CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
B. The Concept of Speaking
4. Assessing Speaking Ability
According to Heaton in Nurafni (2012: 13) the main factors in assessing ability, as follows:
a. Fluency refers to how well a learner communicates meaning rather than how many mistakes that they make in grammar, pronunciation and vocabulary. Fluency is often compared with accuracy, which is concerned with the type, amount and seriousness of mistakes made.
Therefore, fluency is highly complex ration relate mainly to smoothness of continuity in discourse, it is include a consideration of how sentences pattern very in word order and omit element of structure and also certain aspect of the prosily of discourse.
b. Accuracy refers to how correct learner use of the language system, include grammar, pronunciation and vocabulary. Accuracy is often compared to fluency when we talk about a learner’s level of speaking and writing. Therefore, accuracy is a essential depend on the recognizably of the word and sentences pattern of speech. It therefore, involves us in considering the phonetic character of conventional English, particularly from the point of view segmental (vowel and consonant) system.
According to Pollard (2008: 16) accuracy and fluency usually refer to oral language work but can refer to written work too. Accuracy refers to correct use of language; this often used just after presentation of new language. The objective is to produce correct language rather than to communicate ideas. If the focus is fluency, the teacher allows students to express themselves freely without interruption.
5. Successful Speaking Activity
“Learning to speak is obviously more difficult than learning to understand the spoken language. Although it is difficult, it can be achieved by doing much practice in real situation” (Chastain in Treesye, 2002: 8). Ur in Suhaeni (2003: 6) classifies the characteristic of a successful speaking activity, namely:
a. Learners talk a lot.
Teacher should give a lot of time to students to speak in the class room.
Let students speak much as possible in the discussion. The more students talk, the more effective learning in speaking is created.
b. Participation is even
Teacher should control everyone in the classroom. Do not let the talkative students has dominant contributions in the discussion. Each student has the same chance to speak in the classroom.
c. Motivation is high
Teacher should support students to have high motivation in learning.
Having good or interesting topic may increase students’ motivation to achieve a task objective.
d. Language is an acceptable level.
Teacher should know what to be taught to their students, meaning that the lesson should be acceptable. Students can express themselves to use the language in communication to each other.
When the students study language they also think of now people speak and understanding each other. Speaking skill which is also known as oral skill plays a very important role in human interaction when people communicate their ideas to the other. Speaking is required to communicate idea, opinion and comments to make contact with other people in conversational situation.
Almost of us learn speak and fact speaking is so much a part of daily life.
However to speak involves developing a number of complex skills and different types of knowledge about how and when to communicate.
6. Problem with Speaking Activities
The gain of speaking is that students can use the language as well as possible. However, in the learning process, some problems are found. Ur in Buyung (2012: 1) explained the problem with speaking activities. Those problems are elaborated as follow:
a. Inhibition
Learning speaking is not much different from learning writing and reading. Speaking needs some level of real-tim exposure to an audience.
Learners are often inhibited of making mistakes; a foreign language is a strange lesson for them, they are afraid of making mistakes and fear of criticism.
b. Nothing to say
In learning foreign language, usually learners do not have any idea I their mind because they do not think in English but in their own language. It happened becouse they fell that they should speak the language, which is
strange for them.
c. Low participation
It happens because one student / participant only has a limited time to speak. Some students are dominant, while others speak very little or cannot express their idea optimally in the discussion.
d. Mother tongue-use
When learners are discussing some problems usually, they share with others by using their mother tongue, not the target language. It is because they feel unnatural to speak in foreign language.
C. Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework of this research that will have done could be served in the following diagram:
INPUT
PROCESS
OUTPUT
Students’ material in speaking
An experiment research
Participation Point System
Method Students’
speaking ability
Speaking accuracy
Speaking fluency
INPUT The researcher gives materials in speaking to the students
PROCESS The students or the learners will be taught using Participation Point System
OUTPUT After implementing Participation Point System in learning and teaching process, the students are expected to speak in term:
1) Accuracy; a. Pronunciation, b. Vocabulary 2) Fluency: a. Smoothness, b. Content
24
This chapter deals with research design, research variables and indicators, hypothesis, population and sample, research instrument, procedure of data collection, technique of data analysis.
