A Comparative Study between Think-Pair-Share and Direct
Instruction Method in Teaching Speaking
(An Experimental Research at the 11
thgrade of Senior High School
4 Surakarta in 2017/2018 Academic Year)
A THESIS
Indri Nastiti K2213032
Submitted to Teacher Training and Education Faculty of Sebelas Maret University as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of Obtaining the
Undergraduate Degree of Education
ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY SEBELAS MARET UNIVERSITY
ii
PRONOUNCEMENT
I would like to certify that this thesis entitled “A Comparative Study between
Think-Pair-Share and Direct Instruction Method in Teaching Speaking (An
Experimental Research at the 11th grade of Senior High School 4 Surakarta in
2017/2018 Academic Year)” is not a product of plagiarism or made by others.
Anything related to others’ work is written in quotations, the source of which is listed
on the bibliography.
If then this pronocement proves wrong, I am ready to accept any academic
punishment.
Surakarta, October 2017
iv
APPROVAL OF THE EXAMINERS
This thesis has been examined by the Examiners of Teacher Training and Education
Faculty, Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta and has been accepted as a partial
fulfillment of the requirements for achieving the Undergraduate Degree of Education
in English Education Department.
Teacher Training and Education Faculty
Sebelas Maret University
The Dean,
Prof. Dr. Joko Nurkamto, M.Pd
v ABSTRACT
Indri Nastiti. K2213032. A Comparative Study between Think-Pair-Share and Direct Instruction Method in Teaching Speaking (An Experimental Research at the 11th Grade of Senior High School 4 Surakarta in 2017/2018 Academic Year).
A Thesis, Surakarta: Teacher Training and Education Faculty of Sebelas Maret University, October, 2017.
This study was aimed to find out: (1) whether there is a significant difference in speaking skill between students taught using Think-Pair-Share and those taught using Direct Instruction Method; and (2) whether Think-Pair-Share is more effective than Direct Instruction Method to teach speaking. The research method used in this research is an experimental research design. This research was conducted at Senior High School 4 Surakarta in 2017/2018 Academic Year. The population of the research is the 11th grade of Social Class of Senior High School 4 Surakarta. The samples are class XI IPS 4 as the experimental class which consists of 30 students and class XI IPS 3 as the control class which consists of 30 students. The research instrument used to collect the data in this study is test. The data were analysed by using t-test formula. The computation of the t-test shows that t observation (to) = 3.117 is higher than t table (58, 0.05) = 2.001. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a significant difference in speaking skill between the students taught using Think-Pair-Share and those taught using Direct Instruction Method. The mean score of experimental group is 76.6, while the mean score of control group is 72.1. Therefore, it can be concluded that Think-Pair-Share is more effective than Direct Instruction Method to teach speaking.
vi MOTTO
When you have nobody to cry on, you still have Allah to put your head on
Think positively, positive things will come
vii
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to:
1. Allah SWT
2. My beloved parents
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, the writer praises Allah SWT for His blessing to me that the writer
can finish this thesis successfully. This thesis cannot be done without the assistance
and guidance from many people. Therefore, the writer would like to offer her sincere
thanks to:
1. The Dean of Teacher Training and Education Faculty of Sebelas Maret
University.
2. Teguh Sarosa, M.Hum as The Head of English Department of Teacher
Training and Education Faculty
3. Dr. Ngadiso, M.Pd., the writer’s first consultant, for his guidance and critical
corrections during his busy schedule to make this thesis better.
4. Dewi Sri Wahyuni, S.Pd., M.Pd. as the writer’s second consultant, for her
guidance and advices.
5. Drs. Martono, MA., the researcher’s academic consultant, for the motivation,
kindness, and advice.
6. Drs. M. Thoyibun, S.H., M.M., the Headmaster in SMA 4 Surakarta, who has
given the writer permission for conducting the research.
7. Drs. Isnaini Boedi Ratnawati, the English Teacher in SMA 4 Surakarta, for
her sincerity in guiding the writer during the research. Thank you for the
lesson.
8. The English Education Department Lecturers for patiently giving valuable
knowledge and experience for these years.
9. The writer’s family, her beloved parents, for the prayers, supports, and
patience.
10.The writer’s best friends, Iik, Sari, Sita, Risti, Amira, Ayuk for being her
second family.
11.Arya Seta Martana, for being the writer’s reminder and always supports the
writer. Thank you for the prayers.
12.The writer’s best friend since Junior High School, Diah, Lina, Asna. Thank
ix
13.The writer’s best friend who are in the same consultant Risti, Makna, Ika.
Thank you for the prayers and support.
14.The writer’s best friend since Senior High School Mbon and Tea.
