i ABSTRACT
THE USE OF ORAL ERROR CORRECTION IN STORYTELLING TO IMPROVE STUDENTS’ SPEAKING ACHIEVEMENT AT THE SECOND
GRADE OF SMAN 1 SIDOMULYO
by
Arya Yoga Swara
English as a foreign language is very necessary. The teaching learning of English is a process that contains a series of actions between teacher and students on the basis of reciprocal relationships that take place in an educational situation to achieve a certain goal. But, in pre research at SMAN 1 Sidomulyo, the students’ performance in speaking shows that they still have low achievement in speaking. Students need new technique to stimulate and train them to be more active in speaking during teaching learning process in speaking class. Therefore, the researcher conducted research on Oral Error Correction in Storytelling to
improve students’ speaking achievement.
The aims of this study were to find out difference of students’ speaking achievement after being taught by using Oral Error Correction in Storytelling technique and whether or not OralError Correction in Storytelling can be used
to increase students’ speaking aspects. This research used quantitative research as the research design. It was conducted using one group pre-test post-test design. The subject of this research was class XI IPA 1 of SMAN 1 Sidomulyo. Pretest and posttest were conducted to find out the quantitative data, and observation during the treatments was done to get qualitative data. Repeated measure T-test was used to analyze the data. The hypothesis testing was computed using SPSS version 20.0.
The result showed that there was significant difference in level 0.05 because t-ratio is higher than t-table (6.593 > 2042). Oral Error Correction in Storytelling technique was applicable to improve the students’ speaking achievement. In
pretest, students’ means score was 60 while in posttest it became 72.45. It could be inferred that Oral Error Correction in Storytelling technique gave significant increase on students’ speaking achievement.
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In the name of Ida Sang Hyang Widhi Wasa, the Beneficent and Merciful. All prise is merely to mightiest Ida SHWW, the lord of the worlds, for the gracious mercy and tremendous blessings that enables me to accomplish this script. This research report, entitled the use of oral error correction in storytelling to improve students’ speaking achievement at SMAN 1 Sidomulyo, is submitted to fulfill one
of the requirements for obtaining the award of S-1 of English Education, the Department of Language and Art, Teacher Training and Education Faculty, University of Lampung.
In writing this script, the writer got a lot of guidance, suggestion, and many valuable things from many people. Therefore, the researcher would like to thank to the following people for their idea, time, and guidance for this script:
1. Dr. Ari Nurweni, M.A. as the chairperson of English Study Program. 2. Drs. Sudirman, M.Pd. as Advisor, who has patiently guided and directed
the researcher until the completion of this script.
3. Drs. Deddy Supriady, M.Pd. as co-advisor, who has given guidance and supervision especially in correcting this script.
4. Ujang Suparman, M.A, Ph.D as the examiner, who has guided and suggestion for the improvement of the script.
ii
6. All of his beloved friends in English Education Study Program, especially for his close friends who always support him and always beside him all over happiness and sadness.
7. The last, the researcher would like to say thanks to classmates and all persons who cannot be mentioned individually here, who has greatly contributed toward the completion of this script.
Finally, the researcher realises that there are still some weaknesses in this script. Any correction, comments, and suggestion for the improvement of this script are always open-heartedly welcome and the writer hopes that this paper will be useful for the readers.
Bandar Lampung, October 2015 Researcher,
THE USE OF ORAL ERROR CORRECTION IN STORYTELLING TO IMPROVE STUDENTS’ SPEAKING ACHIEVEMENT AT THE SECOND
GRADE OF SMAN 1 SIDOMULYO
BY
ARYA YOGA SWARA 0913042028
ADVISOR 1. Drs. Sudirman, M. Pd. 2. Drs. Dedy Supriyadi, M.Pd
ENGLISH STUDY PROGRAM
LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION DEPARTMENT TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY
THE USE OF ORAL ERROR CORRECTION IN STORYTELLING TO IMPROVE STUDENTS’ SPEAKING ACHIEVEMENT AT THE SECOND
GRADE OF SMAN 1 SIDOMULYO
BY
ARYA YOGA SWARA 0913042028
ENGLISH STUDY PROGRAM
LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION DEPARTMENT TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY
i
CURRICULUM VITAE
Arya Yoga Swara Sumantri was born on Mei 5th, 1991 in Sidomulyo, Lampung Selatan. He comes from a lovely family of two children. He is the first child of a wonderful couple, Drs. I Ketut Sumantri and Ni Komang Lilis Aryani. His father works as teacher at SMAN 1 Sidomulyo and His mother also works as a teacher in SMAN 1 Sidomulyo. He has one beloved sibling, Devie Arisandy.
