CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
E. Data Collection
In collecting data, the researcher used some procedures as follows:
1. Pre-test
The researcher gave pre-test to measure the prior knowledge of the students.
2. Treatment
In collecting data, the researcher follows the step below:
a. The students were divided into two groups.
b. The researcher gave short explanation about the speaking and the used of Predict-Observe-Explain Method to the students.
c. The researcher set up a demonstration of an event, it related to topic, that might surprise students.
d. The researcher gave some materials for discussing.
e. Telling the students what they are going to do
f. Allowing time for the students to write their explanation based on their predict.
g. Asking the students to write down what they observed.
h. The students discussed their ideas together.
i. The researcher guided the students during the discussion.
3. Post-test
The researcher gave a post-test after conducting the treatments.
F. Tecnique of Data Analysis
In analyzing the data of the pre-test and post-test, the researcher used the procedures as follow:
The assessment of speaking accuracy a. Vocabulary
Classification Score Criteria
Excellent 6 They speak effectively and excellent of using vocabulary.
Very Good 5 They speak effectively and very good of using vocabulary.
Good 4 They speak effectively and good of using vocabulary.
Fair 3 They speak sometimes hasty but fairly good of using vocabulary.
Poor 2 They speak hasty and more sentences are not appropriate using vocabulary.
Very Poor 1 They speak very hasty and more sentences are not appropriate using vocabulary, and little or no communication.
(Heaton in Surahmat, 2012:35)
b. Pronunciation
Classification Score Criteria
Excellent 6 Pronunciation is only very slightly influenced by the mother tongue. Two or three grammatical and lexical errors.
Very good 5 Pronunciation is slightly influenced by the mother tongue. A few minor grammatical and lexical errors but most utterances are correct.
Good 4 Pronunciation is still moderately influence by the mother tongue but no serious
phonological errors. A few grammatical and lexical errors but only one or two major errors causing confusion.
Average 3 Pronunciation influenced by mother tongue but only a few serious phonological errors.
Several grammatical and lexical errors, some of which cause confusion Table of the Scoring Classification for accuracy
(pronunciation) .
Poor 2 Pronunciation seriously influenced by the mother tongue with errors causing a
breakdown in communication. Many ‘basic’
grammatical and lexical errors.
Very poor 1 Serious pronunciation errors as well as many
‘basic’ grammatical and lexical errors. No evidence of having mastered any of the language skills and areas practiced in the course.
(Heaton in Taufik,2012: 29)
c. Grammar
Classification Score Criteria
Excellent 6 Two or three grammatical and lexical error.
Very Good 5 A few minor grammatical and lexical errors but most utterances are correct.
Good 4 Only one or two major errors causing confusion.
Fair 3 Only a few serious lexical errors, some of which cause confusion.
Poor 2 Many basic grammatical and lexical errors.
Very Poor 1 Serious basic grammatical and lexical errors no evidence of having mastery any of the language skill and areas practice in course
(Heaton in Surahmat, 2012: 38) 2. Finding out the students’ means score of the both pre-test and post-test by
using the following formula:
=∑ Where:
̅ : Mean Score
∑ : The sum of all score
N : The number of subjects/sample
(Gay, 1981) 2. Testing the hypothesis to Find out the difference between the pre test and post
test, the researcher calculated with the following formula:
t = D
∑ (∑ )
( )
Where:
t : Test of significance
D : The difference between the matched pairs (X1- X2) : The mean of DS
∑D : The sum of D square
D2 :The square of the sum score for difference N : The number of subject
(Gay, 1981)
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
In this chapter, the result of the study is presented and discussed by the researcher related to the actions that have been applied.
A. Findings
The findings cover the students’ Speaking Ability using Predict- Observe-Explain-Method.
In this part the researcher describe the students’ pre-test and post-test score in Speaking Ability. The data score obtained through Speaking test. The score of the students were firstly tabulate into their frequencies base on their qualities.
1. The students’ Speaking Ability before Taught by Using Predict-Observe- Explain Method
The following table showed the distribution of mean score of the students’ Speaking ability on speaking accuracy.
Table 4.1. The Mean Score of the Students’ Speaking Ability on Speaking Accuracy.
