CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
B. Discussion
The description of data collected from speaking accuracy in terms of vocabulary and grammar as explained in the previous section showed that the students’ skill invocabulary and grammar in speaking improved. It was supported
by mean score and percentage of the students’ pre-test and post-test result. For example, in pre-test the vocabulary of the student’s still low because they could usetheir vocabulary based on the situation of the sentence, example: they said “if I have many money I will….whereas, the true of vocabulary that should students use is much money. In grammar, most of the students still used present tense when they wanted to express their idea in the past tense. For example: they said “I go to market yesterday”. Whereas, the true of sentence based on the rule of grammar if time signal show simple past they should be used verb 2, I went to market yesterday.
Based on the finding above, the using Peer Tutoring Strategy made students had mean score that was higher in speaking skill than before they knowed Peer Tutoring Strategy.
1. The Improvement of Students’ Speaking Skill Viewed From Its Vocabulary
Speaking accuracy in terms of vocabulary was about the skill in memorizing but could develop it based on the topic that had given from the researcher and also it was suitablefor students’ needs andwants.
Improvement of the students’ speaking skill in term of vocabulary was about (57.72%) from the pre-test score. The vocabulary competence in pre-test show that the students speak hasty and used in appropriate vocabularies. The students’ vocabulary become less hasty and are good enough in using vocabularies in post-test.
In the first meeting when researcher gave pre-test, researcher looked that most of students are lack of vocabularies. They were difficult to speak. The
33
students’ speaking achievement in pre-test’s mean score was very poor, it was (42.5).
In terms of vocabulary in pre-test, the students were lack of vocabularies that related to the topic were given. Besides that students also spoke as they knew.
After the students had been given treatment, mean score in post-test from students had improved to become (67.03). It was higher than pre-test score. Pre– test to post-test score, there was improvement score of students from poor to fairly good by using Peer Tutoring Strategy. The improvement percentage showed (57.72%). Using Peer Tutoring Strategy had improved students’ speaking skill special in accuracy viewed from vocabulary.
2. The Improvement of Students’ Speaking Accuracy Viewed From Its Grammar
Improvement of the students’ speaking accuracy in term of grammar is show by 30 percent from the students’ pre-test. The students’ grammar competence in pre-test is categorized as poor but in post-test, it has increased to fairly good.
In addition, the grammar in speaking. Cook (1991) defines the types of grammar as in the following: first, Perspective grammar that prescribes what people should say. It is the rules found in school-books; say the warnings against final preposition in sentence. Second, Traditional grammar concerns with labeling sentences with parts of speech. Third, Structural grammar concern with how words go into phrases structure, which shows how some words go together in the sentences. Finally, Grammar as knowledge, it refers to the native speakers’
knowledge of language.
In the first meeting when researcher gave pre-test, researcher looked the most of students was difficult to write , and they wrote in unstructured.
Beside that students also got other knowledge that they could apply to all of grammar, not only speaking but also it was make them easier to write something in the future. They did not write unstructure again.
The data on the table 4.2 showed that the score of grammar improved from 50 in pre-test’s mean score to (68.12) in post-test’s score. It was good improvement because they knowed more about past tense in other side.
After calculating of score between pre-test and post-test score, researcher found that skill of students improved which was to be (36.29%) from mean score (50) in pre-test to (68.12) in post-test. It meant that implementation of Peer Tutoring Strategy in treatment of students’ SMPN 29 Makassar was succes to
make students understandabled and knowed about speaking accuracy in the terms of grammar.
3. The Significance of Hypothesis Test
After calculating the value t-test analysis then it was compared with t-table value so researcher found that the value of t-test was greater than the t-table value, it meant that null hypothesis (H0) was rejected and alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted because there was difference significant mean score of test that had given by researcher before and after researcher thought speaking accuracy in term of vocabulary and grammar by using Peer Tutoring Strategy.Meanwhile, when it was found that the value of t-test was lower than t-table value, it meant that the null hypothesis (H0) was accepted and alternative hypothesis (H1) was rejected
35
because there was not difference significant mean score of test that had given by researcher before and after researcher thought Speaking accuracy by Peer Tutoring Strategy.
