ISSN 2302-2043 THE EFFECT OF TEACHING SPEAKING THROUGH IMPRESSIVE PERSONAL
EXPERIENCES MATERIAL (IPEM)
TO THE PRONUNCIATION OF BOSOWA “45” UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
Hasna
ABSTRACT
The study aimed to find out the quality of students’ pronunciation. The study employed qualitative experimental design. The samples of the study were 31 students of class IIIA from the third semester students
of Bosowa “45” university in 2014/2015 academic year. The study used random sampling technique. The data
were collected by using instrument namely video recording. Students’ pronunciation data were analysed by using mixed methods – Quantitative and Qualitative methods. The result of the study was the quality of
students’ pronunciation showed varieties: very high (15.4%, 11.5%, 12.0, and 13.3); high (11.5%, 15.4%, 16.0%, and 20.0%); moderate (23.1%, 38.5%, 40.0%, and 30.0%); and low (50.0%, 34.6%, 32.0%, and 36.7%).
Keywords: IPEM, students’ speaking performance.
INTRODUCTION
In Indonesia, undergraduate EFL education
students are the students who take undergraduate
program in a university particularly for English
education study program. They are prepared to be
teachers for junior and senior high school students.
As teachers, they have to master English teaching
materials particularly for junior and senior high
school students. In addition, they must be able to
transfer the materials successfully by using some
techniques in order that their students can receive
the materials successfully and easily. This study is
important because it focuses on the materials used
in teaching and learning process.
One of the most complicated skills to be
mastered by the students is speaking, Pollard (2008:
33). While, speaking skill is one of the most
important skills that teachers have to master. It is
the most serious ability for the lecturers to teach.
Inspite of the fact that most of students have modest
chance to carry out speaking English outside the
classroom and so require bags of practice when they
are in the class. Through speaking skills, teachers
can transfer the teaching material to their students.
Furthermore, students can get the target language
exposure from them when they are teaching. They
are the main resource for students’ language
exposure. Students’ speaking skills that are developed through material of teaching speaking
are very urgent to be studied because without these
skills students as teacher candidates will get
difficulties in preparing themselves to be good
teachers after they have finished their study.
Speaking skill consists micro and macro
skills and one of speaking micro skills is
ISSN 2302-2043
components. Someone cannot speak without
pronouncing anything, therefore pronunciation is
one of language components which is very
important in speaking process. Pronunciation is
viewed as a sub-skill of speaking, Ahmadi (2011:
1). There should be instruction or explanation
especially for pronunciation when teachers are
teaching speaking.
Related to the problems in teaching and
learning speaking English in reality, the writer had
conducted preliminary study (pre-observation) in
English education study program, Teacher Training
and Education Faculty, Bosowa “45” University.
There were two classes of students who were taking
Speaking I and who would continue to Speaking II,
i.e. class IIA and IIB. There were 28 students in
class IIA and 30 students in class IIB. During the
observation, the writer found problems as follows:
(1) Most of the students did not speak during the
teaching and learning process because of some
reasons: there was no explanation or guidance at all
from the lecturer during the preparation time. In
other words, language input from the lecturer was
very limited. The explanation was only about what
the students had to do before they spoke up in the
production phase. The lecturer did not encourage all
of the students to speak by using the time
effectively; (2) the lecturer did not appreciate their
participation by giving them any mark for every
contribution; (3) there was no correction from the
lecturer both during the subject and the end of it; (4)
there was no instruction or explanation especially
related to pronunciation whether before or after the
students did the speaking activities; and (5) one of
the two classes was not conducive to do teaching
and learning process because it was very hot since
the fan and air conditioner did not function, so that
the lecturer and the students could not focus on the
teaching and learning process in the class.
Many studies had been conducted discussing
various ways in teaching speaking English, but
there had been very little discussion to teaching
speaking through Impressive Personal Experiences
Materials (IPEM). Until the writer wrote this
scientific writing, she had not found any resource
which discussed the application of IPEM in
teaching English particularly speaking, even about
the theory of using it in teaching speaking.
However, the writer was inspired to see the
expedience in view of the fact that students needed
various teaching approach, method and technique
that could reduce the number of students who were
bored attending the teaching and learning process.
IPEM meant by the writer was the material used in
teaching was presented based on the lecturer’s
impressive personal experiences. The material
presented was aimed to be input for the students to
express their impressive personal experiences
related to the topic based on the syllabus in each
meeting. It was based on the consideration that
human best remember their life experiences which
ISSN 2302-2043
materials better if it is only one above their existing
knowledge.
Many studies had concentrated on teaching
students through Personal Experiences (PE), but
the writer had never found a study about Impressive
Personal Experiences (IPE). As a result the study
was categorized as new one because of the
impressive word. The advantage of IPEM was the
teaching and learning process was easy for the
students to follow as the teaching materials were
not too far from their previous knowledge. The
study was also feasible because it was very possible
to be done in classroom as other teaching materials
that were presented by lecturers.