Speaking ability Mean score
Improvement Speaking Accuracy
(Vocabulary, Pronunciation and Grammar)
Pre-test Post-test
51.28 %
3.95 5.94
Table 4.1. that there were differences of students’ score of pre-test and post-test in speaking accuracy. The data analysis showed the students’ mean score improved from the pre-test to post-test. The students’ mean score of pre-test was 3.95and it was classified as fair. However, after applying treatment the students’
Speaking Accuracy improved. It was proved by students’ mean score in post-test was 5.94 and it was classified as very good. And the students score in post test improved after teaching Speaking Accuracy by using Predict-Observe-Explain Method where the improvement of students’ achievement in Speaking Ability was 51.28%
Graphic 1. The Mean Score of Students’ Speaking Accuracy
Graphic 1 indicated the difference mean score of students’ ability of Speaking Accuracy between pre-test and post-test. Before applying treatment in pre-test, students’ mean score were 3.95. After applying treatment, students’ mean score were improved, where in post-test were 5.94. So, the difference score
3,95
5,94
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
pretest posttest
between both tests were 1.99. It means that students’ score in post-test was greater than students’ score in pre-test. Thus, using Predict-Observe-Explain Method was effective to develop students’Speaking Ability.
2. Test of Significance (t-test)
Table 4.3. Test of Significance
Variables t-test t-table Explanation
Speaking Accuracy
5.24 2.045 t-test >t-table
The researcher compared t-test value and t-table value to know whether the use of Predict-Observe-Explain Method in teaching Speaking was significant, to find out the degree of freedom (df) the researcher used formula N -1 =30 -1 = 29, for the level significant (p) = 0.5 and df = 29, t-table got score 2.045. After calculating the t-test value of Speaking Accuracy, it got score 3.46, so the value of t-test and t-table was (5.24 > 2.045). It meant that there was different result of the value of t-test and t-table.
Based on the data analyzed above, the researcher concluded that there was significant improves of Speaking Ability for the students through Predict- Observe-Explain Method. In other word, the use of Predict-Observe-Explain Method was effective to develop the students’ ability inSpeaking Accuracy at the Second Year Students’ of SMK Muhammadiyah Bontoala.
3. Hypothesis Testing
If the t-test value was higher than t-table at the level of significance 0.05 and degrees of freedom (df) 29 (N-1= 30-1), indicated the result of post-test
was bigger than the result of pre-test students’ Speaking Ability. The value of t- test in was 5.24 while the t-table was 2.045 where 5.24 > 2.045. Thus the alternative hypothesis (HI) would be accepted and Null hypothesis (H0) would be rejected. In contrary, if the value was lower than t-table at the level of significance 0.05 and the degrees of freedom 30, thus the alternative hypothesis would be rejected and Null hypothesis would be accepted. Seeing the fact that, the Students’
Speaking Ability could develop after treatment by using Predict-Observe-Explain Method.
B. Discussion
1. The Students’ Speaking Ability Before Taught by Using Predict- Observe-Explain Method.
The mastery of speaking skill, the student must have a good accuracy and fluency in speaking. According to Hornby in Surahmat (2012:16) accuracy is the state of being correct or exact and without error, especially as a result of careful effort.
The description of the data collected using speaking test which has explained in the previous section showed that the students’ speaking accuracy in pretest on speaking was fair categorize. It supported by students’ scores in pretest from the indicators. The students’ mean score of speaking accuracy was 3.95. It means the students’ speaking ability in pre-test still was fair categorize.
2. The Students’ Speaking Ability Before Taught by Using Predict- Observe-Explain Method.
After taught by using Predict-Observe-Explain Method, the students’
speaking ability was better then before. (White 1992), states that Predict-
Observe-Explain Method procedure is involves students predicting the result of a demonstration and discussing the reason for their prediction; observing the demonstration and finally explaining any discreapancies between their prediction and observation. Speaking is information by giving ideas, asking question, and giving responses which have correlation with opinions, or arguments that can stimulate students to support their opinion. It is expected that through the speaking activities, the students can apply their speaking. The description of the data collected using speaking test which has explained in the previous section showed that the students’ speaking accuracy in post-test on speaking was increase.
It supported by the students’ scores in post-test from the indicators. The students mean score of speaking accuracy was 5.94. it means the students’ speaking ability in post-test was very good categorize. The percentage of the students’
development of speaking accuracy in speaking ability was 51.28%. It means that the students’ speaking ability in pre-test was increase. It indicated that after giving treatment by using Predict-Observe-Explain Method the students have better achievement and the researcher had known in the application of treatment, the student’s attention be focused in learning and how to understand the lesson.