A. Research Design
The design of the research used one-group pretest-posttest design which does the pre-test, treatment, and post-test. It aims to know whether predicting strategy can improve the students’ speaking ability or not, this can be presented as follow:
Where: O1 = pre-test
X = treatment O2 = post-test
Gay (1981: 331) 1. Pre-test
In pre-test, the students were given pre-test before treatment to know the prior knowledge and found out the students’ ability inspeaking before teaching through Participation Point System.
Pre-test (O1)
Treatment
Teaching Speaking Participation Point System (X)
Post-test (O2)
2. Treatment
In treatment, the students were treated by using Participation Point System Method. The treatment was applied for four meetings and each meeting take 90 minutes. The procedures of conducting the treatment are:
Learning Activity
a) The teacher first introduced the rules or systems to the students.
b) Teacher presented the material. Teacher also presented what will be expected of the students in the task phase.
c) The teacher asked the students to do communicative activity about the material.
d) Teacher monitored them. Here, more marbels were awarded for their participation.
e) Teacher distributed small paper to every students pair and asked them to discuss about that.
f) Having completed the task, the students had to present it to the class. In here, most points were awarded. The teacher simply monitored the students.
g) Teacher encouraged students and summed up their points. Teacher gave the students homework.
Notes:
1) In the first meeting the teacher presented material about asking and giving opinion.
2) In the second meeting the teacher presented material about expression of agree and disagree and still the same first meeting activity.
3) In the third meeting teacher explained about invitation and and still the same activity in the previous meeting.
4) In fourth meeting the teacher explained recount text and meeting activity was different with previous meeting. In this meeting students were not in pair or group like previous meeting. And the teacher would not asked the students to do communicative activity.
3. Post-test
After treatment, the post-test was given and it aimed to found out the students’
achievement, the post-test is used to know the students’ speaking ability after teaching and learning process by using Participation Point System Method.
B. Research Variables and Indicators 1. Variable
There are two variables in this research; namely dependent and independent variables.
a. The dependent variable was the students’ improve in speaking ability include accuracy and fluency.
b. The independent variable was the use of Participation point System method in teaching speaking.
2. Indicators
Related to variables above, the researcher also included 2 indicators in this research are:
a. The students’ speaking accuracy in English included pronunciation and vocabulary.
Pronunciation; knowing the way of language spoken or understanding the rules of pronunciation correctly and without great influences of mother tongue.
Vocabulary; developing the language in speaking by knowing the accurate words/ right words in the context constraction.
b. The students’ speaking fluency in English included smoothness and content.
Smoothness; the ability of speaking English with good range of expression easily and readily (in normal speed and without difficulty).
Content; the ability of speaking English with good range, the meaning is easy to be listened and understood.
C. Hypothesis
There are two hypotheses in this research. They are H0 (Null Hypothesis) and H1 (Alternative Hypothesis).
1. Null Hypothesis
There wasnot significant different between the students’ speaking ability after applying Participation Point System.
2. Alternative Hypothesis
There was any significant different between the students’ speaking ability after applying Participation Point System.
D. Population and Sample 1. Population
Gay (1981: 100) defines population as first, populations may be virtually any size and may cover almost any geographical area. Second, the entire group of interest to the researcher was rarely available. There are four classes of second grade in SMPN 1 Majauleng. Each class consist about 30 students. So, the population of this research is 122 students
2. Sample
The way to select sample is sampling process. According to Gay (1981: 85), sampling is the process of selecting a number of individuals for a study in such a way that the individuals represent the larger group from which they were selected. The researcher taked the sample by applying total sampling technique. The sample of this research is the second grade students of SMPN 1 Majauleng which were choose two classes that consists of 21 and 22 students for each class.
E. Research Instrument
The instrument used to collect the data was speaking test. The test consists of pretest and posttest. The purpose of speaking test was to find out the students’
ability to speak English. The researcher gave the pretest and post test in the form of describing picture. The students presented their describing result and the teacher assessedthe students’ fluency and accuracy.
F. Procedures of Collecting Data
In collecting the data, there were some steps applied by the researcher as follows:
1. Before the treatment, the researcher gave pre-test to the students in form describing picture.
2. The researcher recorded the students speaking in describing the picture.
3. After giving the pre-test the researcher gave treatment. It was in the form of teaching and learning process by using Participation Point System.
4. After the treatment, the researcher gave post-test by to the students in form describing picture to know their speaking ability after Participation Point System Method applied in teaching and learning process.
