TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE i
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ii
ABSTRACT iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF APPENDICES viii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background of the Study 1
1.2 Research Questions 4
1.3 Purpose of the Study 4
1.4 Hypothesis 4
1.5 Significance of the Study 5
1.6 Definition of Key Terms Used 5
1.7 Scope of the Study 6
1.8 The Structure of the Thesis 6
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 8
2.1 Learning Styles 8
2.2 Teaching Speaking 12
2.2.1 Activities for Visual Learners 15
2.2.2 Activities for Auditory Learners 15
2.2.3 Activities for Kinesthetic Learners 18
2.3. Conclusion 21
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD 22
3.1 Research Design 22
3.2 Population and Sample 23
3.3 Instruments 26
3.4 Variables of the Study 31
3.5 Techniques for Collecting Data 31
3.6 Data Analysis 32
3.7 Teaching Program 34
3.8. Conclusion 39
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 41
4.1 The Teaching Program for Visual Learners 42
4.1.1 Pretest Scores 42
4.1.2 Posttest Scores 43
4.2 The Teaching Program for Auditory Learners 48
4.2.2 Posttest Scores 49
4.3 The Teaching Program for Kinesthetic Learners 53
4.3.1 Pretest Scores 53
4.3.2 Posttest Scores 54
4.4 The Influence of the Teaching Program on Students’ Achievement 57
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions 68
5.2 Suggestions 69
22
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
This section discusses some important aspects related to research
method. These include research design, population and sample, instrument,
variables of the study, data collection, data analysis and teaching program.
3.1 Research Design
This research was quantitative research in nature in which the data
were in the forms of test scores and the analysis was done statistically.
This research was also classified as experimental research, because
the independent variable was specially manipulated in order to see its effect
on the dependent variable. Fraenkel & Wallen (2007) states that the
essential characteristic of all experiments is that the researcher actively
manipulates the independent variables, meaning that the researcher
deliberately and directly determines what forms the independent variable
will take and then which group will get which form.
In this research, the researcher used pre experimental research for
the reason that this design used only a single group and did not include the
use of random assignment (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2007). It was very difficult
for the researcher to do the process of randomization since it might disturb
the process of teaching and learning if the researcher attempted to change
23
effect of the independent variable on the dependent one was one group
pretest- posttest design.
Diagram
Research Design
A O X O
In one group pretest – posttest design a single group of subjects was
given a pretest (O), then the treatment (X), and then the posttest (O). The
pretest and posttest were the same, just given at different times. The result
that was examined was a change from pretest to posttest (McMillan and
Schumacher, 2001).
3.2. Population and Sample 3.2.1. Population
This research involved the second year students of SMP Negeri 1
Kauditan, Manado. The second year students were chosen considering some
following reasons. First, the speaking ability of the second graders seems to
be lower than it was expected. They learnt English for a year, but their
speaking ability was not developed. The result of this research was
Group Pretest Treatment Posttest
24
expected to help teachers to find the effective methods of teaching in
accordance with the students’ learning styles. Second, it is believed that the
second graders sufficient employed their preferred learning styles in the
way they have been learning since the first grade.
There are four classes involved in this research as the population
and not all of them were selected to be the sample of this study due to the
limited time and funds. The table below presents the classes and the number
of the second year students taken as the population.
Table 3.1
The classes and the number of second year students of
SMP Negeri 1 Kawiley
No Class Total
1. VIIIa 37
2. VIIIb 34
3. VIIIc 38
4. VIIId 28
25 3.3.2. Sample
The sample of the research was taken from the population through
purposive sampling, meaning that the sample was taken based on certain
consideration. As Fraenkel and Wallen ( 2007: 100) stated:
On occasion, based on previous knowledge of a population and the specific purpose of the research, investigators use personal judgment to select a sample. Researchers assume they can use their knowledge of the population to judge whether or not a particular sample will be representative.