Applying the Predict-Observe-Explain Method is away to encourage students to learn speaking skill. The discussion is the key element to make the Predict- Observe-Explain Method as an effective way improving speaking achievement.
This is line related to Sattars’ (2007) who found that through discussion, the students can share their knowledge to build the speaking ability.
3. Test of Significance in Speaking Ability
The description of previous section showed the students’ speaking ability had developed. It was supported by the frequency and rate percentage of the result of the students’ pre-test and post-test. The result of the calculating the mean score of the indicators was the student’s speaking ability. Pre-test mean score was 3.95 (fair) while post-test was 5.94 (very good). The percentage of the student’s development in speaking ability was 51.28%. The development os students in speaking ability also by the comparison between T-test and T-table values of indicator. The result of calculating t-test of the indicator was the students’
speaking ability was higher than t-table (5.24>2.045). It means that students’
speaking ability has significant development after the student treated by using Predict-Observe-Explain Method in teaching Speaking.
Based on the result above, the researcher concluded that the second year students of SMK Muhammadiyah Bontoala have better ability on speaking after having treatment through Predict-Observe-Explain Method. This method could help the students to develop their speaking in speaking accuracy in teaching and learning process. It could be showed from the students’ speaking test in pretest and posttest. The students’ speaking ability has improved in post-test, which the speaking ability of the students can increase. The researcher gave the students opportunity to express their opinion and it can help the students to focus in any subject, thus the students more active than the researcher. However, Predict- Observe-Explain Method is a good way that can be used in improving the students’ speaking ability.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
A. CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of the previous chapter, the researcher would like to make a conclusion that Predict-Observe-Explain Method could develop the Speaking Ability of the Second Year Students of SMK Muhammadiyah Bontoala.
It was proved by the result of the test, the pre-test (3.95) and post-test (5.94) and the value of t-test is higher than t-table (5.24 > 2.045). It means that there is a significant difference of the achievement of the Second Year Students of SMK Muhammadiyah Bontoala. As a result the students can be more active than the researcher. However, Predict-Observe-Explain Method is a good way that can be used in improving the students’ speaking ability.
B. Suggestions
Based on the conclusion above the researcher proposed some suggestions as follows:
1. The English teacher at the Second Year Students of SMK Muhammadiyah Bontoala should give positive suggestion for the students in learning English speaking through Predict-Observe-Explain Method.
2. The English teacher should know how to teach speaking by using Predict-Observe-Explain Method.