After graduated from kindergarten at TK Dharma Wanita, Sidomulyo in 1996, he continued his study to Elementary School of SDN 1 Sidorejo and graduated in 2001. He continues his study to SMPN 1 Sidomulyo and graduated in 2003. And he continued at SMAN 1 Sidomulyo and graduated in 2009.
i
DEDICATION
By offering my praise and gratitude to Ida Sang hyang Widhi for blessing me, this script is proudly dedicated to:
The greatest inspiration of my life: my beloved father and Mother, Drs. I Ketut Sumantri and Ni Komang Lilis Aryani
My beloved Sister: Devie Arisandy
My big family
i
LIST OF APPENDICES
1. Oral Rating Sheet ……… 61
2. Pretest ………..……… 64
3. Posttest………. 65
4. Material ………..………. 66
5. Lesson Plan 1 ……….……… 73
6. Lesson Plan 2 ……….. 76
7. Lesson Plan 3 ………. 79
8. Result of Students’ Pretest among Two Raters ……….. 82
9. Result of Students’ Posttest among Two Raters ……….... 83
10.List of Students’ Average Score in Pretest and Posttest ……… 84
11.Result of Students’ Pretest ………. 85
12.Result of Students’ Posttest ……….…..…… 86
13.Inter-rater Reliability of Pretest Score ………..………. 87
14.Reliability of Pretest ……… 88
15.Inter Rater Reliability of Posttest Score ……….. 89
16.Reliability of Posttest ………..………… 90
17.T-Test Computation ………. 91
18.T-Table ………..… 94
19.Transcription of Pretest ……… 95
20.Transcription of Posttest………..…….. 96
i
LIST OF GRAPHICS
1. The Average of Students’ Speaking Score in Pretest ………. 38
2. The Average of Students’ Speaking Score in Posttest ……… 40
3. The Improvement of Average Scores from Pretest to Posttest ……… 42
4. Improvement of Students’ Speaking in Five Aspects from Pretest to
i
LIST OF TABLES
i
MOTTO
The difference between human does not lie in power. The difference is
in experience
(Szayel Aporro Grantz, 2006)
We can not waste time worrying about what happen next. Time is
running so fast and if the work's deadline has been changed to
tomorrow. We will just have to finish it today
i
1.2 Identification of the problems ... 5
1.3 Limitation of the Problem ……….. 5
2.2.7 Advantages and disadvantages of Oral Error Correction... 20
2.2.8 Theoretical Assumption ... 22
3.4 Data Collecting Technique ... 27
3.5 Criteria of Evaluating Students’ Speaking Ability ... 28
3.5.1 Reliability ... 28
3.5.2 Validity ... 29
3.5.2 Scores ... 31
3.6 Instrument of the Research ... 31
3.7 Data Analysis ... 31
3.8 Hypothesis Testing ... 32
ii IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1 The Implementation of the Treatments ... 35
4.2 The Result of Students’ Speaking Achievement ... 38
4.2.1 Results of Pretest ... 38
4.2.2 Results of Posttest ... 40
4.2.3 Improvement of Students’ Speaking Achievement ... 42
4.2.4 Result of Aspects of Speaking Achievement ... 45
4.3 Result of Hypothesis Test ... 47
4.3 Discussion and Finding ... 48
V. CONCLUSIONS 5.1 Conclusions ... 58
5.2 Suggestions ... 59 PREFERENCES ...
I. INTRODUCTION
This chapter deals with the introduction of this research. It involves background of the problem, identification of the problems, formulation of the problem, limitation of problem, research questions, objective of the research, uses of the research, scope of the research, and definition of terms.
.
1.1. Background
English as a foreign language is very necessary. The teaching learning of English is a process that contains a series of actions between teacher and students on the basis of reciprocal relationships that take place in an educational situation to achieve a certain goal. Good interaction between teacher and students will give good condition for the continuity of the learning process. Interaction in the teaching and learning events has a wider sense, not just the relationship between teacher and students, but in the form of educational interaction.
2
only. Learning process imply the existence of an inseparable unity between the activities of student and teaching of teacher. Between these two events involves interaction and mutual support.
In Pre research on the school of SMAN 1 Sidomulyo, the students’ performance in speaking shows that the students have low ability in speaking. It is the problems which faced by the students. The problems just not come from the students, but the English teacher too. English teacher says that he does not give the supports rapidly like correction during speaking. The teacher has his own reasons why he is not correcting the mistakes of students, like the students will get shy or etc. Basically, the teacher can give the support by giving the correction when the students making an error in speaking.
3
although speaking is now an essential part of many language curricula, it is probably true to say that while it frequently occurs in class, speaking is less frequently taught. The problem comes not only from the students but also from the teacher.
In learning a language, someone should do a lot of practice. In general, students would start with understanding the message given orally and comprehending certain words, in order not to get wrong interpretation or miss understanding. In responding, students should initiate to speak like native speaker in order to make students able to produce the sound correctly or at least nearly the same as native speaker. So, the teacher should give inputs to correct the students’ speaking performance.
Davis and Pearse (2000: 103) state that errors are integral part of language learning and not evidence of failure to learn. Many studies have indicated that errors are signals that learning occurs; in other words, errors indicate students’ stage which reflects parts of lesson that have been understood and to be improved (Smith, 1994 and Hedge, 2000). Error correction is defined as a response either to the content of what a student has produced or to the form of the utterance (Richards and Lockharts, 1996: 188). It means that error is the stage where the students try but students still wrong. So, when students get wrong the teacher should give corrections to repair and give inputs to the students. After the students get the input, they will get an better way
to remmember again and don’t try to false. They will correct themself before they
speak. There are so many experts who classify the error correction. Lyster and
Ranta’s (1997) model to categorize the types of spoken error correction as explicit
4
For example, when student speaks “there is a little milk in fridge.”, the teacher will correct the students by saying “in the fridge”. It means that the teacher give an input
for the students to repair the student’s form of sentence but in spoken language. It
calls oral error correction.