From all available classes, the researcher chose class VIIIc as sample
for the reason that the group of visual learners, auditory learners and
kinesthetic learners were all grouped in class VIIIc.
Table 3.2
Total Number of Students
Based on Their Learning Styles
No Class Visual
Learners
Auditory
Learners
Kinesthetic
Learners
Total
1. Class VIII A 20 14 3 37
2. Class VIII B 21 9 4 34
3. Class VIII C 17 12 9 38
4. Class VIII D 16 8 3 28
To identify the students learning styles, the researcher used VAK
Learning Styles Self Assessment Questionnaire (Indonesian Translation
26 3.3. Instruments
The data in this research were collected using English speaking test
in the form of controlled interview test. The subjects of the research were
given pre test and post test after the treatment.
The scoring system used in the test was adapted from
Hadley, 2001: 444 (see Appendix 3). Before the test was conducted, test of
content validity and reliability were done.
Scarvia et al. (1975) as cited in Arikunto (2007) claims that a test is
valid if it measures what it has to be measured. To obtain a valid result this
study employed logical validity test in which the test was arranged based on
the careful reasoning and in line with the teaching
objective (Arikunto, 2007). Since this study conducted to measure the
speaking ability through the provisions of activities based on their learning
styles so the test was in the form of oral interview test in accordance with
the activities given to the students i.e. picture narrating, discussion and role
play. The researcher also asked her advisors to look at the content and
format of the instrument and judge whether or not it is appropriate
(Fraenkel and Wallen, 2007).
In terms of the reliability of the test, the researcher used interrater
reliability in which raters are required to make judgments on the language
produced by the students. Interrater reliability is essentially a variation of
27
produced by two raters and a correlation coefficient is calculated between
them (Brown J.D., 1990). The researcher asked the English teacher at the
school to be a rater accompanying the researcher in giving scores to the oral
interview test. The scores of the two raters (i.e. the researcher and the
English teacher) then be calculated using correlation analysis (Pearson
Product Moment).
The try out of the Instrument was done in February 4th, 5th and 6th
2009 to class VIII A. Class VIII A was chosen for a reason that they have
same ability with class VIII c as the subject of the research. The process of
scoring was done by the researcher and the English teacher in the school as
the interrater. The score results then be calculated using Correlation
(Pearson Product Moment) analysis. The first tryout was done to check the
clarity of the instrument for Picture Narrating Session, the second tryout
was for the Discussion session and the third tryout was for the Role Play
session. The results of the computation using Correlation Analysis (Pearson
28
Table 3.3
Correlation Analysis of the first tryout
Pretest
Yun Diana
Yun Pearson
Correlation 1 ,990(**) Sig.
(2-tailed) . ,000
N 38 38
Diana Pearson
Correlation ,990(**) 1 Sig.
(2-tailed) ,000 .
N 38 38
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 3.4
Correlation Analysis of the first tryout
Posttest
Yun Diana
Yun Pearson
Correlation 1 .990(**) Sig.
(2-tailed) . .000
N 38 38
Diana Pearson
Correlation .990(**) 1 Sig.
(2-tailed) .000 .
N 38 38
29
Table 3.5
Correlation Analysis of Second Tryout
Pretest
Yun Diana
Yun Pearson
Correlation 1 .998(**) Sig.
(2-tailed) . .000
N 38 38
Diana Pearson
Correlation .998(**) 1 Sig.
(2-tailed) .000 .
N 38 38
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 3.6
Correlation Analysis of Second Tryout
Posttest
Yun Diana
Yun Pearson
Correlation 1 .995(**) Sig.
(2-tailed) . .000
N 38 38
Diana Pearson
Correlation .995(**) 1 Sig.
(2-tailed) .000 .
N 38 38
30 Table 3.7
Correlation Analysis of Third Tryout
Pretest
Yun Diana
Yun Pearson
Correlation 1 .988(**) Sig.