3. The result of this research also can be used as an additional reference or further research with different discussion for the next researcher.
Code
Indicator (Speaking Accuracy)
Pretest (X-1) Posttest (X-2) D
S-01 3.8 5.6 1,8 3.24
S-02 2.8 5 2.2 4.84
S-03 3.8 5.6 1.8 3.24
S-04 4.4 6.1 1.7 2.89
S-05 3.3 5.6 2.3 5.29
S-06 5.5 7.2 1.7 2.89
S-07 3.8 6.7 2.9 8.41
S-08 3.3 6.1 2.8 7.84
S-09 3.3 5.6 2.3 5.29
S-10 3.8 6.1 2.3 5.29
S-11 4.4 6.1 1.7 2.89
S-12 3.8 6.7 2.9 8.41
S-13 3.8 5.6 1.8 3.24
S-14 2.8 5.6 2.8 7.84
S-15 4.4 6.1 1.7 2.89
S-16 3.8 5.6 1.8 3.24
S-17 5.5 7.2 1.7 2.89
S-18 3.9 6.1 2.2 4.84
S-19 5 6.7 1.7 2.89
S-20 3.3 5 1.7 2.89
S-21 4.4 6.7 2.3 5.29
S-22 4.4 5 0.6 0.36
S-23 2.8 5.6 2.8 7,84
S-24 4.4 6.1 1.7 2.89
S-25 3.8 5 1.2 5.29
S-26 2.7 5 2.3 5.29
S-27 5.5 7.8 1.1 1.21
S-29 3.3 5 1.7 2.89
S-30 2.8 6.1 3.3 10.89
Score 117.5 178.7 61.1 134.63
(X) 3.9 5.9 D 2.03 ∑ 134,63
Code Vocabulary Converted Classifying vocabulary Converted Classifying
S-01 2 3.3 Fair 3 5 Very Good
S-02 2 3.3 Fair 3 5 Very Good
S-03 2 3.3 Fair 3 5 Very Good
S-04 3 5 Very Good 4 6.7 Excellent
S-05 1 1.7 Very Poor 3 5 Very Good
S-06 2 3.3 Fair 3 5 Very Good
S-07 3 5 Very Good 5 8.3 Excellent
S-08 1 1.7 Very Poor 4 6.7 Excellent
S-09 1 1.7 Very Poor 3 5 Very Good
S-10 3 5 Very Good 4 6.7 Excellent
S-11 2 3.3 Fair 3 5 Very Good
S-12 3 5 Very Good 5 8.3 Excellent
S-13 2 3.3 Fair 3 5 Very Good
S-14 3 5 Very Good 4 6.7 Excellent
S-15 3 5 Very Good 4 6.7 Excellent
S-16 2 3.3 Fair 3 5 Very Good
S-17 2 3.3 Fair 3 5 Very Good
S-18 3 5 Very Good 5 8.3 Excellent
S-19 3 5 Very Good 5 8.3 Excellent
S-20 2 3.3 Fair 3 5 Very Good
S-21 3 5 Very Good 4 6.7 Excellent
S-22 2 3.3 Fair 3 5 Very Good
S-23 3 5 Very Good 4 6.7 Excellent
S-24 2 3.3 Fair 3 5 Very Good
S-25 2 3.3 Fair 3 5 Very Good
S-26 2 3.3 Fair 3 5 Very Good
S-27 3 5 Very Good 4 6.7 Excellent
S-28 3 3.3 Fair 3 5 Very Good
S-29 2 3.3 Fair 3 5 Very Good
S-30 3 5 Very Good 5 8.3 Excellent
∑X 70 116.3 108 180.1
X 2.3 3.87 Fair 3.6 6.00 Excellent
Code Pronunciation Converted Classifying Pronunciation Converted Classifying
S-01 2 3.3 Fair 4 6.7 Excellent
S-02 1 1,7 Very Poor 3 5 Very Good
S-03 2 3.3 Fair 4 6.7 Excellent
S-04 2 3.3 Fair 4 6.7 Excellent
S-05 2 3.3 Fair 4 6.7 Excellent
S-06 4 6.7 Excellent 5 8.3 Excellent
S-07 2 3.3 Fair 4 6.7 Excellent
S-08 2 3.3 Fair 4 6.7 Excellent
S-09 2 3.3 Fair 4 6.7 Excellent
S-10 2 3.3 Fair 4 6.7 Excellent
S-11 3 5 Very Good 5 8.3 Very Good
S-12 2 3.3 Very Good 4 6.7 Excellent
S-13 2 3.3 Fair 4 6.7 Excellent
S-14 1 1.7 Very Poor 3 5 Very Good
S-15 2 3.3 Fair 4 6.7 Excellent
S-16 2 3.3 Fair 4 6.7 Excellent
S-17 4 6.7 Excellent 5 8.3 Excellent
S-18 3 5 Very Good 3 5 Very Good
S-19 3 5 Very Good 4 6.7 Excellent
S-20 1 1.7 Very Poor 3 5 Very Good
S-21 4 6.7 Excellent 5 8.3 Excellent
S-22 3 5 Very Good 3 5 Very Good
S-23 1 1.7 Very Poor 3 5 Very Good
S-24 3 5 Very Good 5 8.3 Excellent
S-25 2 3.3 Fair 3 5 Very Good
S-26 1 1.7 Very Poor 3 5 Very Good
S-27 3 5 Very Good 5 8.3 Excellent
S-28 3 5 Very Good 5 8.3 Excellent
S-29 1 1.7 Very Poor 3 5 Very Good
S-30 1 1.7 Very Poor 3 5 Very Good
∑X 67 109.9 117 195.2
X 2.2 3.66 Fair 3.9 6.50 Excellent
Code Grammar Converted Classifying Grammar Converted Classifying
S-01 3 5 Very Good 3 5 Very Good
S-02 2 3.3 Fair 3 5 Very Good
S-03 3 5 Very Good 3 5 Very Good
