CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDING AND DISCUSSION
B. Discussion
The aim of this study is to see how the Fishbowl Technique affects students' speaking skills in giving opinions and arguments in the eleventh grade at SMA Negeri 10 in Kota Tangerang Selatan. The researcher obtains the differences in both the experimental and controlled class after detailing and conducting the pre-test and post-test data using SPSS 20.
According totable 4.1, the experimental class's description has the average score of the pre-test is 57.2 before the Fishbowl Technique was applied. After the researcher used Fishbowl Technique as a treatment in the experimental class, the average score of the post-test is 66.5.
Table 4.2 shows the result of the controlledclass has the average score of the pre-test is 59.8, and the average score of post-test in the controlled class is 62.1. It implies that in the post-test, both groups increased post-test scores. The experimental class obtained a more excellent score than the control class. The experimental class's increasing point is 9.3 points based on statistical analysis, from 57.2 to 66.5. As for the control class, 2.3 points increased, from 59.8 to 62.1. This indicates that rather than the control class, the experimental class had points that increased more significantly.
According to table 4.7 in the previous explanation, to know the presence of the effectiveness of this analysis, the researcher also calculates the T-test. The mean column showed that the average post-test score came from both the experimental class and the control class. The mean score of the experimental class was 66.51, while the mean score of the control class was 62.17. So, the standard deviation score of the experimental class was 8.237, and the standard deviation score of the controlled class was 9.522.
When measuring the T-test, the alternative hypothesis (Ha) was accepted, and the null hypothesis (H0) was rejected if p < α. If p > α,
meanwhile, means that the null hypothesis (H0) has been accepted and the alternative hypothesis (Ha) has been denied.
According to table 4.8, it was found that sig. The (2-tailed) score was 0.045, which was less than the 0.05 value of significance. It is also possible to conclude that p < α; (0.045 < 0.05), indicating that the alternative hypothesis (Ha) was accepted and the null hypothesis (H0) was rejected. So it indicates that using Fishbowl Technique on Students' Speaking Skill is effective on students' speaking ability in giving opinions and arguments.
Otherwise, the researcher also analyzed the size effect of applying Fishbowl Technique on Students' Speaking Skill in Giving Opinions and Arguments. Using Cohen's d formula, the researcher found that the Fishbowl Technique's use on students speaking ability was in the strong level with the size effect value 0.488 categorized as a modest effect since the range or interval of the modest size effect category was 0.21 – 0.50.
Therefore, it proved that using Fishbowl Technique on Students' Speaking Skill in Giving Opinions and Arguments with the effect size is in a modest level.
From brief the explanation above, it can be concluded that using fihbowl technique improve students’ speaking skill. Previously, (Amalia, 2017) also did same research. Her research entitled: The Use of Fishbowl Strategy toward the Improvement of Students’ Speaking Skill at the Second Grade Students of MA DDI pattojo Soppeng. She said that there were some points that make fishbowl strategy in teaching speaking was effective. They were: every student had a chance to practice in the class, to provide class interaction, to use English more than Indonesian during classroom activities, to allow students to learn from peers, to involve critical thinking, and to improve oral and listening skills. She said also speaking skill of the experimental class had proven that fishbowl technique could be useful method in improving students’ speaking skill. It
could be seen from the average score in the post test of the experimental class that was 77, and controlled class was 65.
(Hertina, 2018) also in line with this research. Her research entitled: The Effectiveness of Fishbowl Technique Towards Students’
Speaking Ability at the Second Grade Students of Islamic Senior High School Riyadhul Jannah Kecamatan Bram Itam Kabupaten Tanjung Jabung Barat. She said that fishbowl technique can facilitate student entirely and can make be better student in speaking ability. While in the class without fishbowl technique we can see the low value and situation less active. So, in the research proved that fishbowl technique is match to use in learning process. It could be seen from the average score in the post test of the experimental class that was 70.06, and controlled class was 48.41.
(Intan, 2019) also had a similar research. Her research entitled:
about Applying Fishbowl Technique to Enhance Students' Speaking Ability at the Eleventh Grade Students of SMA 1 Tutar Kabupaten Polman. She said that students’ speaking skill before being taught by using fishbowl technique is lower if it compares with the students’ speaking skill after being taught by using fishbowl technique. It is implicated that students` speaking skill gives good effect in fishbowl technique. It could be seen from the average score in the post test of the experimental class that was 3.06, and controlled class was 2.80.
