CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
B. Discussion
as follows:
Table 4.12 the T-test Value of Students’ Speaking Skill
Table 4.12, showed that t-test value for speaking ability focused on fluency in term of smoothness with the t-test value was 17.263> 1.695 and accuracy in term of pronunciation with t-test 19.278>1.695. It indicated that the result of t- test value in all of variable and indicator was higher than t-table value. It means that there were as a significant different between the result of pre-test and post-test in speaking skill.
Based on the result, it concluded that there was improvement of the students’ speaking skill dealing with fluency in term of smoothness and accuracy in term of pronunciation by using brainstorming technique.
above, the use of brainstorming technique made students had mean score was higher in speaking skill.
Based on the problem above, the researcher gave the treatment by using brainstorming technique so that the students could show the improvement in post- test. In pre-test, only gave the exercise (picture) to know their prior knowledge before using brainstorming technique.
At the beginning, their speaking skill was bad. Almost of them were confused, and only saw the picture also spent much time to think about what they want to describe about the picture.
The researcher gave the treatment by using brainstorming technique. As the result, students become active and enjoy in speaking activity. They would be easy to do the speaking skill. Most of their utterance were correct and no need to think for a long time to know what they want to say.
The result of the data collection through speaking test as explained to the previous finding section that the students’ achievement after using brainstorming technique was significant. In using speaking skill in speaking activity, the writer found that the mean score of post-test students’ achievement is greater than pre- test. In table 4.1 showed that the score of find out the orientation which the mean score of pre-test in fluency in term of smoothness was 63.59 and accuracy in term of pronunciation was 65.31 after brainstorming the score of fluency in term of smoothness was 80.31 and accuracy in term of pronunciation was 83.12. Then, in table 4.6 showed that the score of to know the improving fluency in term of
technique.
Through the result of pre-test and post-test, the result of t-test value of level significant (p) = 0.05 with degree of freedom in fluency in term of smoothness (df) = 31; in accuracy in term of pronunciation (df) = 31. Indicated t-table value is 1.695 and t-table fluency in term of smoothness is 17.263; in accuracy in term of pronunciation 19.278.
After the calculating the value t-test analysis, then is it compared with t- table value. As the result, the researcher finds that the value of t-test is higher than the t-table. It means that null hypothesis (H0) is rejected and alternative hypothesis (H1) is accepted because there is difference significant mean score of the test that have given by researcher using brainstorming technique in speaking class.
From the discussion above, it can be concluded that the effect using brainstorming technique is one of teaching technique that can improve students’
speaking skill at the Eighth grade UPT SMPN 4 Pinrang.
45 A. Conclusions
Based on discussion proposed in previous chapter, it can be concluded that:
1. The effect of use brainstorming technique can improve the students’
speaking fluency in term of smoothness at the Eighth grade of UPT SMPN 4 Pinrang. It is proven by the students’ mean score improvement from per-test to post-test. The students’ mean score of pre-test in fluency in term of smoothness is 63.59. While the post-test is higher than mean score of pre- test the post-test in fluency in term of smoothness is 80.31. Moreover, based on the data analysis, t-test value is higher than the t-test table (17.263>
1.695). It means that there is a significant difference. Therefore H0 is rejected and H1 is accepted.
2. The effect using brainstorming technique can improve the students’
speaking accuracy in term of pronunciation at the Eighth grade of UPT SMPN 4 Pinrang. It is proven by the students’ mean score improvement from pre-test to post-test. The students’ mean score of pre-test in accuracy in term of pronunciation is 65.31. While the post-test is higher than mean score of pre-test, the post-test in accuracy in term of pronunciation is 83.12.
Moreover, based on the data analysis, T-test value is higher than the t-test table values (19.278 > 1.695). It means that there is a significant. Therefore H0 rejected and H1 is accepted.
B. Suggestion
After passed all of the procedures to finish this thesis, the researcher would like to give some suggestions in apply brainstorming technique in teaching speaking, as follows:
1. The researcher suggests to the students to more active in learning speaking and more brave to speak and explain their idea because it is very important to improve their speaking.