S-04 3 5 Very Good 3 5 Very Good
S-05 3 5 Very Good 3 5 Very Good
S-06 4 6.7 Excellent 5 8.3 Excellent
S-07 2 3.3 Fair 3 5 Very Good
S-08 3 5 Very Good 3 5 Very Good
S-09 3 5 Very Good 3 5 Very Good
S-10 2 3.3 Fair 3 5 Very Good
S-11 3 5 Very Good 3 5 Very Good
S-12 2 3.3 Fair 3 5 Very Good
S-13 3 5 Very Good 3 5 Very Good
S-14 1 1.7 Very Poor 3 5 Very Good
S-15 3 5 Very Good 3 5 Very Good
S-16 3 5 Very Good 3 5 Very Good
S-17 4 6.7 Excellent 5 8.3 Excellent
S-18 1 1.7 Very Poor 3 5 Very Good
S-19 3 5 Very Good 3 5 Very Good
S-20 3 5 Very Poor 3 5 Very Good
S-21 1 1.7 Very Poor 3 5 Very Good
S-22 3 5 Very Good 3 5 Very Good
S-23 1 1.7 Very Poor 3 5 Very Good
S-24 3 5 Very Good 3 5 Very Good
S-25 3 5 Very Good 3 5 Very Good
S-26 2 3.3 Fair 3 5 Very Good
S-27 4 6.7 Excellent 5 8.3 Excellent
S-28 3 5 Very Good 3 5 Very Good
S-29 3 5 Very Good 3 5 Very Good
S-30 1 1.7 Very Poor 3 5 Very Good
∑X 78 130.1 96 159.9
X 2.6 4.33 Good 3.2 5.33 Very Good
XX =
N
Where:
X = Mean score
X = Total scoreN = The number of students a. Mean of Pre-test
X = .
= 3.95
b. Mean of Post-test X = .
= 5.94
3. Improvement students in Speaking P = X2–X1 x 100
X1
P = 5.9–3.9x 100 3.9
P = 2 x 100 3.9
The students’ improvement= 51.28 %
N = 30 D =∑ = . = 2.03
t =
∑ ( )
( )
t = .
. – ( . )
( )
t = .
. ( . ) ( )
t = .
√ . .
t = , =√0.15 = 0.387
t = .
.
=5.24
5. t-table
df = n-1
df = 30-1
df = 29
t-table for ( ) = 0.5 = 2.045
1.0 0.5 0.1 0.01 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
6.314 2.920 2.535 2.132 2.015 1.943 1.895 1.860 1.833 1.812 1.769 1.782 1.771 1.761 1.753 1.746 1.740 1.734 1.729 1.725 1.721 1.717 1.714
12.706 4.303 4.182 2.776 2.571 2.447 2.365 2.306 2.262 2.226 2.201 2.179 2.160 2.145 2.131 2.120 2.110 2.101 2.093 2.086 2.080 2.074 2.690
63.357 9.326 5.841 4.604 4.032 3.707 3.499 3.355 3.250 3.169 3.106 3.055 3.120 2.977 2.947 2.921 2.898 2.878 2.861 2.845 2.831 2.819 2.807
636.619 31.598 12.941 8.610 6.859 5.959 5.405 5.041 4.781 4.587 4.437 4.318 4.221 4.140 4.073 4.045 3.965 3.922 3.883 3.850 3.819 3.792 3.767
26 27 28 29 30 40 60 120
1.706 1.703 1.701 1.699 1.697 1.684 1.671 1.658 1.645
2.056 2.052 2.048 2.045
2.042 2.021 2.000 2.980 2.690
2.779 2.771 2.763 2.756 2.750 2.704 2.660 2.617 2.576
3.707 3.690 3.674 3.656 3.646 3.551 3.460 3.373 3.291
Describe your opinion about this topic:
living in the town or living in the village.
Post Test
Using Predict-Observe-Explain Method to develop this topic by use:
- Asking and giving opinion,
- Expressing satisfied and unsatisfied - Expressing happiness.
Spend the holidays in tourist attraction or vacation in the village.
Good Luck!
Brown, Douglas. 1985. Principle of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey:
Prentice Hal Inc.
Bruce E Gronbeck. 1992. Principle of Speech Communication. New York: Longman Group.
Cornblec. 2001. New Twentieth Dictionary Use. G & C Merrian Company Publisher.
Cangara. 1992. The Effect of Using Picture on Speaking (a Study at the Third Year Students of SMA 5 Ujung Pandang).
Dalziel, James. 2010. Practical eTeaching Strategies for Predict–Observe–Explain Problem-Based Learning and Role Plays. Australia: LAMS International Level 1, 3 Innovation Road, Macquarie University NSW 2109
Doff. 1988. Teaching Oral English. New York: Longman.