In another case, using story telling in teaching speaking helps the students to be creative. Students can briefly explain about the story has been read or make their own story to tell to their friends in front of the class. Storytelling is one of the techniques commonly used in language learning. According to Cameron (2001:160), story telling is an oral activity, and stories have the shape they do because they are designed to be listened to and in many situations, participated in. Story telling forced students to be creative in the delivery in order to make the story interesting. But there is not an input
during the students’ perform in front of the class. It will make a lot of errorlike
pronounciation, proper words and etc. Then, if there is not justification, it will make the students still in wrong speaking ways.
5
The analysis and characterication would probably show more details that may be useful for many purposes that may benefit language users and learners to achieve better teaching and learning process.
1.2 Identification of the problem
There are some problems usually found in speaking teaching learning process. There are many factors can make many problems emerge. Problems that usually found are as stated below:
1. The students are lack ability of speaking
2. Not all of teachers give error correction in speaking form (oral error correction)
3. Some teacher do not know how much to correct, when to correct, and how to correct.
4. Students need exercise to improve practical situation in classroom. 5. Students need some inputs and supports to improve their performance.
1.3Limitation of the Problem
This research is limited to deal with the use of Oral Error Correction technique to
solve the problem faced by the students, especially to increase students’ speaking
6
1.4Research Questions
Based on the background above, the research questions of this research are formulated as follows:
1. Is there any significant difference on students’ speaking achievement before and after being taught through oral error correction in storytelling at second grade of SMAN 1 Sidomulyo?
2. In which aspect of speaking does Error Oral Correction give the highest improvement?
1.5Objectives
The objectives of this research are:
1. To find out if there is improvement of students’ speaking achievement before and after being taught through oral error correction in storyteling at second grade of SMAN 1 Sidomulyo.
2. To find out which aspect of speaking that has the highest improvement.
1.6Uses of the Research
This research has some uses as follows:
1. Theoretically, the result of this research is used to confirm the previous theory about the effect of teaching speaking by using oral error correction in storytelling at the second grade students.
7
the eminences of teaching speaking by using oral error correction in storytelling could be used as informations for the reader.
1.7Scope
This research was conducted to find out the process of teaching speaking by using error correction in storytelling at the second grade students of SMAN 1 Sidomulyo. This research was focused on five aspects of speaking: Pronunciation, Fluency, Grammar, Comprehension, and Vocabulary. This research was conducted in the level of senior high school. The research focused on the process of teaching speaking by using oral error correction in storytelling at the second grade of SMAN 1 Sidomulyo
and the improvement of students’ speaking achievement after being taught by using
oral error correction in storytelling.
1.8 Definition of Terms
Considering the presence of the non-general terms in this research that may cause misunderstanding, some definitions of term use in this research are stated as below:
1. Achievement is the students’ result after studying with effort, skill, or courage.
2. Oral Error Correction is the process of detecting errors of the students by
giving good comments and correct way in transmitted messages in oral form.
3. Story telling is an oral activity that used in this research to show the students
8
4. Teaching speaking means teaching how to use the language for
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter has major points: Review of previous research and review of related literatures. In details it explains several concepts of speaking, aspects of speaking, types of speaking, concept of teaching speaking, concept of error correction, advantages and disadvantages, theoretical assumption and hypotheses of the research. The explanation is delivered as follow:
2.1 Review of Previous Related Researches
There have been several studies that investigate the skill and technique or method which are relevant to this research.
The first research is improving the students’ writing skill through facilitative error
correction feedback (A classroom research for eleventh grade students of MA Nurul Huda Medini Gajah Demak in academic year 2011/2012) conducted by Setianingsih (2012). She conducted the research to improve the students’ writing skill by doing this research using facilitative error correction feedback technique. The result of this research showed that the students’ writing skill was improved
that the responses given by the teacher are to help the students to discover their own ideas and strategies for improving their papers.
The second research is The Use of Storytelling Technique to Improve Students’ Speaking Skill (A Classroom Action Research at The First Grade of SMA Negeri 1 Ngemplak Boyolali in The Academic Year Of 2010/2011) conducted by Rafiudin (2011). The objectives of this study are to find out whether or not and to what extent storytelling can improve the students’ speaking skill and to describe the teaching learning process when storytelling is applied in teaching speaking. Based on the analysis of data, the writer finds that Storytelling technique can improve students’ speaking skill. It can be seen from students’ performance
during teaching and learning process. Students became more active and all students were involved in teaching learning process. So it can be concluded the use of storytelling is able to encourage studens’ speaking ability.
