GRADUATING PAPER Submitted to the Board Examiners as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan Islam (S.Pd.I) In English Ministry of Education Faculty

(1)

THE FISHBOWL METHOD TO IMPROVE

THE STUDENTS’ SPEAKING SKILL

(An Experimental Study in Ninth Grade Students of

SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the Academic Year of 2014/2015)

GRADUATING PAPER

Submitted to the Board Examiners as a Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of

Sarjana Pendidikan Islam

(S.Pd.I)

In English Ministry of Education Faculty

BY:

DEWANTI MULKI RAHMA

113 10 151

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FACULTY

(2)

ii

DECLARATION

In the name of Allah, The Most Gracious and Most Mercifull.

Hereby the writer fully declares that this Graduating Paper is made by the writer and it is not containing materils writen or has been published by other people except the information from references and also the writer is capable of accounting for this Graduating Paper if in future this is can be proved of

containing other’s ideas, or in fact, the writer imitates the others’ graduating paper.

In addition, the writer really hopes that this declaration can be understood for all human being.

Salatiga, October 31st, 2014 Writer

Dewanti Mulki Rahma

(3)

(4)

(5)

v

Motto

When we have creation, we shouldn’t enjoy by

ourselves, it will be

better if our environments can also enjoy it.

Muhammad Kalend Osen

The only way to do great work is to love what you do

(6)

vi

Dedication

This research is dedicated for

(7)

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Alhamdulillahirabbil ‘alamin, thanks to Allah because the writer could complete this research as one of the requirements for getting Educational Islamic Studies (S,Pd.I) in English Department of Educational Faculty of State Islamic Studies Institute (STAIN) of Salatiga in 2014.

This research would not have been completed without supports, guidance, advice, and help from individual’s institution. Therefore, the writer would like to express deep appreciation to:

1. Dr. Rahmat Hariyadi, M.Pd., as the Head of State Institute for Islamic Studies of Salatiga.

2. Rr. Dewi Wahyu Mustikasari, M.Pd., as the Head of English Department. 3. Mashlihatul Umami, M.A, as my Academic Counselor thanks for your

support and guidance.

4. Rr. Dewi Wahyu Mustikasari, M.Pd., as the consultant of this research thanks for suggestion and recommendation for this research from beginning until the end.

5. All lecturers of English Department, thanks to you all for your advice, knowledge, and kindness.

6. All of staffs who help the writer in processing the research administration. 7. All of the librarians who help the writer in finding the research references. 8. My teacher counselor of SMP N 2 Ambarawa Mrs. S. Wahyuningsih S.Pd,

(8)

viii

9. All members of SMP N 2 Ambarawa, thank you for giving me opportunity. 10. My family who always support and advise me.

The writer also says “Thank you very much” to all of friends whom struggle for this completing the graduating paper. Finally, this graduating paper is expected to be able to provide useful knowledge and information to the readers.

Salatiga, October 31st, 2014 The writer

Dewanti Mulki Rahma

(9)

ix

ABSTRACT

This study deals with The Fishbowl Method to Improve the Students’ Speaking Skill (An Experimental Study in Ninth Grade Students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the Academic Year of 2014/2015). This research was done to answer the objectives of study, namely (1) to find out the difference of lecturing and Fishbowl method in Ninth Grade Students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the academic year of 2014/2015, (2) to find out the significant difference of lecturing and Fishbowl method in Ninth Grade Students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the academic year of 2014/2015. This research applied descriptive quantitative method. The objects were Ninth Grade Students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the academic year of 2014/2015, and the analyzing data were students’ speaking skill that was taught by Fishbowl Method. The sample of this research was taken 28% from population. The numbers of sample were 50 students that were divided into 2 groups. The first group was experimental group and the second group was control group. The data tested using t-test formula by comparing the mean score of pre-test and post-test from both classes. The level of significance was set equal or less than 5%. The result of this study showed that t-value 8, 511 was higher than t-table 2, 064 with the degree of freedom (df) of 24. Therefore, it could be concluded that there was significant difference of T-test between students taught by lecturing and students taught by Fishbowl method. Since t-value was higher than t-table, it meant that null hypothesis was rejected and alternative hypothesis was accepted. Thus, it could be said that Fishbowl method improved students’ speaking skill in Ninth Grade Students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the academic year of 2014/2015

(10)

x

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of Research

The expansion of communication, information, and technologies lead people to join the global era where there are many necessities of high qualification and skill related to the ability in using some foreign languages. One of the international languages is English. English plays an important role in this era. Nowadays Indonesia also lives in a world that is nearly using English in many aspects of life.

Brown (2007: 6) defines that language is a systematic instrument of communicating ideas or feelings by using sounds, gestures, or signs agreed. The primary function of language is for interaction and communication. English as one of the international languages in the world should be mastered by people from many countries in the world to communicate each other. They may know and understand what they speak communicatively because of English. Because of the reason, English becomes the first foreign language that is taught in Indonesia from elementary school up to college.

(20)

to absorb it and they will be able to communicate by using English orally. All those skills are supported by some components such as vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, etc. Speaking skill is one thing that should be mastered by the students in the school. Tarigan (1990:3-4) defines that speaking is a language skill that is developed in child life, which is produced by listening skill, and at that period speaking skill is learned.

Above factors, entail us to master English, especially speaking skill successfully, so we can communicate with all of the people over the world fluently. Unfortunately, there are so many factors as handicap of how people can master speaking skill successfully, such as they never practice to speak English with their friends formally or informally, afraid of making mistakes, or afraid to be laughed by others and do not feel confident, or sometime they seem do not to have ideas in their mind if they are asked to practice their speaking.