In conclusion, because of the problems faced
by the students of Bosowa “45” university
particularly who were taking Speaking II, the writer
attempted to see the application of IPEM to solve
the problems. Therefore, the writer conducted a
study under the title “The Effect of Teaching
Speaking through Impressive Personal Experiences
Material (IPEM) to the Pronounciation of Bosowa “45” University Students”.
METHODOLOGY
In designing the study, the writer used
qualitative experimental design. Quantitative and
Qualitative data were equally weighted. Firstly, the
data were quantitatively analyzed. Then, the result
of quantitative analysis was interpreted
qualitatively.
Where:
O1a = students’ engagement in quantitative data
O1b = students’ interests in quantitative data
O2a = students’ engagement in qualitative data O2b = students’ interests in qualitative data
Figure 1. Study Design
Source: Gay, et al. (2006: 253 & 491)
This study worked in the following variables:
one independent variable and one dependent
variable. The independent variable was the use of
IPEM. The topics had to be based on the Speaking
II syllabus that were correlated with every student’s
IPE. The dependent variable was the students’
speaking performance.
The population of the study were the third
semester of the undergraduate EFL education
students of Bosowa “45” University of Makassar.
They were two classes as a whole namely class IIIA
and IIIB. There were 28 students in class IIIA and
30 students in class IIIB.
The writer chose only one class randomly as
experimental class to conduct the study. She taught
the class chosen by asking the students to connect
the content of the Speaking II syllabus with their
IPE. Therefore, this study only used
pre-experimental class. Finally, the result of random O1a O1b O2a O2b
ISSN 2302-2043
sampling made her choose class IIIA as
pre-experimental class.
In collecting the data, the writer used one kind
of instruments namely video recording. Video
recording was used to record the teaching and
learning process during the treatment in
experimental class. Then, the writer analyzed
quantitatively and qualitatively the result of the
video recording to find out the students’ speaking performance during the treatment.
On the basis of Speaking II syllabus, the
writer provided six topics during the treatment.
They were childhood, daily activity, family,
friendship, food and drinks, and technology and
education. Actually there were six treatment
meetings based on the lesson plan made by the
writer before conducting the study, but she
analyzed only four treatments meeting because
many things happened during the treatment
meetings that were not predicted by her to happen
before. Therefore, the writer only did 4 activities to
promote speaking, they were Asking and Answering
Questions, Explaining, Describing, and Narrating.
So that, in the second meeting, she applied activity
of Asking and Answering Questions and the topic
was childhood, the third meeting was only used to
explain what the writer expected to be done and not
to be done by the students based on the second
meeting. The activity for the fourth meeting was
Explaining activity and daily activity as the topic.
The fifth meeting was used to inform the students
about the writer’s analysis of the fourth meeting.
The activity for the sixth meeting was Describing
activity and the topic was family. The seventh
meeting was used to explain the students’ work
correction and asked the students to do Narrating
activity with friendship topic at home and submit
this homework in CD form. At the end of the
seventh meeting, the students were dictated six
questions related to their interest.
The writer explained and gave example by
telling her impressive experiences in the
presentation section only for two meetings. She did
not continue to tell her impressive experiences for
the other meetings because after she told the
students her IPE on the two meetings, it seemed that
they could not analyzed what they had heard. They
could not understand material by only giving them
example of the implementation of material. On the
other words, they were not able to see beyond or
behind example of material application.
Then, when the time for practice section was
coming, she grouped the students in various way by
considering the interpretation of personality test
result in which the tests had been conducted by the
writer before.
There were eight meetings for the whole. The
first meeting was for the introduction to the IPEM.
The second until the seventh meetings were the
treatment meetings. Therefore, the students in
Speaking class were treated for six meetings and
ISSN 2302-2043
writer connected the Speaking II syllabus to the
students’ IPE.
The data collected from the teaching and
learning process of speaking II subject were
analyzed firstly quantitatively and then they were
qualitatively interpreted. Analysing student’
speaking performance was the very beginning data
analysis that the writer did in the study. Speaking
Speaking performance in the study consisted
of 3 items, i.e., the students’ speaking duration,
micro, and macro speaking skills. Micro speaking
skills were pronunciation, grammar and
vocabulary; while, macro involved fluency,
cohesion, discourse, function, and strategic options.
Table 1. Classification and Score Rate of Pronunciation in Terms of Microskill in Students’ Speaking Performance
Score
Rate Classification Criteria
6 Excellent Occasional non-native pronunciation errors, but the speaker is always intelligible to native speakers.
5 Very Good
Some consistent phonemic errors and foreign stress and intonation patterns, but the speaker is intelligible to native speakers.
3 Moderate
Frequent phonemic errors and foreign stress and intonation patterns that cause the speaker to be occasionally unintelligible to native speakers.