Considering the previous research above, it can be found that there are some differences among two previous research with this research. In the first previous research, the researcher uses the error correction to improve the students’ writing
skill. In the second previous research, the researcher uses storytelling to improve the students’ performance in classroom action research. But in this research, the
researcher focuses on the use of oral error correction in storytelling to improve students’ speaking ability. It means that this research uses error correction in oral form and uses storytelling as the practical activity to show the students’ speaking
2.2 Review or Related Literatures and ideas. According to Webster (1995:398), speaking is to express idea, thought or feeling. Therefore we need to speak each other to express idea and feeling. Although it is suspended by context, humans construct meaning of his opinion and say to produce by using interactive process. Brown (1994) says that speaking is an interactive process of constructing meaning that involves producing and receiving interactive process. Cameron (2002:40) stated that speaking is the active use of language to express meaning so that other people can make sense of them. Through speaking, people will feel and understand what others express in language.
The first important thing in communicating, speakers should understand the message of what speakers want to say and understood by another people too. Eventhough, someone is master in grammatical knowledge, if he does not know the meaning, he will be missunderstanding. Therefore, we should master other abilities in communication. Huebner (1960:5) says that speaking is a skill used by someone in daily life communication whether at school or outside. The skill is required by much repetition, it primarily neuromuscular and not an intellectual process. It contains the ability in sending and receiving massage because
repetition is needed by people to achieve and master language skill. Doff (1988:2) also says that in all communication or conversation, two people are exchanging information or they have a communication or conversation need. In short, when we speak, we have an interactive process of constructing meaning that involves producing and receiving and processing information (Burns and Joyce, 1997). So, in this research, speaking is a process of oral activity or skill which is used in daily life as a part of communication in which verbal and non-verbal symbol used in transferring massages.
2.2.2 Aspects of Speaking
Speaking can be divided into two types based on the achievement, good speaking and bad speaking. Based on the aspects of speaking, it can be said as good or bad. Harris (1974:75) said that aspects of speaking are:
1. Pronunciation is ways of words are pronounced. As what Oster (1985:431) said, one who learns English as a foreign language must be able to use English pronunciation as well as other skills in the language. 2. Grammar is a rule system in a language. Lado (1969:221) said that
grammar is a system of units and patterns of language.
3. Vocabulary is the words used in a language. We can speak at all without vocabulary (Wilkins, 1983:111).
4. Fluency is Language production and it is normally reserved for speech. It is the ability to link units of speech together with facility and without strain or inappropriate slowness, or undue hesitation (Hedge, 2000: 54).
5. Comprehension denotes the ability of understanding the speaker’s intention and general meaning (Heaton, 1991:35). Good comprehension refers to good understanding. If someone’ language understanding is good,
it will affect the speaking ability.
2.2.3 Types of Speaking
An important dimension of conversation is using a style of speaking that is appropriate to the particular circumstances. Different styles of speaking reflect the roles, age, sex, and the status of participants in interactions and also reflect the expression of politeness. Different speech styles reflect perceptions of the social roles of the participants in a speech event. If the speaker and hearer are judged to be of more or less equal status, a casual speech style that stresses affiliation and solidarity is appropriate. If the participants are perceived as being of uneven power or status, a more formal speech style is appropriate, one that marks the dominance of one speaker over the other. Successful management of speech styles creates the sense of politeness that is essential for harmonious social relations (Brown and Levinson, 1978). Brown (2001: 250) says that much of our language-teaching energy is devoted to instruction in mastering English conversation. He classifies the types of oral language as follows:
1. Monologue is the oral language involves only one person in it. There is only one person who speaks as in lectures, news casting, radio broadcast, etc. monologue can be divided into two types;
- Planned usually manifest little redundancy and are therefore relatively difficult to comprehend. For example: speeches and order prewritten material, and storytelling.
- Unplanned exhibit more redundancy, which make for ease in comprehension, but the presence of more performance variables in order hesitations can either help or hinder comprehension. For example: impromptu lecturers and long “stories” in conversation.
2. Dialogue is the oral language involves two or more speaker in it. Based on the function dialogue can be divided into two types;
- Interpersonal (unfamiliar and familiar), can be subdivided into those exchanges that promote social relationships. Interactional speech is communicating with someone for social purpose (Bailey, 2006). For example: Communicating with other in social situation and daily activities. - Transactional (Unfamiliar and Familiar), to convey proportional or factual information. Transactional speaking in which someone only speaks in order to get what he wants to get. For example, dialog between seller and buyer.
From the explanation above, the researcher chooses planned monologue as the type of speaking in this research. It is caused by planned monologue can show the students’ ability of oral language. Moreover, the aim of this research used an oral
error correction to make students know the right way to speak the words or sentences in form of storytelling.
2.2.4 Concept of Teaching Speaking
Teaching speaking is one of the important parts in teaching language. Teaching speaking means teaching how to use the language for communication, for transferring idea, thought or even feeling to others. Basically, language is made as a means of communication. River (1978:6) states that speaking is developed from the first contact with the language that we learn, because we can transfer our ideas, massages, thought or order to people by using speaking. Johnson (1983:23) says that the essence of human language is human activity on the part of the individual to make him understand by another and activity on the part of the other understands what was on the first. Language, as an activity, permits people to communicate with each other. It can be seen from statements that language needs interaction (speaking) in the process to fulfill the purpose and just not a heap of grammar that students have in the school. In this research, teaching speaking sentences. Speaking can be understood and mastered if learners feel the situation as if they are in the real condition where the language they learned is used. In this case, researcher uses oral error correction to reconstruct the students’ productivity of words during speaking about the story. If the students make mistakes or error, the teacher will give the justification about the mistakes.