(2-tailed) . .000
N 38 38
Diana Pearson
Correlation .988(**) 1 Sig.
(2-tailed) .000 .
N 38 38
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 3.8
Correlation Analysis of Third Tryout
Posttest
Yun Diana
Yun Pearson
Correlation 1 1.000(**)
Sig.
(2-tailed) . .
N 38 38
Diana Pearson
Correlation 1.000(**) 1
Sig.
(2-tailed) . .
N 38 38
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Since the results of the correlation computations were significant, so
31 3.4. Variables of The Study
Independent variables are those that the researcher chooses to study
in order to assess their possible effects on one or more other variables.
The variable that the independent variable is presumed to affect is called
dependent variable (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2007).
Since this study intended to see the effect of providing activities
based on students’ learning styles to develop students’ speaking ability, so
the speaking activities i.e. picture narrating, discussion and role play
became the independent variables to see their effects on the speaking ability
as the dependent variable.
3.5. Techniques for Collecting Data
The techniques of collecting data used in this research were pre test
and post test. The pre test and post test were conducted to get a clear
description of the influence of providing activities based on students’
learning styles to develop students’ speaking ability.
The pre test was carried out to identify the learners’ initial ability in
speaking skill. It was given in the first meeting to know the students’ ability
in speaking before they had the treatment. The test was in the form of oral
interview consisted of some semi structured questions.
The post test was principally conducted similarly as the pre test. It
32 3.6. Data Analysis
3.6.1. Score Data Analysis
Quantitative data in the forms of pretest and posttest scores from the
three groups were statistically analyzed and then compared by using
ANOVA or Analysis of Variance in order to determine whether the three
groups of learning styles differ significantly within and between variables.
The computation was conducted three times concerning there were
three groups of learning styles involved in the study. The first step was
computing ANOVA of the groups when picture describing and narrating
activity was applied. The second one was computing ANOVA of the groups
when discussion activity was applied. And the third one was computing of
the groups when role play activity was applied.
There are 38 sample respondents whose data are considered to be
worth analyzing: 17 respondents from visual group, 12 respondents from
auditory learners and 9 respondents from kinesthetic group. The statistical
analysis was computerized using SPSS 12 program. The hypotheses testing
were conducted to see whether H0 is accepted or rejected.
3.6.2. Hypotheses Testing Null Hypotheses:
a. Providing activities according to students’ learning styles does not
33
b. There is no difference among the groups (i.e. visual, auditory,
kinesthetic) when speaking activities (i.e. picture describing and
narrating activity, discussion activity, role play activity) were
applied.
Alternative Hypotheses:
a. Providing activities according to students’ learning styles develops
students’ speaking ability.
b. There is a difference among the groups (i.e. visual, auditory, and
kinesthetic) when speaking activities (i.e. picture describing and
narrating activity, discussion activity, role play activity) were
applied.
To test the alternative hypotheses (H1), it is accepted if :
a. Mean of posttest scores is higher than that of pretest scores of the
groups.
b. F obs of the ANOVA computation is greater than F table.
Meanwhile, to test null hypotheses (H0), there are also some
assumptions that is to be fulfilled. Null hypotheses (H0) are accepted
if:
a. There is no significant difference between the pretest scores and the
posttest scores of the groups.
b. F obs of the ANOVA computation is smaller than F table.
34 3.7. Teaching Program
The process of teaching and learning for the subject was carried out
under the same manner as the usual process in the school. It means that the
actual face to face meeting for class is conducted three times a week for a
month. The total meeting for the teaching and learning process was 13
meetings. Actually, the process of giving the treatments was planned to be
conducted three times per treatment. Due to the limited time provided by
the school, so the process of giving treatment was done only twice per
treatment. The time table of the process is shown in the following table.