The students’ inability to speak in English is caused by a number

of factors. There are eight factors. They are; (1) clustering (2) redundancy (3) reduced forced (4) performance variable (5) colloquial language (6) rate of delivery (7) stress, rhythm and intonation (8) interaction. (Brown: 2000:270)

(21)

3

teacher difficult to follow it and the position of Ambarawa is not good enough. Actually Ambarawa is not a village and it is not a city also so make the education grow up slowly. In addition, the students also want to show other student in the school or members of their family that they can speak some English. For this reason, teacher should use creative teaching methods that encourage students to take part actively in the class. The teaching learning processes have to involve not only teacher and students, but also the students and students.

Helping students to solve these problems, the teacher should motivate them and create the most effective way to stimulate them, so they will be interested in practicing their speaking. On other hand, the teacher should use certain technique to stimulate students to practice their speaking, because good strategy will support them in achieving skill including English skill. Teacher have to teach the material by using good method, good technique and organize teaching-learning process as good as possible, so teaching-learning process can run well. It can make student master English skill, especially in this case speaking skill successfully, because one of the teaching failures is caused by unsuitable method.

(22)

find solution in this activity. However, Fishbowl is related by the third support that is students themselves. Therefore, fishbowl is a way to make students be more confident in speaking English.

B. Statement of the Problems

Based on the backgrounds discussed above, the writer underlines the problems as follow:

1. How is the difference of lecturing and Fishbowl method to the speaking skill in Ninth Grade Students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the Academic Year of 2014/2015?

2. How is the significant difference of lecturing and Fishbowl method to the speaking skill in Ninth Grade Students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the Academic Year of 2014/2015?

C. Objectives of the Research

The objectives of the research can be stated as related with the

problems’ statement. Therefore the objectives of the research are as follows:

(23)

5

2. To find out the significant difference of lecturing and Fishbowl method in Ninth Grade Students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the Academic Year of 2014/2015.

D. Limitation of Problem

This research conducts at SMP N 2 Ambarawa. The population of this research is the ninth grade students at SMP N 2 Ambarawa. There are two classes that are the subject of this research.

E. Benefits of the Research

This research is formulated as an effort of finding some uses. The uses of this research are:

1. Theoretically, the result of the research can contribute useful information for the future classroom research with the similar problem of speaking skill improvement.

2. Practically

a. For the researcher

This research can contribute the researcher to help to find out the best method for teaching speaking.

b. For the students

This research can add the students’ interest in English learning, so

(24)

c. For the English Teacher

This research not only can give additional contribution to English teachers to develop language teaching method, but also the teachers are able to improve the quality of teaching learning process.

d. For the Institution

The result of the research can contribute the institution to fulfill the demand of English curriculum. Thus students are able to get satisfactory achievement

F. Hypothesis

Ary (2007: 81) defines that the hypothesis presents the writer’s expectations about the relationship between variables within the question. A hypothesis is a specific statement of prediction. It describes in concrete (rather than theoretical) terms what you expect will happen in your study.

In this Research, the writer puts a hypothesis that “Fishbowl method and lecturing has similarities to improve students’ speaking skill in the ninth grade students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the academic year of 2014/2015.

G. Terms Clarification

1. Fishbowl

(25)

7

2. Method

Brown (2000:16) defines that method is a generalized set of classroom specifications for accomplishing linguistic objectives. Method tends to be concerned primary with teacher and students roles and behaviors and secondarily with such features as linguistic and subject-matter objectives, sequencing, and materials.

3. Speaking

Tarigan (1990:3-4) defines that speaking is a language skill that is developed in child life, which is produced by listening skill, and at that period speaking skill is learned.

H. Paper Outline

(26)

(27)

9 CHAPTER II

REVEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

A. Previous Researches

In this research, the researcher takes review of related literature from the other research as comparison. The researcher uses the other research, and the title is “The Effectiveness of Fishbowl to Teach Reading Viewed from students’ Self-Confidence (An Experimental Study at the

Eight Grade Students of MTs. Mu'allimin NW Pancor in the Academic Year of 2010-2011)” by H. Hamdan, the students of Sebelas Maret

University in the academic year 2011/2012. ”. His research is intended to

find out the implementation of Fishbowl to improve students’ reading skill. The object of her research is the Eight Grade Students of MTs. Mu'allimin NW Pancor in the Academic Year of 2010-2011. He chooses 60 students as the sample of his research; they are students of VIII A as experimental group and VIII C as the control group. In conducting his research he uses experimental study which is including into descriptive quantitative research. According to her research, she finds out that Fishbowl is more effective than translation to teach reading for the eighth

grade students of MTs. Mu’alimin NW Pancor in the academic year of

(28)

eighth grade students of MTs. Mu'allimin NW Pancor in the academic year of 2010-2011

The second previous research is conducted by Sugiarti (2011), the English department student of STAIN Salatiga with his graduating paper

entitled “The Experimental Study of Improving Speaking Skill through Socio Drama at Second Year Students of MAN Blora in the Academic Year of 2010/2011”. Her research is intended to find out the implementation of socio drama to improve students’ speaking skill. The object of her research is the second year students of Man Blora in the academic year 2010/2011. There are 200 students and she chooses 74 students as the sample of her research, they are students of XI IPA 1 as experimental group and XI IPA 2 as the control group. In conducting her research she uses experimental study which is including into descriptive quantitative research. According

to her research, she finds out that socio drama can improve students’

speaking skill with the different significant 5 %.

(29)

11

viewed from students’ self-confidence. Then, the differences to the second research are also in the sample and method. The sample of research is second year students of MAN Blora in the academic year of 2010/2011 and Socio Drama as the method that is used in this research.