2.2.5 Concept of Oral Error Correction
Error correction is an important element of the teaching/learning process; therefore it should be treated positively (Lyster, 1997; Lyster and Ranta, 1997). In their study that was conducted in an ESL setting, this research conduct a categorization of error, feedback, and uptake to investigate the relationship between error types and types of feedback, and learner uptake.
Certainly the teacher will have to give a correct answer, if only to save time or avoid the confusion of multiple error. Ramirez and Stromquist (1979) found that the overt correction of oral grammatical errors is positively associated with student growth.
The definition of oral error correction should be approached from a historical perspective to see the progress made so far. Traditionally, when the audio-lingual approach to teaching foreign languages was popular among English teaching professionals, errors were seen as something to be avoided. However, today the contemporary research seems to agree on the fact that rather than expecting students to produce error-free sentences, students were encouraged to communicate in the target language and making errors is a natural part of second language acquisition.
Oral error correction focused on phonological, grammatical, and lexical errors and came up with a model of corrective feedback types such as recasts, explicit correction, elicitation, clarification, repetition of error, and metalinguistic feedback. Another focus of their study was on uptake that can be grouped as “self -” or “peer-repair” and “teacher-repair”. There are definitions and examples of
each type oral error correction based on (Lyster, 1997; Lyster and Ranta, 1997) as follows:
1. Explicit correction: Clearly indicating that the student's utterance was incorrect, the teacher provides the correct form. This correction is the feedback of the teacher when student is wrong spontaneously.
Example:
Student: there is a little milk in fridge.
Teacher: + in the fridge.
From the case above, the student make a mistake in grammatical form, especially in using article to specify something. So, the teacher gives input “the” as the correction. But in this case, teacher gives correction in spoken
language.
2. Recast: The teacher implicitly reformulates the student's error, or provides the correction without directly pointing out that the student's utterance was incorrect.
Example:
Student: he like pop-music.
Teacher: yes, he likes pop-music
In the case above, the student make a mistakes about the grammatical error during speaking, especially when using –s or –es in verb one at presenttense type. But, the teacher give input implicitly by giving an opening with “yes” then repeat but repair the word from “like” to“likes”.
3. Clarification request: The teacher indicates that the message has not been understood or that the student's utterance included some kind of mistake and that a repetition or a reformulation is needed by using phrases like "Excuse me?”.
Example:
Student: there aren’t many /hotıls/ in this town.
Teacher: again?
In the case above, the student make a mistake in pronouncing the word “hotels”. The student speak “/hotıls/” then the the teacher give an input “again?” to make the student think again about what he speak and repeat
the word in correct pronunciation. The student should speak “[həˈtels]”.
4. Metalinguistic clues: The teacher poses questions like “Do we say it like
that?” or provides comments or information related to the formation of the
student's utterance without providing the correct form. Example:
Student: there isn’t any books.
Teacher: + Do we say it like that?
Ds: there isn’t any money
From the case above, the student make an mistake in using word “any”
and continouing with plural noun “books”. Then, The teacher do not give an input, he just ask again by using “Do we say it like that?” or give
another example with another word but same form.
5. Elicitation: The teacher directly elicits the correct form from the student by asking questions (e.g., "How do I ask somebody to clean the board?"), by pausing to allow the student to complete the teacher's utterance (e.g., "He is a good…") or by asking students to reformulate the utterance (e.g.,
"Can you say that again?"). Example:
Student: there are a few books in my /lıbrari/
Teacher: in my…?
In the case above, student make a mistake in pronounce word “library”. He should speak [ˈlaibrəri], but he speaks /lıbrari/. Then, the teacher pausing to allow the student to complete the teacher’s utterance “in my...?”.
6. Repetition: The teacher repeats the student's error and changes intonation to draw student's attention to it. The teacher does not give an input. The teacher just repeat the student’s mistake in other sound to make the student
attents that he wrong. Example:
S: How much money do you have in your /pakıt/?
T: /pakıt/? ♪
DS: /pokıt/
T: yes
In the case above, the student make a mistake when speak word “pocket” by pronouncing “/pakıt/”. Then the teacher just repeats the student’s
wrong utterance in another sound /pakıt/. Then the student attents and
speak [ˈpokit].
All of type of oral error correction in above will be used as the technique to repair the error of the students and correct the students’ speaking performance during
retell the story in storytelling section.
2.2.6 Teaching Speaking through Oral Error Correction
In this research, the researcher modified procedures of teaching speaking through oral error correction in storytelling as follows:
a. Pre-teaching
1. The teacher greets the class.
2. The teacher gives brainstorming to the students about storytelling
3. The teacher gives text to all of students.
b. While teaching
1. Students get the text.
2. Students get the time to speak in front of the class.
3. Students tell the story by using their own word based on the text but do not bring the text.
4. The teacher corrects the wrong sentence, pronunciation, and grammar of the students orally during students retelling the story.