2. The researcher suggests to the teacher that should be creative in teaching English especially in speaking. Because in mastering English need more method or technique to improve it and the researcher suggests to the teacher should be more patient to help the students to solve their problem in learning English.
3. The other researchers who would like to conduct similar research. They are suggested to apply the method in different level of the students because every school has different level of the students. The other researchers should be creative and innovative to modify the activities of the technique in using brainstorming technique to improve the students’ speaking skill.
47
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abdul, N. B., Daddi, H., & Kamariah, A. (2021). Speaking Project Based- Learning (Spjbl) As An Innovative Learning In Promoting Students’speaking Skill At Senior High School Context. Eternal (English, Teaching, Learning, and Research Journal), 7(2), 471-483.
Allman, B., Freeman, S., Owen, J., Palow, S., & Shiotsu, V. (2000). Skill for successful teaching. McGraw-Hill.
Amidianti. 2011. The implementation of Brainstorming in Teaching English.
Accessed on 27th August, 2021.
Andryani, L. (2012). Improving students speaking skill through socio drama. Journal of instructional psychology, 37(2), 21-28. Accessed on May 6th, 2021.
Brown, D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy . White Plains, Addison: Welsey Longman. San Francisco: San Francisco University.
Crawford, A., Saul, W., & Mathews, S. R. (2005). Teaching and learning strategies for the thinking classroom. IDEA.New York: The International Debate Education Association.
Ginusti, G. N. (2014). Improving the Speaking Skills of Grade VIII Students of SMP Negeri 2 Godean Through Pictures. S1 Thesis.
Gultom, E., & Gurning, B. (2016). The Effect of Brainstorming Teaching Technique on Students’ Achievement in Writing Narrative Paragraph. Transform Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 3(4), 221746. Accessed on: 28th August 2021.
Harahap, S. S., Antoni, R., & Rasyidah, U. (2015). An Analysis on Students' Speaking Skill at Second Grade SMP 8 Rambah Hilir (Doctoral dissertation, Universitas Pasir Pengaraian).
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching 4th edition. Harlow:
England Pearson Education.
Kurniati, A. K., Eliwarti, E., & Novitri, N. (2015). A study on the speaking ability of the second year students of SMK Telkom Pekanbaru (Doctoral dissertation, Riau University).
Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., & Bordman, A. (2007). Teaching reading comprehension to student swith learning difficulties. New York: The Guliford Press. Leppanen, U., Niemi, P., Aunola, K. & Nurmi, J et
48
al.(2004). Development of reading skills among preschool and primary school pupils. Reading Research Quarterih, 39(1), 72-93.
Navaee, Maryam Sari and Masoud Asadi, 2015. The Effect of Brainsstorming on Reading Comprehension on Iriana EFL Leaners. Journal of English Language Teaching. Vol. 3.
Navarro Romero, B. (2009). Improving speaking skills. Santiago. University of Santiago, 2020
Nazara, S. (2011). Students' perception on EFL speaking skill development. JET (Journal of English Teaching), 1(1), 28-43.
Notoatmodjo, S. 2010. Health Research Methodology. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Novianti, H. (2017). The effectiveness of Using Brainstorming Technique in Teaching Reading Comprehension at the Tenth Grade Students of SMK Ma’arif 6 Ayah Kebumen in the Academic Year of 2016/2017 (Doctoral dissertation, PBI-FKIP). Accessed on August 29th , 2021.
Owo, W. J., Idode, V. O., & Ikwut, E. F. (2016). Validity of brainstorming strategy on students’ prior knowledge and academic performance in chemistry in selected secondary schools in south-south Nigeria. American Academic Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences, 24(1), 113-130. Accessed on August 29th, 2021.
Permanasari, R. C. (2014). Improving Students’ Speaking Skill Through Three Steps Interview Technique (An Action Research of the Tenth Grade Students of SMK Negeri 9 Semarang in the Academic Year of 2013- 2014). Published Research Paper. Semarang: UNNES. Acceseed on December 5th, 2021.