The Fishbowl Method to Improve the Students’ Speaking Skill (An Experimental Study in Ninth Grade Students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa, in the Academic Year of 2014/2015) is the title decided by the research as the follow up of the previous researches in analyzing more detail about the

improvement of students’ speaking skill used Fishbowl method.

B. Fishbowl

1. Definition of Fishbowl

Silberman (1996:110) defines that Fishbowl is a discussion format that some students make discussion circle and other students make listener circle in around of discussion group. Fishbowl is the growing structure discussion method that is very useful for the speaking class (Elizabeth, et al., 2005:145).

Based on the above explanations the writer concludes that Fishbowl method is a way to organize discussion group that contains of inside and outside circle that is useful in speaking class.

(30)

Figure 2.1

The Arrangement of Fishbowl

Source: http://slitoolkit.ohchr.org/data/downloads/fishbowl.pdf

The inner circle is given a situation wherein participants discuss and come up with a solution, while the outer circle reserves their observation, feedback and suggestions for later. In another variant, the inner circle can be given a task to complete, while the outer circle observes. There are many formats that you can adapt while using the Fishbowl method. However, there are 2 common types of Fishbowls:

a. Open Format Fishbowl

In this format a few seats in the inner circle are left vacant for members of the outer circle to join. When this happens one member of the inner circle must voluntarily leave. The rules of the discussion have to be set by the facilitator or by the group themselves.

b. Closed Format Fishbowl

(31)

13

and add their viewpoints. In this structure, you can have participants sitting in concentric circles giving everyone in the classroom an opportunity to contribute (Elizabeth, et al., 2005:145).

Based on those the above explanations can be concluded that Fishbowl has two formats that are usually used. They are open and closed format circle. Both of them give opportunity of every student to speak and share their opinion in the Fishbowl that is prepared for them.

3. Concept of Fishbowl

In Fishbowl, an outer circle of students sits around a smaller, inner circle of students. Students in the inner circle engage in a depth discussion, while students in the outer circle consider what is being said and how it is being said. This collaborative technique has also been called Inside outside Circles. Inner circle students are challenged to participate in a high-level discussion while the outer circle is able to be listener of the discussion and critique content, logic, and group interaction. This technique therefore serves two purposes to provide structure for in-depth discussion and to provide opportunities for students to model or observe group processes in a discussion setting (Elizabeth, et al., 2005:145-146)

(32)

skills that can either move a discussion forward or shut it down. The Fishbowl offers the class an opportunity to closely observe and learn about social interaction. You can use it in any content area (Chris Opitz, 2008:102)

According to Dutt (1997:143) in an open Fishbowl, one chair is left empty. In a closed fishbowl, all chairs are filled. The moderator introduces the topic and the participants start discussing the topic. The audience outside the Fishbowl listen the discussion. In an open Fishbowl, any member of the audience can occupy the empty chair and join the Fishbowl at any time. When this happens, an existing member of the Fishbowl must voluntarily leave the Fishbowl and free a chair. The discussion continues with participants frequently entering and leaving the Fishbowl. Depending on how large audience is, we can have many audience members spending some time in the Fishbowl and taking part in the discussion. When time runs out, the Fishbowl is closed and the moderator summarizes the discussion.

Other variations and extensions and extensions to implement Fishbowl are as follows:

(33)

15

b. After the initial Fishbowl discussion, ask students to switch places, with the outer circle assuming the inner circle role, and vice versa.

c. Allow students from the outer circle to join the inner circle by tapping a student on the shoulder and exchanging places with him or her. This is a fun strategy for creating enthusiasm, and it keeps more students active and engaged. Be aware, though, that some students, some culture and religious are not comfortable with being touched, so consider as an alternative telling students who wish to join or exit a group to simply raise their hands, or give an entry/exit token such as a slip of paper. d. Have students perform a task, such as solving a problem or

learning a new skill, instead of discussing an issue. (Elizabeth, et al.,2005:149)

(34)

4. Fishbowl as a student-centered discussion activity

(35)

17

by teachers to model small-group discussion. (Elizabeth, et al., 2005:145).

This discussion format can be used in any subject area classroom in which student-centered discussion is desired. The writer has used this format in speaking class of Ninth grade students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the academic year of 2014/2015. Used this way, fishbowl discussions place the focus on students' thoughts and ideas

rather than on the teacher’s.

5. Fishbowl as a tool for modeling discussion

Middle school students are social and know how to talk with one another; however, teachers usually find small and large-group discussions about subject matter more challenging to facilitate. Fishbowl can be a vehicle for modeling and having a meta-discussion about discussion. This is a great way to model a discussion and talk about what makes for an effective small-group discussion (Elizabeth, et al.,2005:145).

(36)

model literature circle or book club discussions in an English language arts class. Fishbowl is a flexible and powerful tool that can help empower students in discussions across subject areas (Raphael & McMahon, 1994:120).

Based on above explanation, the writer can summarize that Fishbowl can be a useful discussion method especially to help students to share their opinion. It also can be an effectively method when we want to use discussion in the class. Sometimes we are bored in discussion role so we use creative role in Fishbowl method to handle bored situation in the class.

6. Advantages of Fishbowl Method

An advantage of a Fishbowl method is it is stimulates discussion in the class, provides class interaction, allows students to learn from peers, involves critical thinking, improves oral and listening skills and provides break from routines. These reasons have made Fishbowl popular in participatory group meetings and conference and also we can use it in any content area.