T-test value of vocabulary was greater than t-table(5.60> 1.697) and also t- test value of grammar was greater than t-table (17.32> 1.697). It meant that there was significant difference between students’ speaking skill before and after they got Peer Tutoring Strategy from researcher in speaking accuracy in term of Vocabulary and grammar of the Second grade of students SMPN 29 Makassar.
Beside that, the data showed that null hypothesis (H0) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted.
Researcher could conclude that using Peer Tutoring Strategy was one of good technique that could improve the students’ skill in speaking accuracy and also students’speaking skill of the Second Grade of students’ SMPN 29 Makassar in academic year 2016/ 2017 could improved in vocabulary and grammar of speaking.
36 A. CONCLUSIONS
1. Conclusion
Based on the result of data analysis and the discussion of the result in the previous chapter, the researcher concludes that:
a. The students’ accuracy in terms of Vocabulary in speaking English at the Second grade of SMPN 29 Makassar can improved after applying Peer Tutoring Strategy. It is shown the post-test that score (67.03) was higher than pre-test (42.5). it is also shown that the significant difference between pre-test and post-test. So that, the improvement of the students’ speaking ability in vocabulary was (57.72%). This means Peer Tutoring Strategy is effective to improve students’ speaking accuracy in term of vocabulary.
b. The students’ accuracy in term grammar in speaking English at the Second grade of SMPN 29 Makassar can be improved after applying Peer Tutoring Strategy. It is shown that the post-test that score (68.12) was higher than pre- test (50). It is also shown the significant difference between pre-test and post- test. So that, the improvement of the students’ speaking ability in grammar was (36.24%). This means Peer Tutoring Strategy is effective to improve students’ speaking accuracy in term of grammar.
c. The students t-test value for vocabulary was greater than t-table (5.60>
1.697), t-test value of grammar was greater than t-table (17.32>1.697). It means that there was significant difference between the students’ speaking
37
ability before and after used peer tutoring strategy at the second grade of students SMPN 29 Makassar.
B. Suggestions
The suggestion consisted of meaning couldapply practically a and accepted usefully. Suggestions consisted also researchers’ recommendation and expectation related to the research that has done. Suggestions of this research could be seen in the below:
1. The successful teaching doesn’t depend on the lesson program only, but more important is how the teacher presents the lesson and uses various methods or technique to manage the class more lively and. Regarding to the teaching speaking by using peer tutoring strategy, the researcher gave some suggestion for the teacher and students .
2. The teacher should be more creative to enrich their teaching method and material. Choosing strange or unique words can stimulate them in learning English. And the materials are presented in an enjoyable, relaxed and understandable way. That’s why; it is suggested for the teacher to apply peer tutoring strategy in teaching English.
3. The students are hoped to be more confident in speaking English, to be active and creative in enriching their vocabularies and grammar to apply in speaking activity. And they should ask the teacher if there is word that they cannot pronounce.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aria Djalil. 2001. Peningkatan Pembelajaran Fisika Melalui Pembelajaran Tutor Sebaya Pada Kelas VIII SMP Negeri 1 Sinjai Timur. UNM. Skripsi tidak di publikasikan.
Aridah. 2011. Meningkatkan Prestasi Belajar Matematika Kelas VII SMP Negeri 1 Palu Melalui Pembelajaran Tutor Sebaya Pada Kelas VIII SMP Negeri 1 Sinjai Timur. UNM. Skripsi tidak di publikasikan.
Billson, J. & Tiberius, R. (1991) Effective Social Arrangements for Teaching and Learning New Directions for Teaching and Learning 45 (3)
Cook, Vivian. 1992. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching.
London: Longman Group.
Ernawati, 2015. Using beyond centers and circles time method to improve the students’ speaking ability. A thesis University of Muhammadiyah Makassar.
Fadanrangi, 2015. Improving The Students Speaking Skill by Using Peer Teaching Tutoring Strategy. A thesis University of Muhammadiyah Makassar.
Fathullah, 2011. Improving English Speaking through Pictures Series. A thesis University of Muhammadiyah Makassar.
Goodlad, S. & Hirst, B .1989. Peer Tutoring: A Guide to Learning by Teaching London:Kogan Page.
Gordon, E.E. 2005 .Peer Tutoring: A teacher’s Resource Guide Lanham Maryland: Scarecrow Education.