Rao, Z. (2007). Training in brainstorming and developing writing skills. ELT journal, 61(2), 100-106.
Ringgi, C. P. (2012). The Effectiveness of Using Strip Stories Technique in Teaching Speaking Toward Students’ Speaking Achievement of the Eleventh Grade Studensts of Excellent Science Class in MAN Tulungagung 1.
Rossiter, M. J. (2009). Perceptions of L2 fluency by native and non-native speakers of English. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65(3), 395-412.
Sallis, E. (2010). Manajemen mutu terpadu pendidikan. Jogjakarta: IRCisD.
Accessed on August 29th,2021.
Sari, I. (2011). Using role play in improving students speaking ability. Jakarta:
University Islam Negeri Jakarta. Accessed on : December 5th , 2021.
49
Sari, N. P. 2011 Improving students' speaking ability by using role play: a classroom action research at VII Grade of SMPN 251 Jakarta-Timur.
Accessed on August 28th, 2021.
Sidiq, Harim. 2018. Social science references in the digital era; Sociology and social sciences. Accessed on: August 28th, 2021.
Sinagatullin, I. M. (2009). Teaching is more than pedagogical practice: Thirty- three strategies for dealing with contemporary students. R&L Education.
Sugiyono. 2010. Statistika untuk Penelitian. CV Alfabeta.
Sundari, D. 2019. The Effect Of Applying Brainstorming Technique Assisted By Spinner Board Game On The Students’speaking Achievement. Accessed on August 27th August, 2021.
Sembiring, Novalina. 2019. Improving Students’ Speaking Skill by Using Round Robin Brainstorming Technique. Journal of English Learning Teaching.
ISSN: 2580-4278. Vol. 3 No.1. Accessed on: August 28th, 2021.
Searle, M. (2010). What every school leader needs to know about RTI. ASCD.
USA: ASCD.
Wahyuni, T. (2019). Improving Students’speaking Skill In Having Job Interview Using Role Play Method At Stmik Asia Malang. Journal MELT (Medium for English Language Teaching), 2(2), 144-156.
Wray, D. (2002). English 7-11: developing primary teaching skills. Routledge.
Ziraluo, D. (2014). Improving Students Achievement in Speaking Through Brainstorming Technique (Doctoral dissertation, UNIMED).
50 Appendix A
PRE-TEST
The researcher will give the students’ 3-5 minutes to describe about house in front of the class. With this topic the researcher can see the accuracy and fluency of the students’ in speaking.
Figures 6.1. House
51 POST-TEST
Post-test will be same with the pre-test. The researcher will give the students’ 3-5 minutes to describe the school in front of the class. With this topic the researcher can see the accuracy and fluency of the students’ in speaking.
Figures 6.2. School
52 Appendix B
PRE-TEST
Figures 6.3. The students’ Pre-test
Figures 6.4. The students’ Pre-test
53 POST-TEST
Figures 6.5. Post-test
Figures 6.6. Post-test
54 Appendix C
The list name of VIII.6 at UPT SMPN 4 Pinrang
No Code Name
1 S-1 Ahmad Yadi.D 2 S-2 Hendrik
3 S-3 Ikhsan
4 S-4 Indra Prajaya 5 S-5 Ismail Jafar 6 S-6 M. Fahri
7 S-7 Muh. Adnan Mustafa
8 S-8 Muh. Aslam
9 S-9 Muh. Yusril
10 S-10 Naufal Risky Aryadi 11 S-11 Nurrahmat
12 S-12 Rahmad Burhan 13 S-13 Rangga
14 S-14 Resaldi 15 S-15 Rezky 16 S-16 Riyangga
17 S-17 Muhammad Firmansyah 18 S-18 Muhammad Ibnu Syaifullah 19 S-19 Reski Purnama Nur
20 S-20 Andi Suci Ramadhan 21 S-21 Annisa Rahmawati 22 S-22 Gusviana Agus 23 S-23 Inawati
24 S-24 Khaelyla Nur Qholby 25 S-25 Ledhy Qur’any 26 S-26 Mutmainna Parman 27 S-27 Nur Azizah