7. Disadvantages of Fishbowl Method

(37)

19

some may feel uncomfortable being observed, it makes strong emotions high and also its observers cannot immediately respond

C. Speaking

1. Definition of Speaking

Speaking skill is one thing that should be mastered by the students in the school. Tarigan (1990:3-4) defines that speaking is a language skill that is developed in child life, which is produced by listening skill, and at that period speaking skill is learned. Hornby (1990:1227) defines speaking is make use of words in an ordinary voice. Bygate says, “Speaking is a skill which deserves attention every bit as much as literary skills, in both first and second language. It is the skill which the students are frequently judge. It is also the vehicle par excellent of social solidarity, of social ranking, of professional

advancement and of business”. It indicates that as one of the language

skills, speaking should get the attention from teachers and learners because it plays the important role in our society.

Meanwhile, Donough and Shaw state, “There are some reasons

for speaking involved expressing ideas and opinions: expressing a wish or a desire to do something: negotiating and/or solving a particular problem; or establishing and maintaining social relationships and friendship. Besides, fluency, accuracy, and confidence are

(38)

becomes an important component to master by the students as the main tool of verbal communication because it is a way to express ideas and opinions directly what we have in our minds.

Based on the above definitions, it can be synthesized that speaking is the process of using the urge of speech to pronounce vocal symbols in order to share the information, knowledge, idea, and opinion to the other person. Moreover, speaking cannot be dissociated from listening aspect, because speaking involves speaking and listener. 2. Elements of Speaking

Heaton (1990:70) defines speaking is a complex skill requiring the simultaneous use of a number of different abilities, which often develop at the different rates. Either four or five components are generally recognized in analyzing the speech process.

1) Pronunciation (including the segmental features-vowels and consonants, the stress and intonation patterns)

(39)

21

between sounds in the law language that do not exist in language they already know.

2) Grammar

It is obvious that in order be able to speak foreign language, it is necessary to know a certain amount of grammar and vocabulary. Grammar is the sounds and the sound patterns, the basic units of meaning, such as words, and the rules to combine them to form new sentences. Therefore, grammar is very important in speaking because if the speakers do not mastering grammar structure, they cannot speak English well. 3) Vocabulary

As we know, vocabulary is a basic element is language. Vocabulary is single words, set phrases, variable phrases, phrasal verbs, and idioms. It is clear that limited vocabulary mastery makes conversation virtually impossible.

4) Fluency

(40)

5) Comprehension

The last speaking element is comprehension. Comprehension is discussed by both speakers because comprehension can make people getting the information that they want. Comprehension is defined as the ability to understand something by a reasonable comprehension of the subject or as the knowledge of what a situation is really like. Based on above explanation, it can be inferred that there are five elements needed for spoken production they are pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension. We do not only need one or two vocabularies but also as many as we can memorize and understand it. We need many vocabularies to speak with other people. Sometimes some people say that grammar is not necessary but we can see if we do not understand grammar, how people can understand us. Good pronunciation is also necessary for our communication. So, all of elements are needed to produce spoken production well and make good communication for us.

3. Types of Classroom Speaking Performance

(41)

23

a. Imitative

Teacher asks students to drill word in which the students simply repeat a phrase or structure (e.g., "Excuse me." or "Can you help me?") for clarity and accuracy.

b. Intensive

It is the production of short stretches of oral language designed to demonstrate competence in a narrow band of grammatical, phrasal, lexical, or phonological relationships (such as prosodic elements- intonation, stress, rhythm, juncture). The speaker must be aware of semantic properties in order to be able to respond, but interaction with an interlocutor or test administrator is minimal at best. Examples of intensive assessment tasks include directed response tasks, reading aloud, sentence and dialogue completion; limited picture cued tasks including simple sequences; and translation up to the simple sentence level. Intensive can be self-initiated or pair work activity.

c. Responsive

(42)

d. Interactive

It is similar with the previous category which is representative, however it is different in the length and complexity of the interaction, which someone includes multiple exchanges and/or multiple participants.

e. Extensive

Extensive oral production tasks include speeches, oral presentations, and storytelling, during which the opportunity for oral interaction from listeners is either highly limited (perhaps to nonverbal responses) or ruled out altogether. Language style is frequently more deliberative (planning is involved) and formal for extensive tasks, but we cannot rule out certain informal monologues such as casually delivered speech (for example, my vacation in the mountains, a recipe for outstanding pasta primavera, recounting the plot of a novel or movie).

(43)

25

4. Classroom Speaking Activities

Teaching speaking should be taught in attractive and communicative activities. There are many types of classroom speaking activities. Harmer (2001:348-352) states six classroom speaking activities. They are acting from script, communication games, discussion, prepared talks, questionnaires, simulation, and role play.

a. Acting from script

(44)

b. Communication Games

Games are designed to provoke communication between students. The games are made based on the principle of the information gap so that one student has to talk to a partner in order to solve a puzzle, draw a picture, put a thing in the right order, or find similarities and differences between pictures. Television and radio games, imported into the classroom, often provide good fluency activities.

c. Discussion

Discussion is probably the most commonly used activity in the oral skills class. Here, the students are allowed to express their real opinions. According to Harmer (2001:272) discussion range is divided into several stages from highly formal, whole - group staged events to informal small-group interactions.

The first is the buzz groups that can be used for a whole range of discussion. For example, students are expected to predict the content of a reading text, or talk about their reactions after reading the text.

The second is instant comments which can train students to respond fluently and immediately is to insert

‘instant comment’ mini activities into lessons. This involves

(45)

27

a lesson and nominating students to say the first thing that comes into their head.