Hadijah. (2006). The Effectiveness of Debate Activity to Increase The Speaking Ability of The second Year Student of State Islamic Senior High School (MAN) Wonomulyo West Sulawesi. Thesis UIN.
Harmer, J. 1991. The practice of English language teaching. Essex, UK:
Longman.
Hatch, E and Farhady. 1982. Research Design and Statistic For Applied Linguistic, Los Angeles: University of California.
Huddleston, R. 1954. English Grammar: An Outline. New York: Cambridge University Press.
39
Kathryn Goh, 2006. Investigating Peer Learning and Teaching in a Problem- Based learning Context, retrieved on 22 December 2014
Loh, H. 1993. Peer Assisted Study Session in Anatomy for Nursing Students.
Proceedings of the Conference Peer Tutoring: Learning by Teaching, held 19-21 August 1993, (pp. 193-202). University of Auckland, Auckland.
Malayanti. 2004. The Comparison between Students’ English Speaking Achievement living at and out of dormitory at As’adiyah Islamic Boarding School Sengkang Wajo Regency. Thesis UIN.
Mardia. 2015. Using Group Leadership Technique to Improve The Students’
Speaking Ability at the second grade of MAN Baraka Enrekang. Thesis FKIP Unismuh
Nisrinah. (2004). Developing Vocabulary through Morphological Approach to The Second Year Students of Madrasah Aliyah Negeri 2 Bima. Thesis UIN.
Nurhayati. 2010. Improving the Student Speaking Skill by Using Questioning Technique. A thesis University of Muhammadiyah Makassar.
Ramla, Rahma. 2010. Improving The Student Speaking Ability Through Simulation Technique. A thesis University of Muhammadiyah Makassar Rubin, J. & Herbert, M. 1998. Peer Teaching – Model for Active Learning
College Teaching 48 (1)
Simmons et al .1995. Effects of Explicit Teaching and Peer Tutoring on the Reading Achievement of Learning – Disabled and Low- Performing Students in Regular Classrooms The Elementary School Journal vol.95, no.5
Siti. Nurhayati. 2010. Improving Speaking Skill by Using Aural-Oral Language Approach. A thesis University of Muhammadiyah Makassar.
Topping, K. 2005. Trends in Peer learning and Educational Psychology.
Retrieved www.dundee.ac.uk/eswce/research/projects/trwresources/.
Tomas, Scruggs. 2006. Peer Tutoring Strategy. Retrieved on 9 December 2010 Widdowson, H.G. 1978. Teaching Language as Communication. London: OUP.
APPENDIX D
The list Name of the Students at the Second Grade of SMPN 29 Makassar
No. Sample Code
1. Afifah Van Helen S-1
2. Albana Vab Basten S-2
3. Alifa Mustagfira Fadillah R. S-3
4. Alya Laurel Olivia Nur S-4
5. Armyansyah S-5
6. Audie Dwi Ananda S-6
7. Ayu Adira Mitharia S-7
8. Bungaderi Yuliana Usman S-8
9. Fita Anggreni S-9
10. Jasmine Zahra H.Soenargo S-10
11. Lutfia Maharani Dwi Nurafifah S-11
12. M.Fathir Arfiansyah R. S-12
13. Moh. Ridho Prasetio S-13
14. Muh.Gilang Hermansyah S-14
15. Muh.Taqwa Kaluku S-15
16. Muhammad Rahan Marsyah S-16
17. Muhammad Zulkifli Said S-17
20. Nur Fadila Rasyid S-20
21. Nur Haliza S-21
22. Nurmala Dewi F. S-22
23. Rafli Ramlan S-23
24. Reivi Larasari S-24
25. Reski Baharuddin S-25