Table 3.6
The Treatment Time Table
No Month Meeting Activity/Topic Time
1. February, week 2 1 Distributing VAK
Questionnaire to identify the students’ learning
styles
2 x 45’
2. 2 Session #1
(Picture Narrating Session) Giving Pretest to the
groups
2x45’
3. February, week 3 3,4, Teaching Program I
Teaching Speaking to the groups using Picture Describing and Narrating
activity Topic: Home Life &
Narrating Event
4x45’
4. 5 Giving Posttest to the
groups
2x45’
5. February, week 4 6 Session #2
(Discussion Session) Giving Pretest
35
No Month Meeting Activity/Topic Time
6. 7 Teaching Program II
Teaching Speaking to the groups using Discussion
activity Topic: Friendship
2x45’
7. March, week1 8 Teaching Speaking to the
groups using Discussion activity Topic: Teenager’s Life
2x45’
8. 9 Giving Posttest to the
groups
2x45’
9. 10 Session #3
(Role Play Session) Giving Pre-test to the
groups
2x45’
10. March, week 2 11,12 Teaching Program III
Teaching speaking using Role Play Activity Topic: Travelling and
Holidays
4x45’
11. 13 Giving Post test to the
groups
2x45
The description of the teaching activities can be seen below.
a. Preliminary phase of the teaching program
The researcher distributed the questionnaire to each class of the
second grade to find sufficient number covered in the three classification of
learning styles.
The result showed that class VIIIc were proportional in the coverage
of the three groups, meaning that they were chosen to be the subject due to
the number of classification of learning styles it had. It was reported that
there are 17 students classified as visual learners, 12 students classified as
36
b. Classroom activities for session #1 (Picture Narrating Activity)
Skill focus : Speaking
Level : Junior High School
Class : VIII
Time : 4 meetings @ 2x45’
Material and Equipment : Text (Home Life and Narrative event)
Pictures to describe and narrate
Presentation
First Meeting
• Teacher gives pre-test i.e. asking the students one by one about
the description of their houses without giving them picture. (Oral
Interview)
Second Meeting
• Teacher gives text about home life plus picture.
• Teacher explains the text.
• Teacher asks the students about home life through picture
describing.
• Students practice describing the pictures about home life in
groups.
Third Meeting
37 • Teacher explains the text.
• Teacher asks the students about life events through picture
narrating.
• Students practice narrating events in the pictures.
Fourth Meeting
• Teacher gives post-test i.e. asking the students to describe some
pictures and narrate some events in the pictures.
c. Classroom activities for session #2 (Discussion Activity)
Skill focus : Speaking
Level : Junior High School
Class : VIII
Time : 4 meetings @ 2x45’
Material and Equipment : Text (Friendship and Teenager’s life
Presentation
First Meeting
• Teacher gives pre-test i.e. asking the students one by one about
friendship.
Second Meeting
• Teacher gives text about friendship
• Teacher explains the text.
38
• Students discuss some issues about friendship in groups.
Third Meeting
• Teacher gives text about teenagers’ life
• Teacher explains the text.
• Teacher asks the students to discuss about teenagers’ life in
pairs.
• Students discuss some issues about teenagers’ life in pairs.
Fourth Meeting
• Teacher gives post-test i.e. asking the students one by one about
some issue in teenagers’ life.
d. Classroom activities for session #3 (Role Play Activity)
Skill focus : Speaking
Level : Junior High School
Class : VIII
Time : 4 meetings @ 2x45’
Material and Equipment : Text (Travelling and Holidays)
Asking Direction
Asking and giving information
39 First Meeting
• Teacher gives pre-test i.e. asking the students the way they get to
school.
• Second Meeting
• Teacher gives text about places to go during holiday.
• Teacher explains the text.
• Teacher asks the students to act out some dialogues.
• Students practice role play in the classroom.
Third Meeting
• Teacher gives text about travelling
• Teacher explains the text.
• Teacher asks the students to act out some dialogues.
• Students practice role play in the classroom.
Fourth Meeting
• Teacher gives post-test i.e. asking the students to do role play.