The last is formal debates. Students prepare arguments in favor or against various propositions. The debate will be

started when those who are appointed as ‘panel speaker’

produce well -rehearsed ‘writing like’ arguments whereas others, the audience, pitch in as the debate progresses with their own thoughts on the subject.

d. Prepared Talks

Students make a presentation on a topic of their own choice. Such talks are not designed for informal spontaneous

conversations because they are prepared and more ‘writing like’. However, if possible students should speak from notes rather than from a script.

e. Questionnaires

(46)

f. Simulation and Role Play

Simulation and role play can be used to encourage general oral fluency, or to train students for specific situations. Students can act out simulation as them or take on the role of completely different character and express thoughts and feelings as they doing in the real world.

From those above activities can be used by teachers to teach speaking. Teachers can choose an activity that related to the topic and objective of the lesson. Besides, they must consider the situation, condition of the students and materials that will be taught. For example, they use simulation and role play activities when they teach expressions. Teachers can ask them to write some dialogues and after that they have to act them out in front of the class. It may be used by the teachers in using acting from script. In discussion, teachers can use some pictures or maybe videos in a certain situation. These activities can be used as the way to measure how far students can speak, say and express their feeling in English.

5. Teaching Speaking Skill

(47)

29

a. Use techniques that cover the spectrum of learner needs, from language based focus on accuracy to message-based on interaction, meaning, and fluency.

b. Provide intrinsically motivating techniques.

c. Encourage the use of authentic language in meaningful contexts.

d. Provide appropriate feedback and correction.

e. Capitalize on the natural link between speaking and listening. f. Give students opportunities to initiate oral communication. g. Encourage the development of speaking strategies.

From above explanation, we can see that all of principles for designing speaking techniques are very necessary for us. Since English is included as a compulsory subject in junior high schools in Indonesia, the learners have the same need. The need is passing the examinations to move to the next level and graduate from the school, and the general requirement is the students are able to speak and hold conversations. From a communicative purpose, speaking is closely related to listening. The inter action between these two skills is shown in the conversation.

6. Assessments of Speaking

(48)

is generally recognized in analysis of speech processes that are pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension.

According to Brown (2000: 406-407), there are five categorizes of oral proficiency scoring. It can be seen on the tables below:

Table 2.1

Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories Fluency

Score Category

1 No specific fluency description.

2 Can handle with confidence but not with facility most social situations, including introductions and casual conversations about current events, as well as work, family and autobiographical information.

3 Can discuss particular interests of competence with reasonable ease. Rarely has to grope for words.

4 Able to use the language fluently on all levels normally pertinent to professional needs. Can participate in any conversation with a high degree of fluency.

(49)

31

Table 2.2

Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories Pronunciation

1 Errors in pronunciation are frequent but can be understood by a native speaker used to dealing with foreigners attempting to speak his language

2 Accent is intelligible though often quite faulty.

3 Errors never interfere with understanding and rarely disturb the native speaker. Accent may be obviously foreign.

4 Errors in pronunciation are quite rare.

5 Equivalent to and fully accepted by educated native speakers.

Source: Brown, H, Douglas. 2000. Teaching by Principles, an Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Table 2.3

Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories Vocabulary

1 Speaking vocabulary inadequate to express anything but the most elementary needs

2 Has speaking vocabulary sufficient to express him simply with some circumlocutions.

(50)

participate effectively in most formal and informal conversations on practical, social and professional topics. Vocabulary is broad enough that he rarely has to grope for a word.

4 Can understand and participate in any conversation within the range of his experience with a high degree of precision of vocabulary.

5 Speech on all level is sufficiently accepted by educated native speakers in all its features including breadth of vocabulary and idioms, colloquialisms, and pertinent cultural references.

Source: Brown, H, Douglas. 2000. Teaching by Principles, an Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Table 2.4

Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories Grammar

1 Errors in grammar are frequent, but speaker can be understood by a native speaker used to dealing with foreigners attempting to speak his language

(51)

33

3 Control of grammar is good. Able to speak the language with sufficient structural accuracy to participate effectively in most formal and informal conversations on practical, social, and professional topics.

4 Able to use the language accurately on all levels normally pertinent to professional needs. Errors in grammar are quite rare.

5 Equivalent to that of an educated native speaker. Source: Brown, H, Douglas. 2000. Teaching by Principles, an

Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Table 2.5

Oral Proficiency Scoring Categories Comprehension

1 Within the scope of his very limited language experience, can understand simple questions and statements if delivered with slowed speech, repetition, or paraphrase 2 Can get the gist of most conversations of non-technical

subjects (i.e., topics that requite no specialized knowledge).

3 Comprehension is quite complete at a normal rate of speech.

(52)

experience.

5 Equivalent to that of an educated native speaker.

Source: Brown, H, Douglas. 2000. Teaching by Principles, an Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

However, there are five components usually used to analyze speech performance, they are grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension. The scoring also can include accuracy, articulation, eye contact, expression, intonation and gesture of the speaker. The writer uses those speaking scoring rubric to collect data.

7. Teaching Speaking in Junior High School

The subject of this research is ninth grade students at SMP N 2

Ambarawa. Knowing the students’ characteristics is the first step that

will help the teacher to help them. It will also help the teacher to prepare the students to help themselves. Students should learn the best strategies to improve their own learning.

The important thing is teachers have to involve the students in more indirect learning through communicative speaking activities. They also allow them to use their intellects to learn consciously where this is appropriate. They encourage their students to use their own life experience in the learning process too.

(53)

35

competence in spoken and written English through the development of related skills. The learners will be able to support their next study level through the ability of the English communicative competence.