Overall, the result confirmed the previous studies who investigated fishbowl technique to be helpful in improving students’ speaking skills. It is similar to this research findings that resulted effectiveness on the students’ speaking skills and making students more confident to talk in classroom. The difference between the previous studies are in the samples, place, and the material of the speaking. Also compared to the previous studies, this research particularly focused on one material of speaking is asking and giving opinions and arguments. Even many students still struggle in the speaking activity; the result somehow prove that fishbowl
technique is effective on the students’ speaking skills in giving opinions and arguments.
53 CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS A. Conclusion
This research used a quasi-experimental design to gather empirical evidence for the effectiveness of the fishbowl technique on students' speaking skills in giving opinions and arguments at SMA Negeri 10 Kota Tangerang Selatan students the academic year of 2020/2021. According to the previous chapter's data, using the fishbowl technique has a significant effect on students' speaking skills when giving opinions and arguments.
Furthermore, according to the study results, the mean pre-test score in the experimental class using the fishbowl technique as a treatment was 57.2, and the mean post-test score was 66.5. Meanwhile, the mean score of the pre-test in the controlled class without using the fishbowl technique as a treatment was 59.8, and the post-test mean score was 62.1.
Furthermore, the data analysis revealed that if the sig 2 tailed was lower than alpha () or p (), the alternative hypothesis (Ha) would be accepted, and the null hypothesis (H0) would be rejected in the statistical hypothesis. Furthermore, the statistical data in the finding chapter showed that the sig 2 tailed was p (0.045). Meanwhile, the sig alpha (α) was 0.05 or 0.045< 0.05. it means the alternative hypothesis (Ha) was accepted, and the null hypothesis (H0) was rejected.
In addition, the researcher used Cohen's d formula to calculate the effect size. It was also supported by the fact that the effect size was 0.488.
It can be classified as a modest effect based on the effect size calculation.
In conclusion, this study found that using the fishbowl technique on students' speaking skills in giving opinions and arguments at SMA Negeri 10 Kota Tangerang Selatan students in the academic year 2020/2021 had a modest effect size compared to not using it.
B. Suggestion
Based on the conclusion above, the researcher would deliver some suggestions as follows:
1. For teachers
This research can help the teachers enhance the students speaking skills in the teaching and learning process. All of the students have different abilities and also the problem of learning process especially in teaching speaking. The teachers should give more techniques or methods of teaching, especially in English class. The fishbowl technique has proved that it is worth being used in teaching speaking. It can overcome students' lack of pronunciation, vocabulary, accuracy, fluency, and comprehension and give students more confidence and enjoyment during the class.
2. For students
Through the Fishbowl technique, students are expected to increase their self-confidence, fluency, and pronunciation when speaking in the class. If students can use the opportunity to speak English, they can indirectly master the ability to speak.
3. For other researchers
Finally, this research may also lead to educational research, which is intended to assess such effectiveness, mainly Fishbowl Technique. This research may also constitute important prior studies that the other researchers may use to research the Fishbowl Technique implementation further.
REFFERENCES
Abdurrahman Hi. Usman, S. S. (2015). Using the Think-Pair-Share Strategy to Improve Students’. Journal of Education and Practice, 37-45.
Amalia, R. (2017). The Use of Fishbowl Strategy Towards the Improvement of the Second Grade Students' Speaking Skill at MA DDI Pattojo Soppeng.
Makassar: Alauddin State Islamic University.
Berutu, S. D., & Sumarsih. (2014). IMPROVING THE STUDENTS SPEAKING ACHIEVEMENT. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 1-11.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principle An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New York: Pearson Education, 269.
Brozo, W., & L Michele, S. (2007). Literacy for Today’s Adolescents: Honoring Diversity and Building Competence.
Cholewinski, M. (2014, April 4). Fishbowl: A Speaking Activity.
Collins, P., & Hanh, U. (2016). Arguments and Their Sources. The Psychology of Argument: Cognitive Approaches to Argumentation and Persuasion, 129- 149.
E, Y. (2002). What we can learn from analyzing the teacher’s role in collective argumentation. Journal of Mathematical Behavior.
Education, T. M. (2003). Act of the Republic of Indonesia on National Education System. The Ministry of National Education.