Gay, L. R. 1981. Educational Research: Competences of Analysis and Application.
United States of America: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co.
Harmer. 1991. The Practice of English Teaching. Longman: New York.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2007. The Practice of English Language Teaching. London: Pearson Longman
Heaton, J. B. 1991. Writing English Language Test.NewEdition.Longman Handbooks forLanguage Teacher.
Hornby, AS. 1974. Oxford Advance Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. New York: Oxford University Press.
Karim. 1995. The Speaking Ability of The Students through Problem Activities (a Study atthe Third Year Students of SMP Negeri 1 Takalar).
Kearney, Mattew. 2004. Classroom Use of Multimedia-Supported Predict-Observe- Explain Task in a Social Constructivist Learning Environment. Research in Science Education 34: 427-453 Current Events No. 3
Malayanti. 2004. The Speaking Ability of the Third Year Students in the Communicative Classroom of Makassar. Thesis English Department Tarbiyah.
Madsen, Horold S. 1994. Technique in Testing New York: University.
Palmer, D. (1995). The POE in the primary school: An evaluation. Research in Science Education, 25 (3), 323-332.
R. T, White. 1992. Journal. POE Strategy. Great Britain. Falmer press.
Saharuddin, 2000. The Use of Topic Interest Effective in Improving the Students’
Speaking Ability of the Second Semester of English Departement of Tarbiyah Faculty UIN Alauddin Makassar.
Shafa. 2004. The Correlation between the Fluency in Speaking 7 the Vocabulary Mastery of the Second Year Students of Madrasah Aliyah Putri As’adiyah Sengkang. Makassar Thesis. English Department of Tarbiyah Faculty UIN Alauddin Makassar.
Sattar. Muhammad. 2007. The Effectiveness of Using Spider Web Extension Technique in Teaching Vocabulary at the Second Year Students of MTs Aisyiah Sungguminasa Gowa Regency.
Surahmat. 2012. The use of Picture to Improve Speaking Skill. Makassar: FKIP Taufik. 2012. Improving Students’ Speaking Skill through Group Investigation
Method. Makassar: FKIP.
Urdan, Laurance and Flexer Stuart. 1995. The Random House of Dictionary New York: House Inc.
Widdowson, H. G. 1985. Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nama Sekolah : SMK MUHAMMADIYAH BONTOALA Mata Pelajaran : Bahasa Inggris
Kelas/Semester : XI/1
Alokasi Waktu : 2 x 45 menit
Aspek : Speaking
I. Standar Kompetensi
Memahami makna dalam percakapan transaksional/ interpersonal resmi dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari.
II. Kompetensi Dasar
Mengungkapkan makna dalam percakapan transaksional (to get things done) dan interpersonal (bersosialisasi) resmi dan tak resmi secara akurat, lancar, dan berterima dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari dan melibatkan tindak tutur: menyampaikan pendapat, meminta pendapat, menyatakan puas, dan menyatakan tidak puas.
III. Indikator
1. Menggunakan tindak tutur menyampaikan pendapat dalam diskusi, presentasi dan dialog.
2. Menggunakan vocabulary, pronunciation, dan grammar yang tepat dalam berbicara.
IV. Tujuan Pembelajaran
Siswa dapat menggunakan tindak tutur meyampaikan pendapat dalam diskusi, presentasi dan dialog.
Siswa dapat menggunakan vocabulary, pronunciation, dan grammar V. Materi Pembelajaran
Expressing feelings Asking opinion Formal :
- Have you got any comments on ....,
- Would you give me your opinion on....?
- What is your reaction to ....?
- What is your opinion about .?...
- What are you feeling about ...?.
- Please give me your frank opinion...?
Informal :
- What do you think of ...?
- What do you thing about....?
- What is your opinion...?
- Why do they behave like that?
- Do you think it’s going?
- How do you like?
- How was the trip?
- How do you feel about this dicition?
Giving opinion Formal :
- I personally believe ....
- I personally consider....
- I personally think/feel....
- I hold the opinion...
- My own view of the matter is...
- Well, personally....
Informal
- I think i like it.
- I don’t think i care for it.
- I think it’s good/nice/terrific....
- I think that awful/not nice/terrible...
- I don’t think much of it.
- I think that...
- In my opinion, i would rather....