26. Retno Dyan Ayu N. S-26
27. Sri Wahyuni S-27
28. Suriyani S-28
29. Susilawari S-29
30. Windha Adhalya Eka Putri S-30
31. Yuliana Selviani Mayori Hadu S-31
32. Reski Mulia S-32
APPENDIX E
1.The raw score of students’ Speaking Accuracy in term of Vocabulary Pre test
No. Name Score Classification
1. S-1 40 Poor
2. S-2 55 Poor
3. S-3 55 Poor
4. S-4 40 Poor
5. S-5 60 Fair
6. S-6 40 Poor
7. S-7 55 Poor
8. S-8 60 Fair
9. S-9 55 Poor
10. S-10 55 Poor
11. S-11 40 Poor
12. S-12 55 Poor
13. S-13 60 Fair
14. S-14 60 Fair
15. S-15 55 Poor
16. S-16 40 Poor
17. S-17 40 Poor
18. S-18 40 Poor
19. S-19 55 Poor
20. S-20 60 Fair
21. S-21 55 Poor
22. S-22 55 Poor
23. S-23 60 Fair
24. S-24 60 Fair
25. S-25 40 Poor
28. S-28 40 Poor
29. S-29 60 Fair
30. S-30 40 Poor
31. S-31 50 Poor
32. S-32 40 Poor
Total Score
∑X 1630
X 50.93
2.The raw score of students’ Speaking Accuracy in term of Vocabulary Post test
No. Name Score Classification
1. S-1 65 Fair
2. S-2 70 Fairly good
3. S-3 60 Fair
4. S-4 75 Fairly good
5. S-5 65 Fair
6. S-6 65 Fair
7. S-7 60 Fair
8. S-8 70 Fairly good
9. S-9 75 Fairly good
10. S-10 70 Fairly good
11. S-11 60 Fair
12. S-12 65 Fair
13. S-13 65 Fair
14. S-14 75 Fairly good
15. S-15 70 Fairly good
16. S-16 70 Fairly good
17. S-17 65 Fair
18. S-18 60 Fair
19. S-19 65 Fair
20. S-20 65 Fair
21. S-21 70 Fairly good
22. S-22 65 Fair
23. S-23 75 Fairly good
24. S-24 70 Fairly good
25. S-25 60 Fair
26. S-26 70 Fairly good
27. S-27 70 Fairly good
30. S-30 65 Fair
31. S-31 65 Fair
32. S-32 65 Fair
Total Score
∑X 2145
X 67.03
APPENDIX F
1.The raw score of students’ Speaking Accuracy in term of Grammar Pre- test
No. Name Score Classification
1. S-1 40 Poor
2. S-2 55 Poor
3. S-3 40 Poor
4. S-4 60 Fair
5. S-5 40 Poor
6. S-6 60 Fair
7. S-7 55 Poor
8. S-8 40 Poor
9. S-9 55 Poor
10. S-10 55 Poor
11. S-11 50 Poor
12. S-12 40 Poor
13. S-13 50 Poor
14. S-14 60 Fair
15. S-15 55 Poor
16. S-16 40 Poor
17. S-17 60 Fair
18. S-18 60 Fair
19. S-19 40 Poor
20. S-20 50 Poor
21. S-21 50 Poor
22. S-22 40 Poor
23. S-23 40 Poor
24. S-24 60 Fair
25. S-25 60 Fair
26. S-26 40 Poor
29. S-29 55 Poor
30. S-30 40 Poor
31. S-31 60 Fair
32. S-32 40 Poor
Total Score
∑X 1600
X 50
2.The raw score of students’ Speaking Accuracy in term of Grammar Post- test
No. Name Score Classification
1. S-1 60 Fair
2. S-2 70 Fairly good
3. S-3 60 Fair
4. S-4 75 Fairly good
5. S-5 60 Fair
6. S-6 70 Fairly good
7. S-7 70 Fairly good
8. S-8 65 Fair
9. S-9 65 Fair
10. S-10 70 Fairly good
11. S-11 70 Fairly good
12. S-12 60 Fair
13. S-13 65 Fair
14. S-14 75 Fairly good
15. S-15 70 Fairly good
16. S-16 65 Fair
17. S-17 70 Fairly good
18. S-18 75 Fairly good
19. S-19 65 Fair
20. S-20 65 Fair
21. S-21 75 Fairly good
22. S-22 65 Fair
23. S-23 65 Fair
24. S-24 70 Fairly good
25. S-25 75 Fairly good
26. S-26 65 Fairly good
27. S-27 70 Fairly good
30. S-30 65 Fair
31. S-31 65 Fair
32. S-32 70 Fairly good
Total Score
∑X 2180
X 68.12
APPENDIX G
1.The Result of students’ Speaking Accuracy in Pre- Test and Post-Test a. Vocabulary