Effendi, A. (2017). The Effectiveness Of Fishbowl Technique Towards Students’
Self Efficacy In Speaking . Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, Vol. 5, No. 2.
Eiadeh, A.-R. A., A. Al.Sobh, D., M. Al-Zoubi, D., & Al-Khasawneh, D. (2016).
Improving English Language Speaking Skills of Ajloun National.
International Journal of English and Education, 181-195.
EnglishClub. (n.d.). Expressions for Agreeing and Disagreeing. Retrieved March
2020, from ENglish Club:
https://www.englishclub.com/speaking/agreeing-disagreeing- expressions.htm
Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching. England: Pearson Longman.
Harris, D. P. (1996). Testing English as a Second Language. 21. David P. Harris, Testing(New York: Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Company Ltd, 84.
Heriansyah, H. (2012). SPEAKING PROBLEMS FACED BY THE ENGLISH DEPARTMENT STUDENTS. Lingua Diidaktika, 8.
Hertina, M. (2018). The Effectiveness of Fishbowl Technique Towards Speaking Ability at the Second Grade Students of Islamic Senior High School Riyadhul Jannah Kecamatan Bram Itam Kabupaten Tanjung Jabung Barat . Jambi: State Islamic University Sulthan Thaha Saifuddin.
Hughes, A. (2000). Testing for Language Teachers Second Edition. United Kingdom: Cambridge Language Teaching Library.
Hussain, S. (2017). Teaching Speaking Skills in Communication Classroom.
International Journal of Media, Journalism and Mass Communications (IJMJMC), 14-21.
IEP. (n.d.). Deductive and Inductive Arguments. Retrieved February Monday, 2021, from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://iep.utm.edu/ded- ind/
Intan. (2019). Applying Fishbowl Technique to Enhance Students' Speaking Ability at the Eleventh Grade Students of SMA 1 Tutar Kabupaten Polman.
Ternate: State Islamic Intitute Ternate.
Jaya, A., & Habibi, A. (2016). FISHBOWL TECHNIQUE AND LEARNING INTEREST EFFECTS ON SPEAKING ACHIEVEMENT OF SMK SEMBAWA. Jambi-English Language Teaching Journal, 1-11.
Lumen, L. (n.d.). The 5 Questions of Argument. Retrieved February 2021, from
English 1010 Electric Version:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/sunycorning1010elec201718/chapter/th e-5-questions-of-argument/
M, C. C., & Burns, A. (2012). Teaching Speaking: A Holistic Approach.
Cambridge University Press, 1-255.
Mahrukh Bashir, M. (2017). Bahasa Inggris. In M. Mahrukh Bashir, H. I.
Agustien, D. Mangunsudarmo, MA, & Y. R. Lumbantoruan S.Des, Stop Bullying Now, Stand Out, Speak Up (pp. 1-177). Indonesia: Pusat Kurikulum dan Perbukuan, Balitbang, Kemendikbud.
Malcolm, M. (1997). Propaganda, polls, and public opinion. 67.
McDaniel, E. (1997). Nonverbal communication: A reflection of cultural themes.
In Intercultural communication. Curriculum and evaluation.
Muijs, D. (2004). Doing Quantitative Research in Education with SPSS. London:
Sage Publications, 139.
Mulki, R. D. (2014). THE FISHBOWL METHOD TO IMPROVE THE STUDENTS’ SPEAKING SKILL. Salatiga: ENGLISH DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FACULTY.
Okar, N., & Shahidy, S. H. (2019). Using Pictures of Movie Conversations with Input Enhancement in Subtitles for Developing Speaking of Iranian EFL Intermediate Learners. International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies, 93-104.
Richards. (2008). Teaching Listening and Speaking from Theory to Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schwarz, B. B. (2007). Argumentation in a changing world. The International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 297-313.
Schwarz, B. B., & Asterhan, C. (2008). Argumentation and Reasoning. In C. W.
K. Littleton, & J. Staarman, Elsevier Handbook of Educational Psychology: New Perspectives on Learning (pp. 1-37). Jerussalem:
Elsevier Press. .
Spolsky, B., & Hult, F. M. (2008). The Handbook of Educational Linguistics. In B. Spolsky. USA: Black well Publishing Ltd.