Standard of Competence and Basic Competency which the research focus on are the Standard of Content in the English subject, particularly the English speaking lesson to the ninth grade students of the first semester at SMP N 2 Ambarawa. It is also limited to the scope of expressing meanings in a transactional and interpersonal dialogue in the context of daily life. The Standard of Competence and the Basic Competency are presented in the table below:

Table 2.6

The Standard of Competence and the Basic Competency

Standard Competence Basic Competence

Speaking

3. Expressing meaning in a transactional and interpersonal dialogue in the context of daily life.

3.1 Expressing meaning in a transactional (to get things done) and interpersonal (with social contacts) dialogue by using spoken language accurately, fluently, and appropriately in the context of daily life and including expressions of giving certainty and uncertainty

(54)

(55)

37 CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A. Place and Time of the Study

1. Place and Time of Research

a. Place of Research

The research carried out at SMP N 2 Ambarawa. The address is in Jl. Kartini 1A Ambarawa, Kab. Semarang

1) General Information of SMP N 2 Ambarawa

Junior High School 2 Ambarawa is one of the best and favorite junior high school in Ambarawa. The detail of this school described as follows:

a) School Name : SMP NEGERI 2 AMBARAWA b) No. School Statistic : 201032210066

c) School Type : A

d) School Address : Jalan Kartini 1A Ambarawa : (Sub district) Ambarawa

:( Regency) Semarang

:( Province) Central Java

e) Phone/HP/Fax :(0298) 591176 / 596760 f) Email/Web-site : [email protected] /

http://www.smpn2ambarawa.com

(56)

h) As the RSBI : SK Direktir Pembinaan SMP, Dirjen Dikdasmen, Kemendiknas

Number: 1393 / C3 / TU/2011 on 13th June 2011 i) Class percentage that have used IT : 100 % j) Teacher percentages that are S2/S3 : 7,14 %

k) Does School have HOT-SPOT facilities: Yes, It does 2) Historical Building of SMP N 2 Ambarawa

Based on SMP N 2 blog, in the late 1976, Ambarawa did not have any junior high school except STN and SKN. Besides that, there was preparation state Junior high School Ambarawa. In 1976, SMP N 1 Ungaran got 12 local dropping that was not possible in Ungaran so based on reference of KDH Semarang regents and approval of Dandim 411 Salatiga, so the building was beside Turangga CETA field (Pangsar Jend. Sudirman field Ambarawa). On 1977, SMP N 1 Ungaran filial Ambarawa that had 4 classes, there was misunderstanding from preparation state SMP Ambarawa. Preparation state SMP Ambarawa thought that new building was for preparation state SMP Ambarawa so preparation state SMP Ambarawa did not receive new students. Finally, there

was protest from preparation state SMP Ambarawa’s parents.

On 4th April 1977, there was a conference of preparation state

(57)

39

that be presented by the chief of Dikmanum Kanwil Central java province that was Drs. Darsono decided that preparation state SMP Ambarawa be integrated in SMP N 1 Ungaran filial Ambarawa and also new building of SMP N 1 Ungaran filial Ambarawa.

On 7th June 1977, the government of P and K department gave 4 locals plus furniture and electric installation even though it was not on yet to the head master named Imam Mochtar. On 13th June 1977, there was a movement second and third grade students of preparation state SMP Ambarawa to a new building of SMP N 1 Ungaran filial Ambarawa in Jl. Kartini 1A Ambarawa.

Finally, on Friday, 23th October 1981, that was based on decision of Education and Culture cabinet’s letter, number 0220/0/1981, SMP N 1 Ungaran filial Ambarawa to be SMP N 2 Ambarawa. On 1982, the first alumnus was born by Ka Kanwil Depdikbud Central Java province named Drs. Kustijo. 3) Vision and Mission

a) Vision

The vision of this school is “Excellent in

(58)

b) Mission

The missions of this school are:

 Realizing achieving students in academic and non-academic in national and international level.

 Realizing students that have faith and piety, polite attitude and polite words.

 Realizing competent and creative students

 Realizing competent students in good and correct language

 Realizing competent students in information technology and communication

 Realizing discipline and responsible students b. Time of Research

This research carried in the ninth grade students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the Academic year of 2014/2015. There were some steps in this research: preparation, implementation, analyses of the data, and report writing. The details of each activity were as follows:

1) Preparation

a) 15th August 2014 : Proposal Draft Consultation b) 27th August 2014 : Instrument Consultation 2) Implementation

(59)

41

b) 26th August-6th September 2014 : Data collection 3) Analyses of Data and Research Report

a) 7th September 2014 : Data Analysis b) 6th October 2014 : Research Report

B. Method of Research

According to Ary (2007:39) there are four different categories developed in classifying educational research: experimental, experimental ex-post facto, descriptive, and historical studies. The framework used in this research is quantitative research. It means the hypotheses of the research will be concluded through various techniques such as: collecting, describing, and analyzing data collected which are mostly on the form of numerical data. The research is also categorized as an experimental study since it attempts to give treatment to experimental group and maintain control over all factors that may affect the result of an experiment. In other words, the experimental research attempts to investigate the influence of one or more variables to other variables (Nana Syaodih, 2006:57)

(60)

This experimental research is aimed at observing whether there was the Fishbowl method for teaching speaking. The technique of teaching speaking in the experimental class was Fishbowl method. The B class was used for the control class and A class was used for Fishbowl method. The technique of teaching speaking in the control class was a memorizing method.

C. Research Subject

1. Population

Population is a large group to which a researcher wants to generalize his or her sample result (Christensen, 2000:158) According to Burke (2000: 158) population is the set of all elements. It is the large group to which a researcher wants to generalize his or her sample result. In line with Burke, Arikunto (2002: 108) says that population is all the individuals of that group.

The population in this research was the ninth grade students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the academic year of 2014/2015. They were grouped into seven classes where each class consists of 25 students so the total populations were 175 students.