5. After all of students tell story, the teacher gives comment and suggestion.
6. The teacher gives the explanation about correct sentence, correct pronunciation, and correct grammar.
c. Post activities
1. The teacher gives comments and explains important things related to the performance of students.
2. The teacher gives chance for the students to ask something about the text or retell the story.
3. The teacher closes the meeting.
In the modified procedure above, it shows that this teaching procedure is difference from another conventional way of teaching. It happens because this procedures are giving the students a chance for speaking in front of the class and the teacher give the oral suggestion or correction to provide the students’
performance.
2.2.7 Advantage and Disadvantages of Oral Error Correction
The advantages of oral error correction are:
1. Correction will, or should be, quicker, more efficient, and „accurate’; 2. It boosts student confidence –„It is the teacher’s job’, „The teacher is
always right!’;
3. Teacher can make sure that correction is done sensitively and fairly; 4. Teacher can use proper and varied techniques of correction.
The disadvantages of teacher correction include: 1. It fails to encourage learner-independence;
2. It may be intimidating for students to have „the teacher’ correcting their mistakes;
3. Students may feel embarrassed, however sensitive the teacher may be; 4. Too much teacher correction may be demoralized for students;
5. Another student might feel „left out’ of the lesson while a mistake is being corrected.
2.2.8 Theoretical Assumption
As a means of communication, languages have to be used in both written and oral forms but the fact that we have is many of students cannot comprehend the oral form of language properly and correctly. It can be caused by many factors one of the factors is because their lack of achievement in speaking. There are many techniques that can help students to improve their speaking achievement. In this case, this research uses oral error correction to improve the students’ speaking achievement.
Error correction is an important element of the teaching/learning process; therefore it should be treated positively. It emphasizes the effort that students have basic knowledge, so they can easily follow the material from the teacher in the classroom. The basis of competencies and indicators became an easy point for students to be studied because they must have this point in every single student, so their self confidence will increase dramatically.
2.2.9 Hypotheses
Based on the assumption above, researcher has a hypothesis that there is an increase of students’ speaking achievement after getting oral error correction in storytelling.
III.
RESEARCH METHODThis chapter explains about the research design and how to collect data from the samples. The researcher encloses the procedure of this research and data collecting technique. The researcher also gives the scoring system and how the data were analyzed.
3.1. Research Design
This research was aimed at knowing whether oral error correction in storytelling could improve aspects of students’ speaking abillity or not. Sugiyono (2008:114) states that experimental design is a study which aims at finding out the influence of particular treatment. This research used quantitative research as the research design. Quantitative research is a kind of research in which the data used to tend to use statistic measurement in deciding the conclusion (Hatch and Farhady, 1982:22). It was conducted using quisy one group pre-test post-test design. The result was gained from the comparison between the two tests (pre-test and post-test). According to Setiyadi (2000:40), the design is described as follows:
T1 X T2 Where:
25
The researcher used one class as experimental group which was selected by using purposive sampling. It was carried out in order to find out the result of the application of oral error correction to improve the students’ speaking ability. A
pretest was an activity before treatment given. From the pre-test, it was known how far the ability of the students. After that, the researcher gave three treatments to the students using oral error correction in storytelling. Finally, a posttest was given to see the result of the research after the treatment was conducted.
3.2. Subjects
The subject of this research was the second grade of SMAN 1 Sidomulyo, South Lampung. The researcher used one experimental class to be treated. The researcher chose Eleven MIA 3 as the experimental class. There were 37 students in this class. Because 2 students did not come to the class in pretest and treatment 1, researcher only took 35 students as the subjects of the research. The researcher chose this class because they had potential to be subjects in this research. The Subjects were selected by using purposive sampling. The researcher chose the class that had moderate score in English subject. This research was conducted in five meetings; first meeting was for conducting the pretest, continued with three meetings for conducting treatments, and the last meeting was for conducting posttest.
3.3. Research Procedures
26
3.3.1. Preparing the Lesson Plan
The researcher designed the lesson plan for three meetings of treatments. The first and the last meetings were allocated to conduct the pretest and posttest (out of the treatments). The lesson plan was designed based on the National curriculum of English for second grade students of senior high school which consists of Competence Standard, Basic Competence, Indicator, Instructional Objective, and Lesson Materials. In addition, method/ technique, steps of the activity, source of the material, and the evaluation were also involved.
3.3.2. Preparing the Material
The material made by the teacher (researcher) was based on the resources from some English books of senior high school. In this case, the researcher chose narrative text as the type of material.
3.3.3. Administering Pre-Test
This test was purposed to obtain the data of the students’ basic speaking skill and to ascertain that the students had similar capability and the same English proficiency before they received the treatment.
3.3.4. Conducting Treatment
27
3.3.5. Administering Post-Test
The study employed the post test at the end of the research. It was used to measure the students’ speaking skill after the treatments. The post test had the
same procedures as in the administering the pretest.
3.3.6. Analyzing the Data
Both pretest and posttest results were analyzed by using repeated measure T-test to compare the data of two means score (Hatch and Farhady, 1982:108). The researcher analysed the improvement by comparing the scores of pretest and posttest from the experimental class. If the score of posttest was higher than pretest, it meant that there was a progress of students’ speaking skill achievement.
3.3.7. Concluding the Data Analysis
After analyzing the results of both pretest and posttest, the researcher searched the results and made conclusions of this research.