The whole description of the teaching program can be seen on appendix 2.
3.8. Conclusion
This chapter has provided the framework of conducting the research.
It was experimental research in the form of pre experimental research using
40
year students of Junior High School. The total students in the population
were 137 students. From the population it was taken the sample through the
purposive sampling, meaning that the sample was taken based on the
consideration that the three group of learning styles VAK were all covered
in the chosen class. There were 38 students involved to be sample in this
research. 17 students were identified as visual learners, 12 students were
identified as auditory and 9 students were identified as kinesthetic learners.
Instrument used to collect the data in this research was Speaking Test in the
form of Interview Test. Then the collected data were analyzed using
ANOVA Analysis of Variance. This chapter also provided the information
how the teaching program conducted in relating to the purpose of providing
68
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
This chapter presents conclusions which are drawn from the data,
and based on the conclusions; suggestions are given both for practitioners
or further researchers.
5.1. Conclusions
Based on the findings and discussions presented in the previous
chapter, several conclusions can be drawn.
First, concerning the first research question: “Do the provisions of
activities according to students’ learning styles develop students’ speaking
ability?”, the data showed that there was a significant increased mean
scores among the groups from the pretest to posttest scores. It is concluded
that providing activities according to students’ learning styles develop
students’ speaking ability.
Second, regarding the second research question: “which activities do
help more each group of learning styles (visual, auditory, kinesthetic) to
develop their speaking ability?” the ANOVA computation listed that there
was a significant difference among the groups in each session.
The study concludes that picture describing and narrating activity
69
activity helps more auditory learners to develop their speaking ability, and
role play activity helps more kinesthetic learners to develop their speaking
ability.
Third, earlier studies conducted in other countries have consistently
indicated a positive relation between the learning style and ESL/EFL. This
research has also indicated that matching teaching styles with the students’
learning styles improved the students’ achievement in their speaking ability.
The improvement in the learning style of learners through the provision of
activities based on the students’ learning styles has also changed students’
attitudes, motivation and performance.
5.2. Suggestions
As the completion of this research, the following suggestions can be
given:
First of all, to the teachers, it is suggested that teachers should
understand and respect individual’s diverse learning styles. Teachers should
employ instruments to identify students’ learning styles and provide
instructional alternatives to address their differences, and that teachers plan
lessons to match students’ learning styles while at the same time
encouraging students to diversify their learning style preferences. By doing
this, teachers can assist students in becoming more effective language
70
Secondly, to other researchers, since this present study covered only
three groups of learning styles, investigated only one class and one field of
teaching i.e. teaching speaking, so the findings cannot fully reflect the real
description of the process of matching teaching styles and students’
learning styles in developing students’ learning achievement. Therefore, it
is suggested for other researchers, to conduct another study on the
discussion of providing learning activities based on students’ learning styles
covering larger sample, more time, many more classification of learning
styles, and other field of teaching to find out whether or not matching
teaching styles and students’ learning styles improves students’ learning
71
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Acharya, C. (2002). Students’ Learning Styles and Their Implications for
Teachers.[online] http://www.cdtl.nus.edu.sg/brief/v5n6/default.htm,
May 15th 2008.
Arikunto, S. (2007). Dasar-dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan. Jakarta: PT Bumi Aksara.
Bradway, L. & Hill, BA. (1993). How to maximize your child’s learning
ability. New York: Avery Publishing Group Inc.
Brown, H.D. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. San Francisco: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
__________ (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy. San Fransisco: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Brown, R.S. & Nation, P. (1997). Teaching Speaking: Suggestions for the
Classroom. [online]
http://www.jaltpublications.org/tlt/files/97/jan/speaking.html, June 26th 2008.
Burkart, G.S. (1998). Teaching Speaking. [online]
http://www.nclrc.org/essentials/speaking/spindex.htm, June 26th 2008.
Byrne, D. (1987). Techniques for Classroom Interaction. New York: Prentice Hall Inc.
