated with individual’s food of choice, which is strongly
depended on individuals that how they are getting influenced by daily stress
exposure. Scientifi cally, it has been now proved that prolonged stress promotes
unhealthy food intake which leads to obesity and other health problems.7,8 This
stress–eating relation is now become a global concern and it is very common in
Saudi Arabia.7-9 Stress can be physical or physiological in nature, which has been
described previously.10,11 Stress initially activates adaptive responses, but if it is
prolonged, it causes alterations in the regulatory neural network, resultingin
weaken stress-related adaptive processes and increased risk of serious health
problems.12 Stress-induced mechanisms affecting food intake and obesity are
shown in Figure 1. In brief, stress-associated food of choices involve both
hormonal and metabolic processes through hypothalamic-pituitaryadrenal axis,
which increases the release of glucocorticoids under stressful conditions, which
further stimulate the number of signaling events through insulin, leptin, ghrelin, or
neuropeptides. These stress-induced signaling events also cause reduction in the
lipolysis process, lipolytic growth hormones, and also sex steroids, and ultimately
promote fat accumulation.7,8 On the other hand, prolonged stress effects on the
mesolimbic dopaminergic system and other brain regions that synergistically
promote reward feeling toward hyperpalatable foods through metabolic changes
in the dopaminergic system that leads to obesity.7,8 Studies have also shown that
peripheral administration of corticosterone increases dopamine outfl ow in the
nucleus accumbens, therefore glucocorticoids are suggested to contribute to the
stress-induced increase of dopamine release in this brain area,7,8,13 where
dopamine acts through several dopamine receptors, which seem to mediate
distinct effects on food intake and food preference.7,8 Activation of selective
dopamine receptors resulted in an increase of caloric intake and preference for
highly palatable foods, whereas combined dopaminergic receptors’ activation has
reported an opposite effect.7,8,14 This indicated that it is not very clear to what
extent dopamine and its receptors are involved in stress–eating relation, but the
data clearly suggest their role in obesity14 and support further studies.
In my opinion, stress induces wrong choices of food, which may be one of
the factors contributing to the onset of obesity. Stress alters the overall eating
behavior which is in either ways, over- or under-eating, but prolonged stress
appears to be associated with a greater preference for high sugar- and high fat-
containing foods, and now molecular evidences clearly suggest that prolonged life
stress is causally linked to obesity, however further studies are required to identify
solid links between stress-associated hormones and neural circuit which are
involved in appetite regulation that would defi ne the molecular mechanisms and
possibly lead to develop therapeutic approach for the treatment of obesity and its
associated disorders.
References
1. Haslam DW, James WP. Obesity. Lancet 2005;366:1197-209.
2. Obesity and Overweight Fact Sheet N. 311. WHO. June 2016. (http://
www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/). [Last retrieved on
2016 Feb 02].
3. Johnson NB, Hayes LD, Brown K, Hoo EC, Ethier KA; Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). CDC National Health Report:
Leading causes of morbidity and mortality and associated behavioral
risk and protective factors - United States, 2005-2013. MMWR
Suppl 2014;63:3-27.
4. Available from: https://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_
Saudi_Arabia. [Last retrieved on 2017 March 13].
5. Lauren S. World’s fattest countries. Forbes 2016;7:15.
6. Khan F. 70% of Saudis are Obese, Says Study. Arab News; 2014.
Available from: http://www.arabnews.com/news/527031. [Last
retrieved on 2017 March 13].
7. Torres SJ, Nowson CA. Relationship between stress, eating behavior,
 and obesity. Nutrition 2007;23:887-94.
8. Adam TC, Epel ES. Stress, eating and the reward system. Physiol
Behav 2007;91:449-58.
9. Almajwal AM. Stress, shift duty, and eating behavior among nurses in
Central Saudi Arabia. Saudi Med J 2016;37:191-8.