2. Sample

(61)

43

sample that it is a set of elements taken from a larger population according to certain rules. It can be concluded that sample is a small portion of a population assigned according to certain rules.

Therefore, sample in this research is taken 28% from population. Therefore, the numbers of sample are 50 students. The sample of this research came from two classes (A and B class) of ninth grade students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the academic year of 2014/2015. The total sample in this research was 50 students. They came from middle and lower economic families. Generally they had high motivation to study but they were shy to show their skill especially in speaking. They understood when someone spoke English but they did not want to use their English in speaking. They were afraid of someone who was laughing them and they were afraid to do mistakes. In this research the researcher would be the observer.

3. Sampling

(62)

randomly 2 clusters (2 classes) from the larger set of all clusters (7 clusters or 7 classes) in the population and included all the elements in the selected clusters as the sample of this research. By using this sampling method, each individual in population had an equal chance of being included in the sample so this sampling method could be used to produce representative samples.

The writer used cluster random sampling because it had some advantages, such as: it can be used when it is difficult or impossible to select a random sample of individuals, it is often far easier to implement in schools, and it is frequently less time consuming (Fraenkel and Wallen, 1993: 139).

D. Data Collecting Technique

The writer used Test in collecting the data. There were two kinds of test. They were:

1. Pre test

(63)

45

were ready, they must come in front of class to speak. At that time, the researcher gave point for them.

2. Post-test

The teacher gave the posttest to the students after giving the treatments. The next type of the posttest was also in the form of oral production test. The experimental group did post-test on 6th September 2014 at 8.20-09.00 WIB. The test was administered to investigate

whether the Fishbowl method could improve the students’ speaking

skill. The teacher asked the students to discuss about the topic with their friends and after that they had to give opinion about that topic. The control group was also did post-test. The post-test was on 6th September 2014 at 9.20-10.00 WIB. In post-test, the teacher asked the students to make conversation for two people, after that the students had to memorize the conversation. If the students had memorized, they had to come in front of the class to practice. At that time, the researcher gave point for them.

E. Research Instrument

The instrument of this research was oral production test. The items of the test were a topic discussion. The teacher gave a topic and the students discussed it. The writer and teacher monitored the

(64)

speech performance. They were grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, Vocabulary Very good;

(65)

(66)

20 F 10810 SHAFIRA RAHMADANTI

21 F 10817 WILLIES MELIANA

22 F 10819 WINAR WAHYU W.

23 F 10837 YOSEPHINE FIANTI FEPRIANINGSIH

24 F 10825 YUANITA AULYNING TYAS

25 F 10827 ZINEINE AVIEN RYANAR P

Table 3.3

CONTROL GROUP

NO M/F NIS Complete Name

1 M 10681 ACHMAD ARIF FANI

2 F 10659 ADINDA PUTRI SHOLIHA

3 M 10664 ADITYA SATRIA PANDU .N.

4 F 10665 AGNES LARASATI MILENIA .P

5 M 10676 AGUNG HERBUDI NUGROHO

6 F 10661 AGUSTINA WULANSARI

7 M 10670 AHMAD B.A

8 M 10687 AHMAD KHOIRUL INSANI

9 F 10682 AINAYA SHAFA MALIKHA

10 F 10666 AISYAH DHILA PUSPITA SARI

11 F 10671 AJENG PRATIWI PUTRI

12 M 10688 ALIF BAGUS PRATAMA

13 M 10662 ALIFIAN TIRTA NATA

14 M 10672 ALVIAN D.D

15 F 10673 AMELLIYANA

16 F 10683 AN NISA WIJAYANTY

17 F 10674 ANANDA LARASATI

18 F 10677 ANESTI NILA KRISNA

(67)

49

20 M 10667 ANGGIT AJI PRASETYO

21 F 10663 ANISA UTAMIYANTI TRI .R

22 F 10679 ANNISA ROSALIN ANINDHITA

23 M 10685 ARDI FIRMANSYAH

24 F 10680 ARLISTA ALIMATUL MUFIDAH

G. Data Analysis

The name of analysis technique of this research was quantitative. The data from the oral test was arranged from the highest until the lowest one. The data from the pre-test and post-test was analyzed to find out whether the result of the tests are similar or different. Data analysis was done on 7th September 2014.

To compare the result of the data from pre-test and post-test with the same subject, the writer used the Repeated Measures T-Test, and the data was calculated using the product moment formula, as follow:

1. Mean

a. Pre-test of experiment group

X1 = N

x



1

b. Pre-test of control group

X2 = N

x



2

c. Post-test of experiment group

Y1 = N

y



1

d. Post-test of control group

Y2 = N

y

(68)

2. Standard deviation (SDD)

SDD = √∑𝐷2−(∑𝐷)2 N

∑D = X-Y

∑D2

= (X-Y)2

SDD = Standard deviation X = Pre Test

Y = Post Test

N = Total of Respondents

3. Standard error of mean difference (SEMD) SEMD = SD D

√N − 1

SEMD = Standard error of mean difference SDD = Standard Deviation

N = Total of Respondents

4. t-value (to)

(69)

51

The formula of MD is as follow: MD = ∑ D

(70)

52 CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

A. Pre-Test Analysis

In previous description, it had been explained that result of this research analyzed in numeral form. The data described pre-test and post-test of ninth grade students of SMP N 2 Ambarawa in the academic year of 2014/2015.

The writer collected the data from 50 respondents. They came from ninth grade students. They were consist of 25 respondents of experimental class who was taught using Fishbowl method and 25 respondents of control class who was not taught using Fishbowl method.