Cohen, Louis and Manion, Lawrence. (1994). Research Methods in
Education. London: Routledge.
Chris, C. (2003). Speaking Well: Four Steps To Improve Your ESL/EFL Students Speaking Ability. [online] http://enzinearticles.com. June 26th 2008.
DePorter, B. & Hernacki, M. (1992). Quantum Learning: Unleashing the
Genius in You. New York: Dell Publishing.
72
Emilia, Emi. (2008). Menulis Tesis dan Disertasi. Bandung: Penerbit Alfabeta.
Fraenkel, J.R. & Wallen, N.E. (2007). How To Design and Evaluate Research in Education. USA: McGraw Hill.
Goodman, J. (2004). Picture Stories in the Communicative Classroom. [online] http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk. June 26th 2008.
Gronlund, N.E. (1985). Measurement and Evaluation in Teaching. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Hadley, A.O. (2001). Teaching Language in Context. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Harmer, J. (2002). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Malaysia: Pearson Education Limited.
Harris, D.P. (1969). Testing English as a Second Language. NY: McGraw Hill Book Company.
Hatch, E. & Farhady, H. (1982). Research and Statistics for Applied
Linguistics. Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.
Heimlich, E.J. (1996), The Active Learning Continuum: Choosing Activities
to Engage Students in the Classroom. Journal of New Direction for
Teaching and Learning.
Kang, S (2000). Learning Styles: Implications for ESL/EFL Instructions. [online] http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol37/no4/p6.htm. February 20th 2008.
_______ (1997). Developing Adult EFL Students’ Speaking Ability. [online]
http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol35/no3/p8.html, June 28th
2008.
Kayi, H. (2006). Teaching Speaking: Activities to Promote Speaking in a
SecondLanguage.[online]
http://iteslj.org/articles/kayi_teachingspeaking.html, June 26th 2008.
73
Nel, Carisma. (2008). Learning style and good language learners. In Griffiths, Carol (Ed) Lesson from Good Language Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
___________ (1998). Language Teaching Methodology. Malaysia. Pearson Education Limited.
__________ (2003). Practical English Language Teaching. NY: McGraw Hill.
Oxford, R. & Anderson, N. (1995). Cross Cultural View of Learning Styles,
Language Teaching Journal. Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, Rebecca L. (2001). Language Learning Strategies. In Carter, R & Nunan, D. (Ed). The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to
Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Pratisto, A. (2005). Cara Mudah Mengatasi Masalah Statistik dan
Rancangan Percobaan dengan SPSS 12. Jakarta: Gramedia.
Putintseva (2002).The Importance of Learning Styles in ESL/EFL [online], http://iteslj.org/Articles/Putintseva-LearningStyles.html,
February11th 2008.
Richards, J.C. (1990). Conversationally Speaking: Approaches To the
Teaching of Conversation. In Jack C. Richards. The Language
Teaching Matrix. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Reid, J. (1987). The Learning Styles Preferences of ESL Students . TESOL
Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Mar., 1987) [online]
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3586356
Reid, J. (1998). Understanding Learning Styles in the Second Language
Classroom, USA: Prentice Hall Regents.
74
Tompkins G.E. & Kenneth Hoskisson. (1991). Language Arts: Content and
Teaching Strategies. USA: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia. (2007). Pedoman Penulisan Karya
Ilmiah. Bandung: UPI Press.
Verster, C. (2002). Learning Styles and Teaching, [online]
http://bbcuk/teachingenglish/org.html, updated on February 11th
2008.
Weir, C.J. (1990). Communicative Language Testing. UK: Prentice Hall.
Zhenhui, R (2000). Matching Teaching Styles with Learning Styles in East
Asian Contexts [online] http://asianefl/journal/2000/raodoc/html,
updated on February 11th 2008.
(2003). Curriculum and Instruction Saskatchewan Learning:
Speaking and Listening Activities. [online]