10. Alghasham A, Rasheed N. Stress-mediated modulations in
dopaminergic system and their subsequent impact on behavioral and
oxidative alterations: An update. Pharm Biol 2014;52:368-77.
11. Rasheed N, Alghasham A. Central dopaminergic system and its
implications in stress-mediated neurological disorders and gastric
ulcers: Short review. Adv Pharmacol Sci 2012;2012:182671.
12. Rasheed N. Prolonged stress leads to serious health problems:
Preventive approaches. Int J Health Sci (Qassim) 2016;10:V-VI.
13. Rasheed N, Ahmad A, Pandey CP, Chaturvedi RK, Lohani M,
Palit G. Differential response of central dopaminergic system in acute
and chronic unpredictable stress models in rats. Neurochem Res
2010;35:22-32.
14. Ball KT, Best O, Luo J, Miller LR. Chronic restraint stress causes a
delayed increase in responding for palatable food cues during forced
abstinence via a dopamine D1-like receptor-mediated mechanism.
Behav Brain Res 2017;319:1-8.
Sumber : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5426417/

Pembahasan Jurnal ke-3

Point :
- Obesity has become serious health problem world wide that can cause
death for both adult and children.
Obesitas telah menjadi masalah kesehatan yang serius di seluruh dunia
yang dapat mengakibatkan kematian baik untuk dewasa atau anak-anak.
- There are many reasons for the onset of obesity in humans such as
excessive eating, lack of physical activities, and lack of exercise, but most
importantly it is associated with individual’s food of choice, which is
strongly depended on individuals that how they are getting influenced by
daily stress exposure.
Ada banyak alasan untuk terjadinya obesitas pada manusia seperti makan
berlebihan, kurang aktivitas fisik, dan kurang berolahraga, namun yang
terpenting dikaitkan dengan makanan pilihan individu, yang sangat
bergantung pada individu yang mereka dapatkan dipengaruhi oleh
paparan stres sehari-hari.
- Obesity most importanly related to individual’s food of choice. When get
stress, a person can consume any unhealthy food and in long period will
leads to obesity.
 Obesitas terkait kuat dengan pilihan makanan tiap individu. Ketika stres,
seseorang dapat mengkonsumsi semua makanan tidak sehat dan untuk
jangka panjang dapat mengakibatkan obesitas.

Comment :
Obesity can be happen to all people at any stage of age. The most common
cause of obesity is consuming a lot of food with high calori. It also caused by
genes or side effect of consuming medicine. The combination of too much supply
of energy from food and the lack of physical activity can explain most of obesity
case. The fattest an individual is the highest chance for them to get medical
problem related to obesity. For this case, can simply changed by chosing the right
life style such as doing many exercises and change into heathier eating style.
Don’t be too hard to your self and not eating any food, still supply your body with
food but choose wisely and diet your doctor recommend.

Obesitas dapat terjadi pada kalangan manapun dan semua umur. Penyebab
umum obesitas yang banyak terjadi adalah karna sering mengonsumsi makanan
berkalori tinggi. Bisa juga karna faktor genetik ataupun efek samping obat-obatan.
Kombinasi antara kelebihan asupan energi makan dan kurangnya aktivitas fisik
dapat menjelaskan sebagian besar kasus obesitas. Semakin gemuk seseorang,
semakin besar kemungkinan mereka memiliki masalah medis yang terkait dengan
obesitas. Untuk kasus tersebut dapat diatasi dengan mengubah gaya hidup seperti
perbanyak olahraga dan mengubah pola makan. Jangan terlalu keras pada diri
sendiri sampai tidak mau makan, tetap makan namun ganti menu menjadi menu
sehat dan konsulkan program diet dengan dokter.

For making a journal, the writer should use the correct structure so then
the reader could understand the content of the journal easily. The structure
including title, abstract, background, method and material, result of the
experiments, discussion, conclusion and references. Unfortunately, the journal in
this paper has incomplete structure. There is no detail about every part in the
journal and it was difficult to differ which one is the background, discussion or
result in it. But if you take a close attention to every paragraph, you can see there
is one paragraph that can be considered as background and next paragraph
represent the data from the observation. Last paragraph was the conclusion from
the writer about the whole discussion.