5. The researcher recorded the students speaking in describing the picture.
In scoring the result of the students’ test evaluated based on two aspects of speaking below:
Accuracy
1) Table 1: Vocabulary
Classification Score Criteria
Excellent 6 Vocabulary apparently as accurate and extensive as that of an educated native speaker
Very Good 5 Professional vocabulary broad and precise;
general vocabulary adequate to cope with complex practical problems and varied social situations
Good 4 Professional vocabulary adequate to discuss special interests; general vocabulary permits discussion of any non-technical subject with some circumlocutions
Average 3 Choice of words sometimes inaccurate, limitations of vocabulary prevent discussion of some common professional and social topics
Poor 2 Vocabulary limited to basic personal and survival areas (time, food transportation, family, etc)
Very Poor 1 Vocabulary inadequate for even the simplest conversation.
Heaton in Mirdayani (2011: 36)
2) Table 2: Pronunciation
Classification Score Criteria
Excellence 6 Pronunciation is only very slightly influenced by the mother tongue. Two or three gramatical and lexical errors.
Very Good 5 Pronunciation is only very slightly influenced by the mother tongue. A few grammatical and lexical errors but most utterance are correct.
Good 4 Pronunciation is still moderatly influence by the mother tongue but no serious phonological errors. A few grammatical and lexical errors but only one or two major errors causing confussion.
Average 3 Pronunciation influenced by the mother tongue but only a few serious phonological errors.
Several grammatical and lexical errors, some of which cause confusion.
Poor 2 Pronunciation seriously influenced by the mother tongue with the errors causing a breakdown in communication. Many ‘basic’
grammatical an lexical errors.
Very Poor 1 Serious pronunciation errors as well as many
‘basic’ grammatical and lexical errors. No evidenced of having mastered any of the language skills and areas practiced in the course.
Heaton (1988: 97)
Fluency
1) Table 3: Smoothness
Classification Score Criteria
Excellence 6 Speak without too great an effort with a fairly wide range of expression. Searches for words occasionally but only one or two unnatural pauses.
Very Good 5 Has to make an effort at time to search for words Neverthless, smooth delivery on the whole and only a few unnatural.
Good 4 Although he has to make an effort and search for words, there not too many unnatural pauses. Fairly smooth delivery mostly.
Occassionally fragmentary but success in covering the general meaning Fair range of expression.
Average 3 Has to make an effort for much of the time.
Often has to search for the desired meaning.
Rather halting delivery and fragmentary.
Range of expression often limited.
Poor 2 Long pauses while be searched for the
desired meaning frequently and halting delivery. Almost gives up making the effort at times limited range of expression.
Very Poor 1 Full of long and unnatural pauses. Very halting and fragmentary delivery. At times gives up making the effort. Very limited range of expression.
(Heaton, 1988)
2) Table 4: Content
Classification Score Criteria
Excellent 6
Easy to the listener to understand the speaker’s intention and general meaning. Very few interruption or clarification required.
Very Good 5
The speaker’s intention and general meaning are fair clear. A few interruption by the listener for the sake of clarification are necessary
Good 4
Most of what the speaker says is easy to follow. His attention is always clear but several interruptions are necessary to help him to convey the message or seek clarification
Average 3
The listener can understand a lot of what is said, but he must constantly seek clarification.
He cannot understand and then with considerable effort by someone who is used to listening to the speaker.
Poor 2
Only small bits (usually short sentence and phrase) can be understood and then with considerable effort by someone who is used to listening to the speaker hardly anything of what is said can be understood
Very poor 1
Even the listener make a great effort interrupts, the speaker is unable to clarify anything he seems to have said.
(Heaton in Mirdayani, 2011: 37)
Score=Student’s correct answerX 10 Maximum Score
G. Technique of the Data Data Analysis
1. The discoverer the mean score: the writer applied the following formula
X
=N
XWhere:
X
: Mean score (symbol for the population mean)
X : The sum of all scoreN : The total number of students
Gay (1981: 320) The formula is to know the mean score of the students’ ability in speaking while the data taken from the pre-test and post-test. The aim of the formula is to answer the question of the problem statement. Gay (1981: 321)
2. Find out the standard deviation of the students’ speaking achievement.
SD=
x2- x
n 2
n-1
Where: SD:The total square of the students’ score
:The total score of the students n :The number of students
Gay (1981: 321) 3. To found out the significance difference between the students’ pre- test and
posttest, the writer applied the formula as follow:
T =
1
2 2
N N
N D D
D
Where: T : Test of significance D : Mean Deviation
D2 : The square of the sum score for difference
D : The sum of total score for differenceGay (1981: 355) The formula explained about the significance difference between the pre- test and the post- test. The aim of the formula was to know whether the Participation Point System effective or not in increasing the students’ speaking ability of the second grade of SMPN 1 Majauleng.
4. To classfied the students score, there were seven classifications that used follows:
No. Classification Score
1. Excellent 9.6-10.
2. Very good 8.6-9.5
3. Good 7.6-8.5
4. Fairly good 6.6-7.5
5. Fair 5.6-6.5
6. Poor 3.6-5.5
7. Very poor 0.0-3.5
(Heaton, 1988)
36
This chapter presents the findings and discussions of the research. The findings of the research cover the description of the students’ speaking improvement. The discussions of the research cover further explanation of the findings in details.
A. Findings
The findings of the research contains clear answer to the problem statements as obtainable objective of the research which aims to find out the improvement of the students’ speaking abilty by using participation point system at the eighth grade of SMPN 1 Majauleng.
1. The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Ability in Term Accuracy The improvement of the students’ speaking ability is viewed in term of accuracy, dealing with vocabulary and pronunciation through the use of participation point system that can be seen clearly based on the following table:
Table 4.1. The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Ability in Terms Accuracy
No Indicators Pre-Test Post-Test Improvement (%)
1. Vocabulary 4.42 6.67 50.90
2. Pronunciation 4.62 6.41 38.75
Total Score (∑X) 9.04 13.08
44.69
Mean Score (X) 4.52 6.54
The table above shows two indicators of accuracy in the students’
speaking ability. Each indicator has score of pre-test and post-test. The mean score of students’ speaking accuracy in pre-test is 4.52. It is classified as a poor category, but after using the Participation Point System in treatment, the mean score of post-test becomes 6.54. It is greater than pre-test. It is classified as a fairly category. The improvement of the students’ speaking accuracy from pre-test to post-test is 44.69%.
To see clearly the improvement of the students’ accuracy dealing with vocabulary and pronunciation, following graphic below;
Graphic 4.1. The Improvement of the Students’ SpeakingAccuracy The graphic above indicates the students’ improvement of accuracy dealing with vocabulary and pronunciation. The students’ improvement in vocabulary is 50,90%, the students improvement in pronunciation is 38,75%, and the improvement of both are 44,69%.
50,90%
38,75% 44,69%
0,00%
10,00%
20,00%
30,00%
40,00%
50,00%
60,00%
70,00%
80,00%
90,00%
100,00%
Vocabulary Pronunciation Mean
Based on the percentages above there are significant improvement of the students by using Participation Point System in teaching English speaking accuracy.
2. The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Ability in Term Fluency The improvement of the studentss, speaking abiliy in this section is viewed based on fluency dealing with smoothness and content through the use of participation point system that can be seen clearly based on the following table:
Table 4.2. The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Ability in Terms Fluency
No Indicator Pre-Test Post-Test
Improvement (%)
1. Smoothness 4.42 6.83 54.52
2. Content 5.12 6.55 27.92
Total Score (∑X) 9.54 13.38
40.25
Mean Score (X) 4.77 6.69
Table 4.2 above shows the score of two indicators of fluency in the students’ speaking ability. The mean score of students’ speaking fluency in pre-test is 4.77. It is classified as a poor category, but after using the Participation Point System in treatment, the mean score of post-test becomes 6.69. It is greater than pre-test. It is classified as a fairly good category. The improvement of the students’ speaking fluency from pre-test to post-test is 40.25%.
To see clearly the improvement of the students, fluency dealing with smoothness and content, following graphic below;
Graphic 4.2. The Improvement of the Students’ SpeakingFluency The graphic above indicates the students’ improvement of fluencydealing with smoothness and content. The students’ improvement in smoothness is 54,52%, the students improvement in pronunciation is 27,92%, and the improvement of both are 40,25%.
Based on the percentages above there are significant improvements of the students by using Participation Point System in teaching English speaking fluency.
3. The Improvements of the Students’ Speaking Ability
To find the students improvement in speaking the researcher administered a test, which is given twice to the students. Firstly, pre-test is given before the treatment. Secondly, post-test is given after the treatment The result of the
54,52%
27,92% 40,25%
0,00%
20,00%
40,00%
60,00%
80,00%
100,00%
Smoothness Content Mean
Percentage