No. Name Score Pre-
test (X1)
Score Post- test (X2)
D (X2- X1)
X12 X12 D2
1. S-1 40 65 25 1600 4225 625
2. S-2 55 70 15 3025 4900 225
3. S-3 55 60 5 3025 3600 25
4. S-4 40 75 35 1600 5625 1225
5. S-5 60 65 5 3600 4225 25
6. S-6 40 65 25 1600 4225 625
7. S-7 55 60 5 3025 3600 25
8. S-8 60 70 10 3600 4900 100
9. S-9 55 75 20 3025 6625 400
10. S-10 55 70 15 3025 4900 225
11. S-11 40 60 20 1600 3600 400
12. S-12 55 65 10 3025 4225 100
13. S-13 60 65 5 3600 4225 25
14. S-14 60 75 15 3600 5625 225
15. S-15 55 70 15 3025 4900 225
16. S-16 40 70 30 1600 4900 900
17. S-17 40 65 25 1600 4225 625
18. S-18 40 60 20 1600 3600 400
19. S-19 55 65 10 3025 4225 100
20. S-20 60 65 5 3600 4225 25
21. S-21 55 70 15 3025 4900 225
22. S-22 55 65 10 3025 4225 100
23. S-23 60 75 15 3600 5625 225
26. S-26 55 70 15 3025 4900 225
27. S-27 55 70 15 3025 4900 225
28. S-28 40 65 25 1600 4900 625
29. S-29 60 70 10 3600 4900 100
30. S-30 40 65 25 1600 4225 4225
31. S-31 50 65 15 2500 4225 4225
32. S-32 40 65 25 1600 4225 4225
Total Score
∑X 1630 2145 ∑D155 85200 145.425 ∑D2=10.225 Mean
Score
X 50.93 67.03 4.84 2662 4.544 320.468
APPENDIX H
2.The Result of students’ Speaking Accuracy in Pre- Test and Post-Test b. Grammar
No. Name Score Pre-
test (X1)
Score Post- test (X2)
D (X2- X1)
X12 X12 D2
1. S-1 40 60 20 1600 3600 400
2. S-2 55 70 15 3025 4900 225
3. S-3 40 60 20 1600 3600 400
4. S-4 60 75 15 3600 5625 225
5. S-5 40 60 20 1600 3600 400
6. S-6 60 70 10 3600 4900 100
7. S-7 55 70 15 3025 4900 225
8. S-8 40 65 25 1600 4225 625
9. S-9 55 65 10 3025 4225 100
10. S-10 55 70 15 3025 4900 225
11. S-11 50 70 20 2500 4900 400
12. S-12 40 60 20 1600 3600 400
13. S-13 50 65 15 2500 4225 225
14. S-14 60 75 15 3600 5625 225
15. S-15 55 70 15 3025 4900 225
16. S-16 40 65 25 1600 4225 625
17. S-17 60 70 10 3600 4900 100
18. S-18 60 75 15 3600 5625 225
19. S-19 40 65 25 1600 4225 625
20. S-20 50 65 15 2500 4225 225
21. S-21 50 75 25 2500 5625 625
22. S-22 40 65 25 1600 4225 625
23. S-23 40 65 25 1600 4225 625
26. S-26 40 65 25 1600 4225 625
27. S-27 55 70 15 2500 4900 225
28. S-28 55 75 20 2500 5625 400
29. S-29 55 75 20 2500 5625 400
30. S-30 40 65 25 1600 4225 625
31. S-31 60 65 5 3600 4225 25
32. S-32 40 70 30 1600 4900 900
Total Score
∑X 1600 2180 ∑D580 85200 149.280 ∑D2=11600 Mean
Score
X 50 68.12 18.12 2662 4.665 362.5
APPENDIX I
CALCULATING MEAN SCORE
1. The mean score of Students’ Speaking Accuracy in term of Vocabulary in Pre-test and Post-Test
a. Mean Score of Students’ Pre-test X X
NX
=
X
= 42.5
2. Mean Score of Students’ Post-test X X
NX
=
X
= 67.03
2. The mean score of Students’ Speaking Accuracy in term of Grammar in Pre-test and Post-Test
1. Mean Score of Students’ Pre-test X X
NX
=
X
= 51.2
X N
X =
X =
68.12
APPENDIX J
1. The improvement of the students’ score in terms of vocabulary
P = x
100%P =
. ..
x
100%P =
57.718%2. The improvement of the students’ score in terms grammar
P = x
100%P =
.x
100%P =
36.24%Calculating the t-test Value of vocabulary
t =
⃑∑ (∑ )
( )
t =
.. ( )
( )
t = .