Sudibyo, B. (2006). PERATURAN. STANDAR KOMPETENSI LULUSAN (pp. 1- 2). Jakrta: MENTERI PENDIDIKAN NASIONAL.
Syahputra, I. (2018). Opini Publik. Bandung: Simbiosa Rekatama Media.
Taylor, D. B. (2007). Fostering Engaging and Active Discussion in Middle School Classroom. Middle School Journal, 54-59.
Wallen, J. R. (2009). How to Design and Evaluate Study in Education; Seventh Edition. New York: McGraw Hill, 99.
Wallis, D. C. (2016). Arguments. California State University.
Walton, D. (1990). What is Reasoning? What Is an Argument? The Journal of Philosophy, 399-419.
Widiati, U., & Cahyono, B. Y. (2006). THE TEACHING OF EFL SPEAKING.
BAHASA DAN SENI, 267-288.
Wulandari, A. (2015). THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FISHBOWL METHOD ON STUDENTS’ SPEAKING SKILL AT THE SECOND GRADE STUDENTS OF SMA N 8 CIREBON. Cirebon: ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING DEPARTMENT TARBIYAH AND TEACHER TRAINING FACULTY SYEKH NURJATI STATE ISLAMIC INSTITUTE CIREBON.
Yabarmase, D. (2013). THE FISHBOWL STRATEGY: AN EFFECTIVE WAY TO. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching, 137-144.
Yustiati, T., Azwan , A., Bugis, R., Handayani, N., & Bin-Tahir, S. Z. (2018). The Implementation of Fishbowl Strategy in Teaching English. Journal of Education and Practice, 1-10.
Zhang, Y. (2010). Cooperative Language Learning and Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 81- 83.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1
RENCANA PELAKSANAAN PEMBELAJARAN (RPP) Nama Sekolah : SMA Negeri 10 Kota Tangerang Selatan Mata Pelajaran : Bahasa Inggris
Kelas/Semester : XI/I (Experimental Class)
Standar Kompetensi :Mengungkapkan makna dalam percakapan transaksional dan interpersonal resmi dan berlanjut dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari.
Kompetensi Dasar :Merespon makna dalam percakapan transaksional dan interpersonal (bersosialisasi) resmi dan berlanjut (sustained) secara akurat, lancar, dan berterima yang menggunakan ragam bahasa lisan dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari dan melibatkan tindak tutur: menyampaikan pendapat, meminta pendapat.
Alokasi Waktu : 2 x 30 menit pertemuan maya (5 pertemuan) A. Indikator
a. Kognitif (i) Kognitif Proses
- Mengidentifikasi makna kata
- Mengidentifikasi makna tindak tutur menyampaikan pendapat - Merespon tindak tutur menyampaikan pendapat
- Mengidentifikasi makna tindak tutur meminta pendapat - Merespon tindak tutur meminta pendapat
APPENDIX 1
LESSON PLAN
- Menanggapi pendapat dengan menggunakan argumen
- Mengidentifikasi makna dan tindak tutur menyampaikan pendapat (ii) Kognitif Produk
- Memahami cara menyampaikan pendapat yang benar - Memahami cara mengungkapkan argumen yang benar - Memahami cara respon dengan argumen yang tepat b. Afektif
- Karakter : jujur, kreatif, bertanggung jawab c. Psikomotorik
- Siswa membuat dan mempraktekkan dialog B. Tujuan Pembelajaran :
Setelah selesai pembelajaran siswa diharapkan mampu : a. Kognitif
(i) Kognitif Proses
- Siswa membaca dialog “Asking and Giving Opinions and Arguments” secara berpasangan.
- Siswa mempraktekkan dialog “Asking and Giving Opinions and Arguments”
secara berpasangan di depan kelas.
- Siswa mengidentifikasi materi “Asking and Giving Opinions and Arguments”
(ii) Kognitif Produk
- Memahami cara menyampaikan pendapat yang benar - Memahami cara mengungkapkan argumen yang benar - Memahami cara respon dengan argumen yang tepat b. Afektif
- Karakter : jujur, kreatif, bertanggung jawab
- sosial : bertanya, memberikan ide, pendapat dan argumen.
c. Psikomotorik
- Siswa membuat dan mempraktekkan dialog memberi peringatan C. Materi Pembelajaran :
Asking for Opinions
What do you think of …? •
What are your views? •
What is your opinions? •
Is it right what I’ve done? •
What about …? •
How about …? • Giving Opinions
I’m convinced that …. •
I reckon …. •
I consider that .... •
According to the expert, I …. •
In my opinions, .… •
I think …. • Giving Arguments
Let’s just move on, shall we?