From the procedures of research above, there were two tests, pretest and posttest. It was conducted to answer the quantitative research question whether there was improvment on students’ speaking achievement through oral error correction in storytelling or not.
3.4 Data Collecting Technique
28
3.4.1 Pre-Test
Pretest was conducted to find out how far the students’ achievement in speaking before treatment. The pre-test was speaking test for assessing oral production. The researcher used interview as the tool to find out the achievement of the students before get the treatments.
3.4.2 Post-Test
Posttest was conducted in the end of the research. It was done after giving treatments and exercises to the experimental group. Like pretest, Researcher used interview to check the achievement of the students after getting treatments. The result of the post-test was used to compare the data of the pre-test and making conclusion whether oral error correction in retelling story can improve students’ speaking achievement or not. The procedure of post-test was the same as pre-test.
3.4.3 Recording
The researcher recorded the students’ speaking performance during pretest and posttest by using video recorder to collect the data. It was used to ease the researcher when analyzing and transcribing the data.
3.4.4 Transcribing
The last, the researcher transcribed the students’ speaking performance from the video recorder that had been conducted. The researcher transcribed the best and the worst students’ performance during pretest and posttest (See Appendix 20).
3.5. Criteria of Evaluating Students’ Speaking Performance
29
teach in SMAN 1 Sidomulyo. She had been teaching more than five years in this school. So, the experience in teaching is very good. Inter rater gave score and recorded together by researcher. The researcher recorded students’ utterances because it helped the rater more objective. The test of speaking measured based on two principles, reliability and validity.
3.5.1. Reliability
Reliability refers to extend to which test is consistent in its score and gives us an indication of how accurate the score tests are. Nitko (1983: 395) states that a reliable measure is one that provides consistent and stable indication of the characteristic being investigated. In this research, the researcher used inter-rater reliability to assess students’ performance; the researcher and one of English
teacher in school. They gave the score toward the students’ performance in pretest and posttest. The score of two raters were seen to know the consistency of the instrument.
The statistical formula for counting the reliability is as follow:
R = Reliability
N = Number of students
D = Different of rank correlation (mean score from rater1/R1-rater2/R2) 1-6 = Constant number
After find the coefficient between rates, then researcher analyzes the coefficient of reliability with the standard of reliability below:
30
b. A low reliability range from 0.20 to 0.39 c. An average reliability range from 0.40 to 0.59 d. A high reliability range from 0.60 to 0.79 e. A very high reliability range from 0.80 to 0.100 Slameto (1998:147)
3.5.2. Validity
Meizaliana (2009:82) states that the data is valid if the instruments used were also valid, and a test is reliable if it is constant, or it is reliable if the results of test show their constancy. Hatch and Farhady (1982:250) defined validity as “the
extent to which the result of the procedure serves the uses for which they were intended”. Content validity, the test is a good reflection of what is thinking and the knowledge which the students to know. Shohamy (1985:74) states that is construct validity to measure the test will be examining to reflect what language. Based on that quotation, validity refers to the extent which the test measures what it is intend to measure. This means that relates to the purpose of the test. The test measured based on the indicator.
31
3.5.3. Scores
In evaluating the students’ speaking scores, the researcher used the Oral English
Rating sheet proposed by Harris (1974: 84). Based on the Oral English Rating sheet, there were five components tested to the students, namely: pronunciation, fluency, grammar, vocabulary and comprehension (See Appendix 1).
3.6. Instrument of the Research
In getting the data, the researcher used speaking test as the instrument of the research. The speaking test was Interview. Researcher recorded the students’ performance. Then, researcher gave scores about students’ performance.
The researcher divided speaking test into two sections which were pretest and posttest. The pretest was conducted by him before the students got the treatments. He took the data in pretest by using interview technique. He asked the students to tell a story what they know. Then the researcher gave the scores of the students’ speaking achievement based on the oral rating sheet provided. He asked the students to concerned on five elements of speaking namely pronunciation, fluency, grammar, vocabulary and comprehensible. The form of the test was subjective test since there was no exact answer.
32
3.7.Data Analysis
In order to see whether there was an improvement of students’ speaking ability or not, the researcher examined the students’ score using these following steps:
1. Scoring the pretest and posttest.
2. After getting the raw score, the researcher tabulated the results of the test and calculating the score of pretest and posttest. Then, researcher used SPSS to calculate mean of pretest and posttest to see whether there was an improvement or not after the students were taught by using oral error correction in storytelling.
3. Repeated Measure T – test was used to search the increase of students’performance, after that, it could be concluded that students had the significant improvement or not. The data computed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 20 for windows. The hypothesis analyzed at the significance level of 0.05 in which hypothesis was approve if sig <α.
3.8.Hypothesis Testing
33
improvement of the students’ speaking achievement before and after being taught
through oral error correction in storytelling.