28 S-28 Namira
29 S-29 Nur Anggraini 30 S-30 Nur Aulia Dasri 31 S-31 Putri Novryanti Arsyad 32 S-32 Rani Atika
55 Appendix D
Data Analysis of Students’ Mean Score Pre-Test and Post-Test No Sample Pre-test
Fluency Post-test
Fluency Pre-test
accuracy Post-test accuracy
1 S-1 60.00 75.00 65.00 80.00
2 S-2 65.00 80.00 75.00 85.00
3 S-3 65.00 75.00 65.00 80.00
4 S-4 70.00 85.00 75.00 95.00
5 S-5 70.00 80.00 70.00 85.00
6 S-6 60.00 80.00 65.00 85.00
7 S-7 70.00 85.00 75.00 90.00
8 S-8 60.00 75.00 65.00 85.00
9 S-9 70.00 80.00 70.00 80.00
10 S-10 65.00 85.00 70.00 80.00
11 S-11 50.00 75.00 55.00 75.00
12 S-12 70.00 90.00 70.00 95.00
13 S-13 70.00 80.00 70.00 80.00
14 S-14 70.00 85.00 65.00 80.00
15 S-15 70.00 85.00 65.00 85.00
16 S-16 70.00 80.00 70.00 80.00
17 S-17 70.00 85.00 70.00 90.00
18 S-18 50.00 75.00 55.00 80.00
19 S-19 55.00 75.00 60.00 80.00
20 S-20 70.00 90.00 70.00 95.00
21 S-21 70.00 80.00 65.00 85.00
22 S-22 70.00 85.00 70.00 85.00
23 S-23 70.00 80.00 65.00 85.00
24 S-24 60.00 75.00 50.00 80.00
25 S-25 50.00 70.00 55.00 75.00
26 S-26 55.00 80.00 60.00 80.00
27 S-27 50.00 75.00 65.00 80.00
28 S-28 50.00 80.00 60.00 80.00
29 S-29 50.00 70.00 50.00 75.00
30 S-30 70.00 90.00 70.00 90.00
31 S-31 70.00 85.00 65.00 80.00
32 S-32 70.00 80.00 70.00 80.00
56 Appendix E
A. Assessment of Speaking Fluency Students Pre-Test
Criteria Post-Test
Criteria
Score Score
S-1 60
At times gives up making the effort.
Full of long unnatural pauses
75
Make an effort much of time, often repeat the word
S-2 65
Long pauses while search the meaning and halting delivery
80
Repeat the word, make an effort much time
S-3 65
Long pauses while search the meaning
and halting delivery 75
Make an effort much of time, often repeat the word.
S-4 70 Frequently
fragmentary and halting delivery
85 Although has to make an effort and search for words
S-5 70
Frequently fragmentary and
halting delivery 80
Repeat the word, make an effort much time
S-6 60
At times gives up making the effort.
Full of long unnatural pauses
80
Repeat the word, make an effort much time
S-7 70
Frequently fragmentary and
halting delivery 85
Although has to make an effort and search for words
S-8 60
At times gives up making the effort.
Full of long unnatural pauses
75
Make an effort much of time, often repeat the word
S-9 70
Frequently fragmentary and
halting delivery 80
Repeat the word, make an effort much time
S-10 65 Long pauses while search the meaning and halting delivery
85 Although has to make an effort and search for words
S-11 50
Full long and unnatural pauses.
Very halting and 75
Make an effort much of time, often repeat the word
57 fragmentary
delivery. Times gives up making effort. Very limited range of expression
S-12 70
Frequently fragmentary and
halting delivery 90
There are not too many unnatural pauses
S-13 70 Frequently fragmentary and halting delivery
80 Repeat the word, make an effort much time
S-14 70
Frequently fragmentary and halting delivery
85
Although has to make an effort and search for words
S-15 70
Frequently fragmentary and
halting delivery 85
Although has to make an effort and search for words
S-16 70 Frequently fragmentary and halting delivery
80 Repeat the word, make an effort much time
S-17 70
Frequently fragmentary and
halting delivery 85
Although has to make an effort and search for words
S-18 50
Full long and unnatural pauses.
Very halting and fragmentary delivery. Times gives up making effort. Very limited range of expression
75
Make an effort much of time, often repeat the word
S-19 55
Full long and unnatural pauses.
Very limited range of expression
75
Make an effort much of time, often repeat the word
S-20 70
Frequently fragmentary and
halting delivery 90
There are not too many unnatural pauses
S-21 70 Frequently fragmentary and halting delivery
80 Repeat the word, make an effort much time
S-22 70 Frequently 85 Although has to make
58 fragmentary and halting delivery
an effort and search for words
S-23 70
Frequently fragmentary and
halting delivery 80
Repeat the word, make an effort much time
S-24 60
At times gives up making the effort.
Full of long unnatural pauses
75
Make an effort much of time, often repeat the word
S-25 50
Full long and unnatural pauses.
Very halting and fragmentary delivery. Times gives up making effort. Very limited range of expression
70
Frequently fragmentary and halting delivery
S-26 55
Full long and unnatural pauses.
Very limited range of expression
80
Repeat the word, make an effort much time
S-27 50
Full long and unnatural pauses.
Very halting and fragmentary delivery. Times gives up making effort. Very limited range of expression
75
Make an effort much of time, often repeat the word
S-28 50
Full long and unnatural pauses.
Very halting and fragmentary delivery. Times gives up making effort. Very limited range of expression
80
Repeat the word, make an effort much time
S-29 50
Full long and unnatural pauses.
Very halting and fragmentary delivery. Times gives up making effort. Very limited
70
Frequently fragmentary and halting delivery
59 range of expression
S-30 70
Frequently fragmentary and halting delivery
90
There are not too many unnatural pauses
S-31 70
Frequently fragmentary and
halting delivery 85
Although has to make an effort and search for words
S-32 70 Frequently fragmentary and halting delivery
80 Repeat the word, make an effort much time
Notes:
1. Poor : 50-60 2. Average : 65-70 3. Good : 75-80 4. Very Good : 85-90 5. Excellent : 95
60 B. Assessment of Speaking Accuracy
Students Pre-Test
Criteria Post-Test
Criteria
Score Score
S-1 65 Frequent problems with pronunciation and intonation
80 Pronunciation and intonation errors
S-2 75
Pronunciation and intonation errors make difficult to understand
85
Pronunciation usually accurate with few problem
S-3 65 Frequent problems with pronunciation and intonation
80 Pronunciation and intonation errors
S-4 75
Pronunciation and intonation errors make difficult to understand
95
Pronunciation almost always very accurate
S-5 70
Frequent problem in
pronunciation 85
Pronunciation usually accurate with few problem
S-6 65
Frequent problems with pronunciation
and intonation 85
Pronunciation usually accurate with few problem
S-7 75
Pronunciation and intonation errors make difficult to understand
90
Pronunciation and intonation are usually clear
S-8 65
Frequent problems with pronunciation
and intonation 85
Pronunciation usually accurate with few problem
S-9 70 Frequent problem in
pronunciation 80 Pronunciation and intonation errors S-10 70 Frequent problem in
pronunciation 80 Pronunciation and intonation errors
S-11 55
Speak very hasty, and more sentences are not appropriated
75
Pronunciation and intonation errors make difficult to understand S-12 70 Frequent problem in
pronunciation 95 Pronunciation almost always very accurate S-13 70 Frequent problem in 80 Pronunciation and
61
pronunciation intonation errors
S-14 65
Frequent problems with pronunciation and intonation
80
Pronunciation and intonation errors
S-15 65
Frequent problems with pronunciation
and intonation 85
Pronunciation usually accurate with few problem
S-16 70 Frequent problem in
pronunciation 80 Pronunciation and intonation errors
S-17 70
Frequent problem in
pronunciation 90
Pronunciation and intonation are usually clear
S-18 55
Speak very hasty, and more sentences
are not appropriated 80
Pronunciation and intonation errors
S-19 60 More sentences are not appropriate in pronunciation
80 Pronunciation and intonation errors S-20 70 Frequent problem in
pronunciation 95 Pronunciation almost always very accurate
S-21 65
Frequent problems with pronunciation
and intonation 85
Pronunciation usually accurate with few problem
S-22 70 Frequent problem in
pronunciation 85 Pronunciation usually accurate with few problem
S-23 65
Frequent problems with pronunciation and intonation
85
Pronunciation usually accurate with few problem
S-24 50
The students’ speak very hasty, and more sentences are not appropriate in pronunciation and little or no
communication
80
Pronunciation and intonation errors
S-25 55
Speak very hasty, and more sentences are not appropriated
75
Pronunciation and intonation errors make difficult to understand S-26 60 More sentences are
not appropriate in 80 Pronunciation and intonation errors
62 pronunciation
S-27 65
Frequent problems with pronunciation and intonation
80
Pronunciation and intonation errors
S-28 60
More sentences are not appropriate in
pronunciation 80
Pronunciation and intonation errors
S-29 50
The students’ speak very hasty, and more sentences are not appropriate in pronunciation and little or no
communication
75
Pronunciation and intonation errors make difficult to understand
S-30 70
Frequent problem in
pronunciation 90
Pronunciation and intonation are usually clear
S-31 65 Frequent problems with pronunciation and intonation
80 Pronunciation and intonation errors S-32 70 Frequent problem in
pronunciation 80 Pronunciation and intonation errors
Notes:
1. Poor : 50-60 2. Average : 65-70 3. Good : 75-80 4. Very Good : 85-90 5. Excellent : 95
63 Appendix F
To know the score of the students’, the researcher used formula:
Score = X 100
A. Rubric of fluency in term of smoothness
Classification Score Criteria
Excellent 91-100
Has to make an effort at times and search for words. Nevertheless, smooth delivery on the whole and only a few unnatural pauses.
Very Good 81-90
Although has to make an effort and search for words, there are not too many unnatural pauses fairly smooth delivery mostly.
Good 71-80
Has to make an effort much of the time, often repeat the word which has already said.
Average 61-70
Long pauses while he searches for the desired meaning. Frequently fragmentary and halting delivery.
Poor 50-60
Full of long and unnatural pauses. Very halting and fragmentary delivery. At times gives up making the effort. Very limited range of expression.
64 B. Rubric of accuracy in term of pronunciation
Classification Score Criteria
Excellent 91-100 Pronunciation and intonation are almost always very clear/accurated.
Very Good 81-90 Pronunciation and intonation are usually clear/accurated with a few problem areas.
Good 71-80 Pronunciation and intonation errors sometimes make it difficult to understand the student.
Average 61-70 Frequent problems with pronunciation and intonation.
Poor 50-60 The students’ speak very hasty, and more sentences are not appropriate in pronunciation and little or no communication.
Longman (2009)
65 After Scoring, the data classified as follows:
No Score Classification
1 2 3 4 5
91-100 81-90 71-80 61-70 50-60
Excellent Very good
Good Average
Poor
(Depdikbud, 2010:27) Appendix G
The Improvement of Students in Speaking Ability 1. Improvement Students’ Fluency (smoothness)
% = 𝑋2− 𝑋1
𝑋1 ×100
% = 80.31 −63.59
63.59 ×100
% = 16.72
63.59×100
% = 0.2629×100
% = 26.29 The students’ improvement = 26.29%
66
2. Improvement Students’ Accuracy in term of pronunciation
% = 𝑋2− 𝑋1
𝑋1 ×100
% = 83.12 −65.31
65.31 ×100
% = 17.81
65.31×100
% = 0.2726×100
% = 27.26 The students’ improvement = 27.26%
3. The improvement Speaking Ability
% = 2 1
1 ×100
% = 27.26 26.29
26.29 ×100
% = 0.97
26.29×100
% = 0.036×100
% = 3.68%
The improvement Speaking Ability = 3.68%