2 Poor
Frequent phonemic errors and foreign stress and intonation patterns that cause the speaker to be unintelligible to native speakers.
Source: Brown (2003: 148)
FINDINGS
Table 2. Frequency and Percentage of Students’ Pronunciation Score Level on Second, Fourth, Sixth and Seventh Meetings
Interval Score
Pronunciation Score Level
Second Meeting
Fourth
Meeting Sixth Meeting
Seventh Meeting
F % F % F % F %
85 – 100 Very High 4 15.4 3 11.5 3 12.0 4 13.3 69 – 84 High 3 11.5 4 15.4 4 16.0 6 20.0 53 – 68 Moderate 6 23.1 10 38.5 10 40.0 9 30.0 37 – 52 Low 13 50.0 9 34.6 8 32.0 11 36.7 20 – 36 Very Low 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
ISSN 2302-2043
There were only 4 students who got very high
pronunciation score level on the second and seventh
meetings. Even the percentage decreased on 7th
meeting comparing with 2nd one (15.4% became
13.3%). While on 4th and 6th meetings, the
frequency persisted in 3 even though the percentage
increased (11.5% became 12.0%).
Providentially, the higher the meeting the
bigger the percentage of the students who had high
pronunciation score level (11.5, 15.4, 16.0, and
20.0%); even though, the frequency on 4th and 6th
meetings persisted in 4. More providently for
moderate pronunciation score level, in which 23.1,
38.5, and 40.0% of the students who possessed the
level on 2nd, 4th, and 6th meetings; although, the
number of them on 4th and 6th ones was persistently
10, even it decreased on 7th meeting, i.e., 9 students.
Contrarily but more providently than
moderate pronunciation score level, the higher the
meeting the smaller the frequency and percentage
of students who got low pronunciation score level
(13 (50.0%), 9 (34.6%), and 8 (32.0%)). Moreover,
there was no at all student who got very low
pronunciation score level on all treatment meetings.
DISCUSSION
Data about students’ pronunciation level
revealed that their pronunciation level did not
change meaningfully. It sometimes increased or
decreased a little bit through the four meetings (2nd,
4th, 6th, and 7th). Their errors in pronouncing the
English sounds such as, voiceless sounds they
pronounced voiced sound like “lived”, “used” -
they pronounced “/lɪved/” not “/lɪvt/”, “/yused/” not “/yust/”; the words ended with “t” or “d” added by “-ed”, they pronounced “/ted/” not “/tid/”, like
“separated”, or “/ded/” not “/did/”, like “surrounded”, or “/died/” not “/did/”, like “studied”; they could not differentiate in
pronouncing the words after added by “-ed”, like
“smashed” -they pronounced “/smᴂʃ/” not
“/smᴂʃt/”; etc.
The students’ pronunciation scores
moderately increased because the skill depended on
the students’ motivation and ability to treat
themselves; while, the application of IPEM in the
study only gave treatment for pronunciation
especially for words that mostly or commonly had
been pronunced incorrectly by the students’ on the
second, fourth, and sixth meetings.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
Considering the data findings and discussion,
lecturers or teachers should recommend the
students to write their experiences in Indonesian for
the very early step in doing the task in order that
they are able to build their ideas smoothly without
being disturbed by their lack of English knowledge.
The study should be considered in developing
ISSN 2302-2043
Generally, syllabus and material are made long time
before teaching and learning processes begin.
However, in relation to the study, syllabus and
material should be completed after asking students
to write their IPE in Indonesian.
After the syllabus and material are completely
developed, they should be taught to students before
lecturers or teachers give the examples about the
application of the material by telling their own
experiences to students.
Before the lecturers or teachers tell their own
experiences as input for the students in order that
they are able to express their own experiences, they
should give the hard copy of the story to the
students.
It is better to let the students know the
meaning of the word “impressive” by asking them
to choose their experiences that they remember best
among their other experiences.
At the end of the treatment there should be
explanation and drill (repeat after me) for all of the
words that are mostly mispronounced by the
students on the treatment meetings. And it is
important that the lecturers of Speaking subject and
the lecturers of Pronunciation subject coordinate
and collaborate each other in order that the lecturers
of Speaking subject give information to the
lecturers of Pronunciation subject about which
words they should focus in teaching them
Pronunciation subject.
REFERENCES
Ahmadi, M.R. (2011). Why Is Pronunciation So Difficult to Learn? Vol. 4, No. 3. English Language Teaching. www.ccsenet.org/elt.
Brown, H. (2003). Teaching by Principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy
(2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Pollard, L. (2008). Lucy Pollard's Guide to Teaching English a book to help you through your first two years in teaching.
Copy Right (c) Lucy Pollard 2008 All Right Reserved.
Gay, L., Mills, G., & Airasian, P. (2006).