. . /
( )
t = .
. – .
t = .
. / t = .
√ . t = .
. t = 5.60
2. Calculating the t-Test Value
a. Calculating the t-test Value of Grammar
t =
⃑∑ (∑ )
( )
t =
.. ( )
( )
t = .
. /
( )
t = .
. –
t =
. . /
t = .
√ . t = .
. t = 17.32
TABLE DISTRIBUTION OF T-VALUE a (for two group sample)
Df
0.50 0.20 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.1
a (for one group sample)
0.25 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.1 0.005
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
1.000 0.816 0.765 0.741 0.737 0.718 0.711 0.706 0.703 0.700 0.697 0.695 0.694 0.692 0.691 0.690 0.689 0.688 0.687 0.686 0.66
3.078 1.886 1.638 1.533 1.476 1.440 1.415 1.397 1.383 1.372 1.363 1.356 1.350 1.345 1.341 1.337 1.333 1.330 1.328 1.325 1323
6.314 2.920 2.353 2.132 2.015 1.943 1.895 1.860 1.833 1.812 1.796 1.782 1.771 1.761 1.753 1.746 1.740 1.734 1.729 1.725 1.721
12.706 4.303 3.182 2.766 2.571 2.447 2.365 2.306 2.262 2.228 2.201 2.178 2.160 2.145 2.132 2.120 2.110 2.101 2.093 2.086 2.080
31.821 6.965 4541 3.747 3.365 3.143 2.998 2.896 2.821 2.764 2.718 2.681 2.650 2.624 2.623 2.583 2.567 2.552 2.539 2.528 2.518
63.657 9.925 5.841 4.604 4.032 3.707 3.499 3.355 3.250 3.169 3.106 3.055 3.012 2.977 2.947 2.921 2.898 2.878 2.861 2.845 2.831
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
40.
60.
120.
0.686 0.685 0.684 0.684 0.684 0.684 0.683 0.683 0.683 0.681 0.679 0.677 0.674
1.321 1.319 1.318 1.316 1.315 1.314 1.313 1.311 1.310 1.303 1.296 1.289 1.282
1.717 1.714 1.711 1.708 1.706 1.703 1.701 1.699 1.697 1.684 1.671 1.658 1.645
2.074 2.069 2.064 2.060 2.056 2.052 2.048 2.045 2.042 2.021 2.000 1.980 1.960
2.508 2.500 2.492 2.485 2.479 2.473 2.467 2.462 2.457 2.423 2.390 2.358 2.362
2.819 2.807 2.797 2.787 2,779 2,771 2,763 2,756 2,750 2,704 2,660 2,617 2,676
df (degree of freedom)
The Formula :
df = n-1 df = 32-1
df = 31
t-table for (
) = 0.05 = 1.697Nama Sekolah : SMP Negeri
Mata Pelajaran : Bahasa Inggris Aspek/skill : Speaking (Berbicara) Kelas/Semester : VIII/2
Pertemuan : Pertama
Alokasi Waktu : (2 x 45 menit)
Tema : Introducing yourself and other people
Standar Kompetensi :
Memahami makna dalam percakapan transaksional dan Interpersonal sangat sederhana untuk berinteraksi dengan lingkungan terdekat.
Kompetensi Dasar :
Merespon makna dalam percakapan transaksional (to get things done) dan interpersonal (bersosialisasi) yang mengunakan ragam bahasa lisan sangat sederhana secara akurat, lancar, dan berterima untuk nerinteraksi dengan lingkungan terdekat yang melibatkan tindak tutur: menyapa orang yang belum/ sudah dikenal, memperkenalkan diri sendiri/ orang lain, dan memerintah atau larangan.
Indikator :
Mengidentifikasi makna dan fungsi ungkapan menyapa orang yang belum / sudah di kenal dan memperkenalkan diri sendiri/ orang lain.
Tujuan Pembelajaran
Pada akhir pembelajaran, diharapkan siswa mampu:
a. Mengungkapkan perkenalan diri sendiri secara berterima baik formal maupun informal.
b. Mengungkapkan perkenalan orang lain secara berterima baik formal maupun informal.
c. Memperkenalkan diri sendiri dan orang lain.
d. Membedakan penggunaan this and that.
e. Menjawab dan merespon pertanyaan berdasarkan suatu percakapan.