Therefore, the hypothesis which can be stated is as follows:
H0 : There is no significant improvement of the students’ speaking achievement before and after being taught through oral error correction in storytelling H1 : There is a significant improvement of the students’ speaking achievement
before and after being taught through oral error correction in storytelling If P < 0.05 H1 is accepted
If P >0.05 H0 is accepted
3.9. Schedule of the Research
This research was conducted based on sequenced schedule which was appropriate at schedule of English subject in the class. On Monday, March 2nd, 2015 the pre test was carried out in XI MIA 3 in order to know the students’ achievement of speaking before giving treatments. The first meeting was on Wednesday, March 4th 2015; the second meeting was on Friday, March 6th 2015, and the third meeting was on Wednesday, March 11th 2015. After the treatments had been administered, the post test was given in that class on Monday, March 13th 2015 in order to know the gain of the students’ speaking achievement after being taught using Oral Error Correction technique in Storytelling. The schedule of the research can be seen in the following table:
Table 3.1 Research Schedule in Conducting Research at SMAN 1 Sidomulyo
Date Activities
34
V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
This chapter focuses on some points relating to the result and also discussion after conducting the research. Then, it can be taken some conclusions and also suggestions from the research.
5.1 Conclusions
Having conducted the research at the second grade of SMAN 1 Sidomulyo and analyzing the data, the researcher would like to give the conclusion as follows:
1. There is significant difference of the students’ speaking achievement after being taught by oral error correction. It can be seen from the difference of average score in pretest and also posttest. The result of posttest is higher than the result of pretest. There is an increase from the average score of pretest (60) to posttest (72.45). Then, the result of hypothesis test shows also that the hypothesis one (h1) is accepted because T-ratio was higher than t-table (6.593 > 2042).
59
the other words, it could be concluded that the most improvement aspect in this research is Grammar.
5.2. Suggestions
Some suggestions that the researcher would like to propose based on the conclusion are as follows:
1. The English teachers are suggested to use oral error correction in storytelling on teaching speaking because it is a new technique that can improve students’ speaking skill. This technique can be used by the English teachers when they are teaching narrative text. It can make the students enjoy the teaching learning activity in narrative text and stimulate the students’ speaking achievement.
2. For the English teachers who want to use oral error correction in storytelling technique are suggested to be able to make some variations in teaching so that the students do not feel bored make another activity. Besides that, the teacher should pay attention toward the problems which might be occured in learning process as what has been explained in this research.
i
PREFERENCE
Bailey, K.M. 2006. Issues in teaching speaking skills to adult ESOL learners. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 113-164.
Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy. San Fransisco: State University.
Brown, H. Douglas. 1994. Principle of Language Learning and Teaching. 3rd Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall Regents.
Burns, A, and Joyce, H. 1997. Thumbnail on Focus on Speaking. Sydney : National Centre for English Language Teaching.
Cameron, L. 2001. Teaching Language to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M., & Hanson, W. 2003. Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A.Tashakkori & C.eddie (Eds.),
Handbook of mixed methods in social &behavioral research (p.209-240).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davies, P. and E. Pearse. 2000. Success in English Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Doff, A. 1988. Teach English: A Training Course for Teachers Trainers
Handbooks. The British Council: Cambridge University Press Inc.
Goh, C. 2007. Teaching Speaking in the Language Classroom. Singapore. SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Harris, David. P. 1974. Testing English as a Second Language. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing.
Hatch, Evelyn M & Farhady, H. 1982. Research Design and Statistics for Applied
Linguistics. Rowley Massacusetts: New – Bury House Publisher Inc.
Heaton, J. B. 1991. Writing English Language Tests. New Edition. New York: Longman. Inc.
Hedge, T. 2000. Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huebner, T. 1960. Audio Visual Technique in Foreign Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
ii
LaFasto, F., & Larson, C. E. 2001. When teams work best: 6,000 team members
and leaders tell what it takes to succeed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage;
Pettigrew, A. M., & Fenton, E. M. 2000. The innovating organization. London: Sage.
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Lyster, R. 1998. Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51-81.
Markus, T. and D. Cameron. 2002. The Words between the Space: Buildings and
Language. London: Routledge.
Nitko, Anthony. J. 1983. Educational Tests and Measurements: An Introduction. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Nunan, D. 2003. (Ed.). Practical English Language Teaching. New York: McGraw Hill.
Ramirez, Arnulfo G. and Nel ly P. Stromquist. 1979. ESL methodology and
student language learning in bilingualelementary schools. TESOL
Quarterly 13 (2).
Richards, J. C. & C. Lockhart 1996. Reflective Teaching in Second Language
Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
River, S. 1987. Communicative Comptence and Theory in Classroom Practice. California Park.
Setiyadi, Ag. Bambang. 2006. Metodologi Penelitian untuk Pengajaran Bahasa
Asing, Pendekatan Kuantitatif dan Kualitatif. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.
Setiyadi, Ag. Bambang. 2006. Teaching English as a Foreign Language. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.
Sharwood Smith, M. 1994. Second Language Learning: Theoretical Foundations. Harlow: Longman.
Shoamy, E. 1985. A Practical Handbook in Language Testing for the Second
Language Teacher. Israel: Tel Aviv University Press.
Sugiyono. 2008. Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif Kualitatif dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Unila. 2011. Format Penulisan Karya Ilmiah. Bandar Lampung: Unila Press. Widdowson, Henry. G. 1978. Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford:
iii
Yoosabai, Y. 2009. The Effects of Reciprocal Teaching on English Reading
Comprehension in A Thai High School Classroom. Bangkok:
