CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
F. Data AnalysisTechnique
E. Analytic scale for fluency
No Score Description
1 5 The candidate speaks at a comfortable speed with only an occasional pause and upset
2 4 The candidate speaks at a comfortable speed with quite a lot of pauses and hesitations
3 3 The candidate speaks slowly with frequent pauses
4 2 The candidate speaks hesitatingly in short, interrapted bursts 5 1 The candidate cannot get words or phrases out at all
( Harmer, 1991: 330)
2. Finding out the significance difference between the students’ pre- test and post- test, the writer applys the formula as follows:
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) 3. Finding out the standard deviation of the students’ speaking achievement,
the researcher applied the following formula:
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
4. Classifying the students’ score, there are six classifications which are used as followed:
a. Score 8.6 - 10 is classified as excellent
b. Score 7.6–8.5 is classified as very good c. Score 6.6–7.5 is classified as good d. Score 5.6–6.5 is classified as fair e. Score 3.6–5.5 is classified as poor f. Score 0.0 - 3.5 is classified as very poor
(Depdikbud in Nur Afni, 2012: 29) 5. Counting the percentage of the students’ improvement, the researcher
applied the following formula:
P = × 100
Where:
P : Percentage X1 : pre-test score X2 : post test score
(Sudjana in Nur Afni, 2012: 29) G. Hypothesis
To test the research used statistic hypothesis, namely:
H0 : The application of Beyond Centers and Circles Time Method could not be used to improve the students’ speaking ability at SMP Negeri 4 Biringbulu.
H1 : The application of Beyond Centers and Circles Time Method could be used to improve the students’ speaking ability at SMP Negeri 4 Biringbulu.
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter consist of two sections, those are the findings of the research and the discussions od the research findings.
A. Findings
The data were collected by administrating the test, the tests were done twice namely pre test and post-test, the pre-test was given before the treatment and the post-test was given after treatment. In analyzing the data the researcher used five components, those were pronounciation, grammar, vocabulary, self confidence and fluency. With 5 as the maximal score and 1 as the minimum score.
1. The Students’ Speaking ability No variables Pre-Test
(X1)
Pre-Test (X2)
Improvement (X2 ̶X1)
Percentage (%)
1 Pronounciation 39.16 46.66 7.5 19 %
2 Grammar 36.66 55 18.34 50 %
3 Vocabulary 52.5 68.33 15.83 30 %
4 Self Confidence 49.16 60 10.84 22 %
5 Fluency 38.33 43.33 5 13 %
Table 1: The Students’ Score inPre-Test and Post-Test
From the table above we saw that there was a significant improvement of the students’ speaking ability in every level, specialy in grammar and
vocabulary. And the lowest level of value was in fluency aspect. In the fluency their improvement just 13 %. But actually it was a very good improvement for a villager students that never learn English at Elementary School in a very simple time.
2. The Students’ Score Classification
No Classification Number of Subject Percentage Pre-Test Post-Test Pre-Test Post-Test
1 Very Poor 1 - 4.16% -
2 Poor 18 13 75% 54.16%
3 Fair 3 7 12.5% 29.16%
4 Good 2 4 8.33% 16.66%
5 Very Good - - - -
Table 2: The Students’ Classification Score in Pre-Test and Post-Test From the score classification at the table 2, we saw that in the pre test one of the students got very bad score, then in the post test none of them got very bad score anymore. And in the pre-test there were 18 students got bad score and in the post test it was decrease become 13 students. And some of the students got good score in the post test. From the result it proved that there was a very good improvement in the students’ spaking ability.To get a clear understanding look at the following chart:
3. t-Test Value
Variable t-Test t-Table Comparison Classification Speaking 11.16 2.690 t-Test > t-Table
11.16 >2.690
Significant
If the t-test value was greater than the t-table at the level of significance 0.05 and degree of freedom 24, thus the alternative hypothesis (H1) would be accepted and null hypothesis (H0) would be rejected. In contrary if the t-test value was lower than t-table at the level of significance 0.05 and degree of freedom 24, thus the alternative hypothesis would be rejected.
The result of data analysis was the t-test value (11.16) was greater than the t-table value (2.690). Based on the result, hypothesis test showed that H0 was rejected and H1was accepted. Thus, it could be concluded that using Beyond Centers and Circles Time Method could improve the students speaking ability at the Second Grade of SMP Negeri 4 Biringbulu.
B. Discussions 1. Pronunciation
Measuring the students’ pronunciation means that the researcher
measured the ability of students how to pronouns easily and well. It was supported by Seidhofer in Mirdayani (2008: 18) He found that pronunciation and accent plays as central role in both our personal and our social lives: as individuals, we project our identity through the way we speak, and also indicate our membership of particular communities. At the same time, related with the identity function, our pronunciation was responsible for intelligibility.
The classification from very poor to excellent or from the grade 1 to 5 with the criteria had been proposed by Harmer in Midayani (2008: 24) in previous chapter was the way to determine students’ achievement in
speaking. The data had been showed that in pre-test there were many students got poor score. It was so different with post test that some of them got the more high than the value in pre test.
2. Grammar
Measuring the students’ grammar means that the researcher measured
the ability of students to speak easily and well without grammatical error in speaking. It was in accordance with Mariah’s statement in Fajri’s thesis (2013: 22), she said that grammar is the sets of rules that related ordered sound sequences to meanings. In the broadest terms, it characterized that grammar must be known beyond individual word meanings in order to interpret a sentence. The students needed grammar in order to communicate underlying proposition compactly and efficiently.
The classification from very poor to excellent or from the grade 1 to 5 with the criteria that had been proposed by Harmer in Mirdayani (2008: 25) in previous chapter was the way to determine the students’ achievement in speaking. The data had been showed that in the pre-test none of the students got good score, most of them god poor score. It was very different with the post test result that some of the students got good score.
3. Vocabulary
Measuring the students’ vocabulary means that the researcher measured the ability of students of how effective they used the vocabulary.
Berlin in Mirdayani (1997: 15) also said, “vocabulary is one of the significant components of learning. Vocabulary building is very important in any foreign language learning, not only because it has a close relationship with intellectual maturity of learners but also because the fact that it can
improve the four language skills of the students, without grammar, very little can be conveyed, but without vocabulary, nothing can be conveyed.”
The classification from very poor to excellent or from the grade 1 to 5 with the criteria had been proposed by Harmer in Mirdayani (2008: 25) in the previous chapter was the way to determine the students’ achievement in speaking. According to the result it showed that in the pre-test there were 18 students got poor score then in the post test the number is decrease and it became 13. It showed that the value on the post test was greater than pre- test.
4. Self confidence
Easy to the listener to understand the speaker intention and general meaning. Very view interruption or clarification required. Armawana in Mirdayani (2004: 19) said that to speak with confidence, the students must have the opportunity of hearing in spoken correctly and fluently in a significant way, so that they can more rapidly more in the language without reflection on the individual words on their position in the sentence.
The classification from very poor to very good or from the grade 1 to 5 with the criteria had been proposed by Harmer in Mirdayani (2008: 26) by the analytic scale the researcher determined the students’ achievement in speaking. The data had been showed that in pre-test only few students got good score and the other just got fair, poor and very poor. It was so different with post test that some of them got the more high than the value in pre test.
5. Fluency
Measuring the students’ fluency means that the researcher measured of how well the students spoke up confidently (Billows in Mirdayani, 2008:
20).The fluency of the students measured by using the analytic scale that was proposed in the third chapter. And according to the data both in pre-test and post-test none of the students got the excellent score in this aspect, some of them just got the the good and fair score. In the pre-test only one student got the very good score and there are 5 students got the very bad score. Then in the post test the value result increased the students got the very bad become 3, while the total of students got the very good increased, it was become three person.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
This chapter consists of two sections, the first section deals with the conclusion of the finding of the research and the other one deals with suggestion.
A. Conclusion
Based on the finding and discussion in the previous chapter in this study, the researcher concluded that the Use of Beyond Centers and Circles Time Method was effective to improve the second gradestudents’ speaking ability of SMP Negeri 4 Biringbulu, Gowa. It was obviously provided by the result of data analysis that the students’ mean score in post-test was greater than their score in pre-test. The students’ mean score in pre-test was 43.16, while their mean score in post-test was 54.66. Based on the result, the researcher got that t- test > t-table (11.16 > 2.690 ) it showed that the H0was rejected and H1 was accepted.
A. Suggestions
Based on the result of the data analysis and conclusion, the researcher suggested as follows:
1. Beyond Centres and Circles Time Method can be used in every level of students, because it provide a good enjoyable activities for the students.
2. Beyond Centers and Circles Time Method can be used for the other skill of English.
3. Beyond centers and circles time method can be used to set up activities in order subject
To teach English specially speaking, some of the students like the enjoyable method, and the Beyond Centers and Circles Time Method provided a good enjoyale learning activities so it was suitable to be applied for all of characteristics and condition of the students. Most of the students in our country thougt that English was one of the most difficult subject to be learned because the writing and the pronounciation was definitely different. That was why as a teacher we should find out some interesting activities for them in order to get them interested in learning, such as the Beyond Centers and Circles Time Method.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Afni, N. 2012. The Application of Sensations and Feelings Technique to Improve the Students’ Speaking Skill.Unpublished Thesis. UNISMUH Makassar.
Andersen, E.S. 1992. Speaking With Style (The Sociolinguistic Skill of Children).
London: Routledge.
Brudden, P.M. 1995. Effective English Teaching – Second Edition. New York:
The Bob’s Merril Company.
Collins, B. and Kavanagh, M.A. 2013. Student Teachers’ Experiences of Circle Time: Implications for Practice. Publish Research. Dublin City University.
Emadwiastini, I.A. and Wiarta, I.W. and Kristiantari, M.G.R. 2014. Model Pembelajaran BCCT Berbantuan Media Manipulatif Berpengaruh Terhadap Hasil Belajar Matematika. Published Journal. UPG Singaraja.
Fajri, A. 2013. Using Beyond Centre and Circle Time Method to Improve the Students’ Ability in Writing Learning at the First Year of SMA Tarbiyah Takalar. Unpublished Thesis. UIN Alauddin Makassar.
Fitriani, Y. and Isyam Amri. 2012. The Use of BCCT (Beyond Centre and Circle Time) Approach to Teach English Vocabulary to Kindergarten’s Pupils.
Published English Journal. FBS-UNP Padang.
Gay, L.R. 1981. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application – Second Edition. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co.
Gay, L.R. and Geoffery, M.E. and Peter, A. 2006. Educational Research Competence for Analysis and Aplication. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Harmer, J. 2007. How to Teach English. England: Pearson
Harmer, J. 1991. The Practice of English Language Teaching. London : Cambridge university press
Hornby, AS. 1974. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kaplan. 2008. Beyond Centers and Circles Time Curriculum Pre-Kindergarten Theme Series. Florida: Kaplan Early Learning Company.
Lee, W.R. 1979. Language Teaching Games and Contests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, M. and Hill Jimmie. 1985. Practical Techniques for Language Teaching.
London: Language Teaching Publications.
McDonough, J. and Shaw, C. 1993. Materials and Methods in ELT. Cambridge:
Blackwell Publisher.
Midayani. 2008. Improving the Students’ Speaking Proficiency through Fostering the Use of Extended discourse. Unpublished Thesis. Unismuh Makassar Muhammadiyah, Marham. 2011. Perkembangan Peserta Didik. Makassar.
Murcia, M.C.1991. Teaching English as Second or Foreign Language. Boston:
Heinle & Heinle Publisher.
Nation, I.S.P and Newton, J. 2009. Teaching ESL/ EFL Listening and Speaking.
New York: Routledge.
Nuraini, Y. and Sujiono, B. 2010. Bermain Kreatif Berbasis Kecerdasan Jamak.
Jakarta: PT. Indeks.
Nurhayati, S. 2011. Teaching Speaking Skill Through Communicative Language Teaching. Published Thesis. UIN-Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
Patel, Dr. M.F and Jain, P.M. 2008. English Language Teaching. Jaipur: Sunrise Publisher and Distributors.
Pollard, Lucy. 2008. Guide to Teaching English.
Richards, J.C. 1994. New Ways in Teaching Speaking. Alexandria: Tesol Inc.
Richards, J.C and Renandya, W.A. 2002. Methodology in Language Teaching an Anthology of Current Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Samad, Sulaiman and Friends. 2004. Profesi Keguruan. Makassar: FIP-UNM.
Scrivener, J. 2005. Learning Teaching a Guidebook for English Language Teaching. Oxford: Macmilan Publisher
Slobin, D.I. 1939. Psycholinguistic–Second Edition. California: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Sriyanti. 2012. Developing Students’ Speaking Skill Through Role Reversal Question Strategy at The Second Year Students of MTS. Muhammadiyah Makassar. Unpublished Thesis. UNISMUH Makassar.
Thornbury, S. 2005. How to Teach Speaking. Vermont: Pearson Education Limited
Ur, Penny. 1996. A Course in Language Teaching. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.