Materi Pembelajaran
How to introduce yourself, for example:
To introduce yourself, you can say:
My name is Rendy
I am Santi
To ask someone’s identity,you can say:
What is your name? I am…
Where are you from? I am…
Where do you come from? I come from…
Sinta : This is Ahamd
Ahmad : Hi, Mirna. How do you do?
Mirna : How do you do.
REMEMBER
Grammar: Demonstrative pronouns This, these, that and those are determiners.
We usually use them in spoken English. Look at the examples:
Near far
single This is.. That is..
plural
These are.. Those are…
Here are the expression you can use for introducing others. The phrases near the top of the list are generally more formal than the ones near the bottom.
Introducer Response A Response B
I’d like to introduce… How do you do? How do you do?
I’d like to introduce… Glad to meet you. The pleasure is mine.
I’d like you to meet… Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you, too.
This is… Hi. Hi.
Metode Pembelajaran
Sesuai dengan bentukmetode peer teaching tutoring method yang terdiri beberapa tahap, akandiaplikasikan:
a. Menyepakati aturan main game yang diterapkan dalam kelas beserta sanksi-sanksinya.
b. Memberikan penjelasan/membimbing setiap ketua kelompok yang telah ditentukan.
c. Setelah itu, setiap ketua kelompok bergabung dalam kolompoknya masing-masing dan bertindak sebagai guru. (peer-teaching).
d. Memberikan evaluasi.
Kegiatan Pembelajaran a. Kegiatan awal
Mengabsen siswa dan sekaligus tegur sapa antara siswa dan guru akan menjadi kegiatan awal. Selanjutnya guru menuliskanmateri ajar, tujuan pembelajaran, serta sub pokok bahasannya.
b. Kegiatan Inti
Guru membentuk beberapa kelompok secara berpasang-pasangan (masing-masing dua orang) dan menentukan siapa ketua dari masing-masing kelompok tersebut.
Kemudian, masing-masing kelompok membuat sebuah dialog (percakapan) sesuai dengan materi yang telah diberikan oleh guru sebelumnya.
buat bersama dengan pasangan mereka masing-masing, sambil guru mengamati dimana letak kekurangan dari siswa, sehingga bias diperbaiki.
c. Kegiatan akhir
Guru memberikan evaluasi. Pada tahap akhir, guru memberikan satu topic menarik kepadasiswa, lalu mereka berbicara secara bebas tanpa adanya koreksi dari guru.
Alat, Bahan, dan Sumber Belajar
a. Buku paket passport to the world for Junior High School, pengarang Djatmika, Agus Dwi Priyatno, Ida Kusuma Dewi/2008
b. Kamus
Penutup
Guru memberikan penekanan materi yang telah diberikan supaya diulang dirumah sebagai proses reinforcement.
Rubrik Penilaian Grammar
No Score Criteria
1 5 Speak without too great and effort with a fairly wide range of expression. Searches for words occasionally but only one or two unnatural pauses.
2 4 Has to make an effort and search for words. Nevertheless, smooth delivery on the whole and only a few unnatural.
3 3 Although he has to make an effort and search for words, there are not too many unnatural pauses. Fairly smooth delivery mostly. Occasionally fragmentary but succeeds in conveying
4 2 Has to make an effort for much of the time, often has to search for desired meaning. Rather halting delivery and fragmentary, range of expression often limited
5 1 Long pauses while he searched for the desired meaning.
Frequently and halting delivery. Almost gives up making the effort at times limited range of expression.
Rubrik Penilaian vocabulary
No Score Criteria
1 5 Vocabulary apparently as accurate and extensive as that of an educated native speaker
2 4 Professional vocabulary broad and precise; general
problems and varied social situations.
3 3 Professional vocabulary adequate to discuss special interests; general vocabulary permits discussion of any non-technical subject with some circumlocutions 4 2 Choice of words sometimes inaccurate, limitations of
vocabulary prevent discussion of some common professional and social topics
5 1 Vocabulary inadequate for even the simplest conversation.
Score = Students’ Correct Answer × 100 Maximum Score