Firstly, the writer made list of students’ names that were taken and

their score. Secondly, the writer clarified interval class, median, mean, standard deviation and finally counted percentage based on passing students indicating the Fishbowl Method improved speaking skill. In the next step, the writer determined the table t-value for significant of the research.

(71)

53

Table 4.1

(72)

Note: Score: 𝐓𝐎𝐓𝐀𝐋 𝟓

R = Respondent F = Fluency P = Pronunciation

V = Vocabulary G = Grammar C = Comprehension

The table 4.1 showed score of respondents’ speaking skill in pre – test of experimental group. There were 25 respondents in this research before accepted the treatment and all respondents got unexpected score. The highest score was 4 and the lowest was 3. There were 20 respondents got score 4, and 5 respondents got score 3.

Table 4.2

Classification of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in Pre-Test

(Experimental Group)

Classification Score Rating Frequency Percentages

Excellent 90-100 5 0 0%

Very Good 80-89 4 20 80%

Good 70-79 3 5 20%

Fairly Good 60-69 2 0 0%

Poor > 59 1 0 0%

Total 25 100%

(73)

55

respondents (20%) got good score, and 20 respondents (80%) got very good score.

Beside it, the writer also made score of respondents’ speaking skill that before accepted treatment by using Fishbowl method. It was elaborated into six scales through table distribution frequency and percentage. The writer was classified based on English speaking proficiency; consist of fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar and comprehensibility.

Table 4.3

Frequency Distribution and Percentage of Respondents’ Speaking Skill

in Fluency

Classification Score Rating Frequency Percentages

Excellent 90-100 5 0 0%

Very Good 80-89 4 6 24%

Good 70-79 3 19 76%

Poor > 59 1 0 0%

Total 25 100%

The table 4.3 showed frequency distribution and percentage of

(74)

Table 4.4

in Pronunciation

Excellent 90-100 5 0 0%

Very Good 80-89 4 2 8%

Good 70-79 3 23 92%

Poor > 59 1 0 0%

Total 25 100%

Table 4.4 showed frequency distribution and percentage of

respondents’ speaking skill in pronunciation. Total respondents were 25 respondents (100%). There were 2 respondents (8%) got score 4, and 23 respondents (92%) got score 3. It can be concluded that pronunciation was good because there were 92% respondents got score 3.

Table 4.5

in Vocabulary

Excellent 90-100 5 0 0%

Very Good 80-89 4 25 100%

Good 70-79 3 0 0%

(75)

57

Poor > 59 1 0 0%

Total 25 100%

The table 4.5 showed frequency distribution and percentage of

respondents’ speaking skill in vocabulary. Total respondents were 25 respondents (100%). All of respondents got score 4 (100%). It can be concluded that vocabulary was very good because there were 100% respondents got score 4.

Table 4.6

in Grammar

Excellent 90-100 5 0 0%

Very Good 80-89 4 18 72%

Good 70-79 3 7 28%

Poor > 59 1 0 0%

Total 25 100%

(76)

Table 4.7

in Comprehension

Classification Score Rating Frequency Percentages

Excellent 90-100 5 0 0%

Very Good 80-89 4 21 84%

Good 70-79 3 4 16%

Poor > 59 1 0 0%

Total 25 100%

respondents’ speaking skill in comprehension. Total respondents were 25 respondents (100%). There were 21 respondents (84%) got score 4, and 4 respondents (16%) got score 3. It can be concluded that comprehension was very good because there were 84% respondents got score 4. On the other hand result of the control class in pre-test was showed as followed;

Table 4.8

Score of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in Pre – Test

(Control Group)

NIS R F P V G C Total Score

10681 R1 4 3 3 3 4 17 3

10659 R2 4 3 4 4 3 18 4

10664 R3 4 3 3 3 4 17 3

10665 R4 3 3 4 4 3 17 3

(77)

59

10661 R6 3 3 4 4 3 17 3

10670 R7 4 4 3 3 4 18 4

10687 R8 3 4 4 4 3 18 4

10682 R9 4 4 3 3 4 18 4

10666 R10 3 3 4 4 3 17 3

10671 R11 4 4 3 3 4 18 4

10688 R12 3 3 4 4 3 17 3

10662 R13 4 4 3 3 4 18 4

10672 R14 3 4 4 4 3 18 4

10673 R15 4 4 3 3 4 18 4

10683 R16 3 3 4 4 3 17 3

10674 R17 4 4 3 3 4 18 4

10677 R18 3 3 4 4 3 17 3

10689 R19 4 4 4 3 3 18 4

10667 R20 3 4 4 4 4 19 4

10663 R21 4 3 4 3 3 17 3

10679 R22 3 4 4 4 4 19 4

10685 R23 4 3 4 3 3 17 3

10680 R24 3 4 4 4 4 19 4

10669 R25 4 3 4 3 3 17 3

Note: Score: 𝐓𝐎𝐓𝐀𝐋 𝟓

R = Respondent F = Fluency P = Pronunciation

(78)

Based on the above table, there were 25 respondents in this research and the most students got good score. The highest score was 4 and the lowest score was 3. There were 14 respondents got score 4 and 11 respondents got score 3.

Table 4.9

Classification of Respondents’ Speaking Skill in Pre – Test

(Control Group)

Classification Score Rating Frequency Percentages

Excellent 90-100 5 0 0%

Very Good 80-89 4 14 56%

Good 70-79 3 11 44%

Poor > 59 1 0 0%

Total 25 100%

Table 4.7 showed classification of respondents’ speaking skill of control group in pre-test. Total respondents were 25 respondents (100%). From all of respondents, there were 14 respondents (56%) got score 4 and 11 respondents (44%) got score 3.