15.Mb Gedis, thank you so much for a lot of help that is given to the writer.
16.The A Class of English Education Department 2013 for the togetherness and
memories for more than 4 years.
17.KKN Purna Ngenden
18.D’chiko army, Mbak Debby, Mbak Dimar, Ainy, Tea, Fatin, Afifah.
The writer is the one who is responsible of any errors that may remain in this
work. Therefore, constructive feedback, comments, suggestions, and criticism are
gratefully welcome for the betterment of this thesis. The writer hopes this thesis will
give some knowledge for the reader and can contribute for further research in the
future.
Surakarta, October 2017
x
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE A. The Nature of Speaking ... 7
1. Definition of Think-Pair-Share ... 22
2. The Steps of Think-Pair-Share ... 23
xi
4. The Disadvantages of Think-Pair-Share ... 25
C. Direct Instruction Method ... 25
1. The Definition of Direct Instruction Method ... 25
2. The Steps of Direct Instruction Method ... 26
3. The Advantages of Direct Instruction Method ... 28
4. The Disadvantages of Direct Instruction Method ... 29
D. Rationale ... 29
F. Statistical Hypothesis ... 40
xii
1. Pre-test Scores ... 51
a. Similarity of Two Classes ... 51
b. The Result of Normality Test ... 52
c. The Result of Homogeneity Test ... 53
2. Posttest Scores ... 53
a. The Result of Normality Test ... 53
b. The Result of Homogeneity Test ... 54
C. Hypothesis Testing ... 54
1. The First Hypothesis ... 54
2. The Second Hypothesis ... 55
D. Discussion ... 55
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, AND SUGGESTION A. Conclusion ... 58
B. Implication ... 58
C. Suggestion ... 59
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 61
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Criteria of Pronunciation proficiency ... 19
Table 2.2 Criteria of Grammar proficiency ………….… ... 19
Table 2.3 Criteria of Vocabulary proficiency ... 20
Table 2.4 Criteria of Fluency proficiency ... 20
Table 2.5 Criteria of Comprehension proficiency ... 21
Table 3.1 The schedule of the research ... 33
Table 3.2 Readability of the instruction ... 35
Table 4.1 The frequency distribution of experimental group pre-test scores ... 42
Table 4.2 The frequency distribution of control group pre-test scores ... 45
Table 4.3 The frequency distribution of experimental group post-test scores ... 47
Table 4.4 The frequency distribution of control group post-test scores ... 50
Table 4.5 The result of normality test for experimental and control groups pre- test scores ... 52
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1 The Histogram of the Data Distribution of Pre-test Scores of the
Experimental Group ... 43
Figure 4.2 The Polygon of the Data Distribution of Pre-test Scores of the
Experimental Group ... 43
Figure 4.3 The Histogram of the Data Distribution of Pre-test Scores of
the Control Group ... 45
Figure 4.4 The Polygon of the Data Distribution of Pre-test Scores of the
Control Group ... 46
Figure 4.5 The Histogram of the Data Distribution of Posttest Scores of
the Experimental Group ... 47
Figure 4.6 The Polygon of the Data Distribution of Posttest Scores of the
Experimental Group ... 47
Figure 4.7 The Histogram of the Data Distribution of Posttest Scores of
the Control Group ... 50
Figure 4.8 The Polygon of the Data Distribution of Posttest Scores of the
xv
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Syllabus of grade 11th of Senior High School ... 65
Appendix 2 Lesson plan of the experimental and the control group ... 70
Appendix 3 Readability of Try-out Test ... 137
Appendix 4 The Result of Readability of Speaking Test ... 138
Appendix 5 Speaking Test Instruction ... 141
Appendix 6 Pre-test scores of Experimental and Control Groups ... 143
Appendix 7 Descriptive statistics of pre-test scores of experimental and control groups ………... 145
Appendix 8 Normality test of pre-test of experimental and control groups ... 149
Appendix 9 Homogeneity test of pre-test of experimental and control groups 153 Appendix 10 Computation of t-test of pre-test of experimental and control groups ... 156
Appendix 11 Posttest scores of experimental and control groups ... 158
Appendix 12 Descriptive statistics of posttest scores of experimental and control groups ... 160
Appendix 13 Normality test of posttest of experimental and control groups ... 164
Appendix 14 Homogeneity test of post-test of experimental and control groups ... 168
Appendix 15 Computation of t-test of post-test of experimental and control groups ... 171
Appendix 16 Students’ Worksheet ... 176
Appendix 17 Standard normal distribution table ... 173
Appendix 18 Lilliefors table ... 178
Appendix 19 Chi-square distribution table ... 179
Appendix 20 t-distribution table ... 180
Appendix 21 Legalization ... 181