Journal 2

Older adults rate their mental health better than their general
health Elena M.

Self-rated health (SRH) shows strong associations with measures of health and
well-being. Increasingly, studies have used self-rated mental health (SRMH) as a
predictor of various outcomes, independently or together with SRH. Research has
not firmly established if and how these two constructs differ. We sought to
characterize the relationship between SRH and SRMH, and to determine how this
relationship differed across subgroups defined by sociodemographic and health-
related characteristics. Design and methods. We analyzed data from the 2012
CAHPS Medicare Advantage Survey. SRH and SRMH ratings were
crosstabulated to determine the distribution of responses across response
categories. The expected joint probability distribution was computed and
compared to the observed distribution. A constructed variable indicated whether
SRMH was better, the same, or worse than SRH. We analyzed the distribution of
this variable across various subgroups defined by sociodemographic and health-
related factors. Results. A total of 114,905 Medicare Advantage beneficiaries
responded to both the SRH and SRMH questions. Both in general and within all
subgroups, SRMH was usually rated as better than SRH, and rarely as worse.
Conclusions. Within a large group of Medicare recipients, the overwhelming trend
was for recipients to rate their mental health as at least as good as their overall
health, regardless of any sociodemographic and health-related factors. This
finding of a shifted distribution encourages caution in the analytic use of selfrated
mental health, particularly the use of both SRH and SRMH
For adjustment. Additional research is needed to help clarify the complex
relationship between these variables. Introduction Self-rated health (SRH) has
been shown to be an important predictor of health and well-being, having
associations with a variety of health outcomes including mortality, health care
utilization, and functioning.1,2The standard item used to measure SRH asks How
would you rate your health in general?with response options of excellent, very
good, good, fair, and poor. This framework has been extended to a similar
question regarding self-rated mental health (SRMH), In general, how would you
rate your overall mental health? Less is known about the properties and
associations of SRMH, in particular its relationship with SRH. There has been an
increasing use of SRMH in epidemiological and health services studies. It has
been applied as a measure of individual health need and of symptom
burden.3,4Studies have examined the relationship between SRMH and other
mental health measures or conditions,5,6 physical health problems,7,8 social
determinants of health,9and use of health services.3,10This work has not
examined in detail how SRH and SRMH are related. To date, there has been one
review published on SRMH,11 which examined 57 studies that utilized SRMH,
usually as a covariate rather than the object of investigation. This review found
that SRMH was moderately correlated with various mental health scales that
assessed psychological distress, depression, and general psychiatric symptoms. It
also indicated that poor SRMH was associated with increased service utilization,
less satisfaction with mental health services, and more physical health problems.
Some of the studies reviewed controlled for SRH, and others did not. One of the
studies included in this review discussed the association between SRH and
SRMH. Fleishman and Zuvekas found that both SRH and SRMH have
independent associations with measures of physical and emotional role
functioning,12but SRH has a stronger association with physical role functioning
and SRMH has a stronger association with emotional role functioning. The
researchers concluded that SRH and SRMH were more strongly correlated with
each other than with any of the physical or emotional role functioning measures
(r=0.54). Only one other study (which was not included in the review) has
addressed the contribution of SRMH to self-rated overall health. In work by
Levinson and Kaplan,13both self-rated physical and mental health were more
important in predicting self-rated overall health than other health status indicators,
including comorbidities, mental disorders, and disability. Nevertheless, SRMH
was twice as important in predicting self-rated overall health as was self-rated
physical health. The authors concluded that the mental component in the self-
rating of overall health is stronger than the physical one. This work suggests
differences in the underpinnings for two self-rated health measures, but does not
clarify the relationship between SRH and SRMH. Prior research has therefore not
established systematically whether SRH and SRMH represent different constructs,
and exactly how they differ. Missing from the analyses are straightforward
descriptive results that compare the responses to both questions. How often do
people say their SRMH is the same as, better than, or worse than their SRH? What
sorts of individuals describe SRMH as being better than SRH, and vice versa?
Correlation and regression coefficients usually fail to account for this relationship.
Because it can be difficult to represent and discuss the relationship between two
self-report variables, we propose a simplifying analogy. SRH asks about
generalhealth, which is assumed to include various subcomponents, including a
mentalone. This is a part-towhole relationship, using two subjective ratings. A
similar relationship exists between a diner’s ratings for (1) the dinner as a whole,
and (2) dessert (or some other subcomponent of dinner). Fully characterizing the
ratings for dessert requires comparing them to the ratings for the entire meal and
vice versa. Looking at both variables can answer general questions about the
influence of one rating on the other. For instance, how frequently people perceive
dessert as better or worse than the meal as a whole, how often the ratings are
identical, or if a poor dessert ruinsdinner. Such an analogy illustrates the modeling
challenge, and helps to clarify a limitation inherent in the part-to-whole
relationship, namely that the two self-rated health questions do not differentiate
between parts: physical(but not mental) and mental(but not physical) health. To
characterize the relationship between the two self-rated health items, we sought to
ascertain the relative responses (better, same, or worse) between SRMH and SRH
questions among a large group of Medicare recipients. We hypothesized, based on
previous research, that there would be a strong association between SRMH and
SRH, and that any differences between them would not be skewed (i.e. that one
would not be consistently rated better or worse than the other). In addition, we
hypothesized that subgroups defined by sociodemographic and health
characteristics would show different patterns in the comparative ratings of SRMH
and SRH. Prior studies did not give strong support for hypothesizing a specific
direction to the relationship in subgroups. Materials and Methods Data came from
one wave of the Consumer Assessments of Healthcare Providers and Systems
(CAHPS®) Survey, administered in 2012 (Cohort 13). Participants were enrolled
in one of several the Medicare Advantage (MA) programs, which provide private
health insurance to about 30% of Medicare beneficiaries. Every year, each of the
MA contracts surveys 800 randomly-selected respondents. The 12-page core
survey was sent by mail, with phone follow-up for non-responders. Spanish-
language surveys were sent to those who returned a postcard indicating this
preference. The average age of the sample was 72.8 years, and 55.5% were
female. 13% indicated non-white race, and 52.5% reported some college
education. Additional, detailed information about survey methods, composition of
the cohort, and nonresponse patterns have been published elsewhere.14-1813.7%
of the MA recipients were younger than age 65, based on disability status. We
included them in the analyses because we could not assume that either disability
status or age would influence the relationships in question. We assumed that
differences in this group would appear in stratified analyses. Measures Self-rated
health The SRH item asked, In general, how would you rate your overall health?
with responses of Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, or Poor. Self-rated mental
health The SRMH item (which appeared immediately after the SRH item in the
survey) asked, In general, how would you rate your overall mental or emotional
health[emphasis retained], with the same response categories. Sociodemographic
characteristics The CAHPS administrative dataset identifies respondent gender
and age. The survey asked about highest education level (8th grade or less; some
high school, but did not graduate; high school graduate or GED; some college or
2-year degree; 4-year college graduate; and more than 4-year college degree),
ethnicity (Hispanic or Latino origin or descent), and race (with a request to select
one or more from White; Black or African-American; Asian; Native Hawaiian or
other Pacific Islander; and American Indian or Alaska Native). Health variables
Four other health-related variables which might be associated with differential
response in SRH and SRMH were used to tabulate descriptive results.
Comorbidities were assessed asking the question, Has a doctor ever told you that
you had any of the following conditions?, with responses for heart attack, angina
or coronary artery disease, stroke, cancer other than skin cancer, lung disease, or
any kind of diabetes or high blood sugar. These were summed to produce a
comorbidity score ranging from 0-6. Activities of daily living were assessed
asking the question, Because of a health or physical problem are you unable to do
or have any difficulty doing the following activities. The domains were bathing,
dressing, eating, getting in or out of chairs, walking, and using the toilet. The
response options were I am unable to do this activity, Yes, I have difficulty, and
No, I do not have difficulty. Respondents who were unable to perform the activity
or performed the activity with difficulty were coded as having an impairment.
Individual impairments were summed to produce an ADL impairment score
ranging from 0-6. Health care utilization was assessed asking the question, In the
last 6 months, not counting the times you went to an emergency room, how many
times did you go to a doctor’s office or clinic to get health care for yourself?
Responses were none, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 to 9, and 10 or more. The use of urgent services
was coded as a binary variable and asked whether the respondent had an illness,
injury, or condition that needed care right away in a clinic, emergency room, or
doctor’s officein the last six months. Analysis We excluded cases which did not
include a response to both the SRMH and SRH items. If other parts of the survey
were missing, each case was excluded only from the analyses that used those
items. We cross-tabulated SRH and SRMH ratings to determine the distribution of
responses across response categories. We calculated the Spearman’s rank-order
correlation. We computed the
expected joint probability distribution, if SRH and SRMH were independent
variables. The predicted joint probability distribution was calculated using a five-
by-five table, with the predictedvalues determined by what one would anticipate if
SRH and SRMH were independent. The row percentages (i.e.SRH, for each of the
five response categories) were multiplied by the column percentages (i.e.SRMH,
for each of the five response categories). These were compared with the observed
percentages. We produced tables characterizing the sample on the basis of the
sociodemographic, outcome, and predictor variables. We constructed a variable
indicating whether SRMH was better, the same, or worse than SRH, and
constructed distributions to show the relative frequencies of this by SRH and
SRMH category. We then tabulated the frequency of better, same, or worse
SRMH using the response categories in the sociodemographic and predictor
variables. Analyses were conducted in 2016 using SPSS (IBM Corp. Released
2010. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 19.0. Armonk, NY: IBM
Corp.). The University of Washington Institutional Review Board determined that
this project was not human subjects research. Results Surveys were mailed to
274,996 MA beneficiaries. A total of 118,444 surveys were returned. Of these,
114,905 included responses to both the SRH and SRMH questions. Figure 1
shows the unadjusted distribution of responses to the SRMH and SRH categories.
SRMH showed higher scores overall.
Significance for public health Self-rated health (SRH) has become established
as a general measure of health status, but less is known about self-rated mental
health (SRMH). Recent epidemiological studies have included self-rated mental
health (SRMH) without scrutinizing its properties and in particular its relationship
with SRH. In a large dataset of Medicare recipients, we found that self-rated
mental health was consistently rated better than self-rated health, across all patient
groups. None of the sociodemographic or health factors we examined accounted
for this discrepancy. Self-rated mental health seemed to be more resistant to the
effects of medical illnesses and functional impairments than was self-rated health.
This points to a likely difference in how people formulate and differentiate
between their mental and general health, with mental health being seen as more
separate from other health factors. These findings encourage caution in the use of
SRMH in analytic models, especially if included simultaneously with SRH.
Journal 3

English and Children are NOT Nightmares

Abstract
The research was aimed to find out the participants’ perspective about the basic
requirements of English teacher in Elementary level. By finding these
requirements, it is expected that there will be more people who want to be an
English Teachers since it is needed, not only in a high quantity, but also in a high
quality. This research was qualitative in nature. The data were gained from three
groups of participants, which are four English teachers, three Headmasters, and
twenty English Education Department’s students using observation, interview,
and questionnaire. Then, the data was analyzed using Triangulation method. The
findings showed that the participants highlighted seven requirements of English
teachers, which are (1) understand about the management of learning, (2)
understand about young learners’ characteristics, (3) having good personal
characteristics, (4) having willingness to teach English, (5) having an educational
background, (6) having a supporting system from school, and (7) having a
supporting system from the government.
Keywords : English Teacher, Basic Requirements, Elementary School
Introduction
English is one of important subject for students. Since English is an International
language, learning English for the very beginning ages is needed. However, some
students are afraid of learning English. In another side, some teachers are also
afraid to teaching English. English looks like a very high level of subject, so that
some people choose the other subject to be mastered.
Another focus of this research is elementary school. As we know, elementary
level is the first stage of children in gaining knowledge in formal situation. There,
children will learn how to interact with the knowledge and also social life. In their
early age, children also have special characteristics which are built by their
environment and also genetically. By their special characteristics, some people
look at them as people who have their own world. Moreover, children who have a
high ambition in asking questions or a high desire in doing “unordinary actions”
(such as screaming, walking, hitting, crying, or others actions which are happened
in teaching and learning process) are valuated negative for some people.
Here, English Subject and Elementary level, two things which are afraid of by
several people, are investigated to change our perception which stated those two
things are nightmare. “English is fun” and “becoming an English teacher is
awesome” are two basic perceptions which are expected can be built by this
research. By highlighting basic requirements, it is expected that many people will
realize that becoming an English teacher in Elementary level is not too hard to be
done. Understanding these requirements, teachers will know better how to be a
good model for students and also how to rebuild their confidence in teaching
English.
Research Method
This research uses qualitative approach. This approach is used because this
research is working with the phenomena. Besides, this research is expected to
know more than just “to what extent” or “how well” teaching and learning process
is done. In this case, this research will try to gain more complete picture of what is
going on in the observed classroom. Besides, the present research is using
descriptive method. This research will be focused on the four English teachers
who have different educational backgrounds to find out how and what they
present in the classroom.
There are three main groups of participants. To keep the anonymity and the
confidentiality of the participants, the research uses pseudonyms in describing
them. The first group is the four English teachers: Miss Indi, Mr. Yana, Mr.
Awan, and Miss Rima. The second group is the three headmasters: Mrs. Sari, Mr.
Tukiman, and Mrs. Linda. And the last group is the twenty English education
students.
In this research, there are three main groups of instruments used in collecting the
data. The instruments are observation check-list, interview transcript, and written
documents which contains questionnaire, administration documents, and English
textbooks.
Findings and Discussions
1. Understand about Management of Learning
2. Understand about Young Learners’ Characteristics
3. Having Good Personal Characteristics
4. Having a Willingness to Teach English
5. Having an Education Background
6. Having a Supporting System from School
7. Have a Supporting System from the Government
Conclusion
There are only seven basic requirements which are expected to be understood by
teachers who want to teach English. There are could be other requirements to be
the better one. This research tries to build up first the basic ones so that teachers
are brave to teach English. One important note from this research is, people who
have a big responsibility are not only the teachers, but also the schools’
management and the government. After all, the last question mark which will be
given, become an English teacher in elementary level, why not?
Bibliography
Brown, H. Douglas., 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy. 2nded. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Cameron, L., 2001. Teaching Language for Young Learners. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Dick, Walter & Raiser, Robert A., 1989. Planning Effective Instruction. New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N.E., 1990. How to Design and Evaluate Research in
Education. New York: McGraw Hill Publishing Company.
Harmer, Jeremy., 2004. How to Teach English: An Introduction to the Practice of
English Language Teaching. 12th ed. Malaysia: Pearson Education Limited.
Hughes, Arthur., Testing for Language Teachers. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Labaiky, Allia., 2007. Good Practices of Teaching English for Young Learners:
Research toward Teachers of Kindergarten in Bandung, West Java. S.Pd.
Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.
Mooney, Carol Garhart., 2000. Theories of Childhood: An Introduction to Dewey,
Montessori, Erikson, Piaget, and Vigotsky. St. Paul: Readleaf Press.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mropik.wordpress.com/2012/12/03/contoh-
jurnal/amp/