• Let’s drop it.
• I think we’re going to have to aree to disagree
• (sarcastic) Whatever you say / if you say so.
a. Metode Pembelajaran :ceramah, role-playing b. Langkah-langkah Kegiatan :
Kegiatan Awal
Mengucapkan salam dan menyapa dengan ramah kepada siswa ketika memasuki ruang kelas (nilai yang ditanamkan: santun, peduli)
Mengecek kehadiran siswa (nilai yang ditanamkan: disiplin, rajin)
Guru memberikan sebuah warmer up untuk menstimulus semangat siswa sebelum memulai pelajaran.
Guru mengingatkan kembali pelajaran minggu lalu
Guru memberi gambaran tentang pelajaran yang akan berlangsung.
Guru menggali pengetahuan awal siswa serta memberi pertanyaan tentang pelajaran yang akan berlangsung dengan Tanya jawab mengenai hal-hal dan kejadianyang mereka temui dalam kehidupan sehari-hari.
Kegiatan Inti
menjelaskan tentang materi asking and giving opinions and arguments.
Guru memperlihatkan sebuah gambar kepada siswa, kemudian membuat pertanyaan pancingan tentang apa yang mereka ketahui tentang materi yang akan dipelajari.
Siswa diberikan contoh dialog tentang asking and giving opinions and arguments.
Siswa mengidentifikasi asking and giving opinions yang ada dalam dialog.
Siswa mempraktekkan dialog secara berpasangan.
Kegiatan Akhir
Guru memberikan ulasan dan penjelasan tentang apa yang telah dilakukan
Siswa diberi tugas rumah sebagai salah satu tindak lanjut pembelajaran yang telah berlangsung.
Memberikan motivasi kepada siswa yang kurang dan belum bisa mengikuti dalam materi yang telah dipelajari..
c. Sumber Belajar : Buku Developing English Competencies d. Penilaian :
Rubrik Penilaian
No Criteria Description
1 Pronunciation 5 Has few traces of foreign language.
4 Though there is a distinct accent, it is still understandable.
3 The need for pronunciation problems is focused on listeningand occasionally causes misunderstandings.
2 Because pronunciation problems are difficult to understand, most often asked to repeat.
1 Speech is practically unintelligible due to a pronounciation problem.
2 Grammar 5 Making few (if any) grammatical and word- order mistakes.
4 Makes grammatical and/or word order mistakes from time to time that do not obscure context.
3 Make regular grammatical and word-order mistakes, which can also confuse context.
2 Incorrect grammar and word order make comprehension difficult, and sentences must be rewritten frequently.
1 Grammar and word order mistakes that are so serious that speech is practically unintelligible.
3 Vocabulary 5 The vocabulary and idioms are almost similar to those of a native speaker.
4 Because of lexical and equities questions, he often uses the wrong word and must rephrase his thoughts.
3 Due to the lack of vocabulary, some wrong words are often used, which limits the conversation to a certain extent.
2 Comprehension is difficult due to poor word use and a restricted vocabulary.
1 The lack of vocabulary was so severe that conversing was nearly impossible.
4 Fluency 5 Spoken fluently, not as laborious as native speakers.
4 Language problems appear to have a minor impact on speech speed.
3 Language issues have a significant impact on speed and fluency.
2 Usually hesitant, and frequently silenced due to a lack of language.
1 The speech was so paused and fragmented that it was almost impossible to have a conversation.
5 Comprehension 5 Seems to understand everything effortlessly
4 Understand almost everything at an average speed, although sometimes it may need to be repeated
3 Understand most of the content at a slower than normal speed without repeating it
2 Has a lot of trouble following conversation that are spoken slowly and with a lot of repetition.
1 Not even a simple conversation can be said to be understood.
Mengetahui Jakarta, 06 Oktober 2020
Guru Bahasa Inggris Pengajar
Mahwiyah, S.Ag. Fahmi Alfin Ibrahim
NIP. 197008062008012011 11160140000100
RENCANA PELAKSANAAN PEMBELAJARAN (RPP) Nama Sekolah : SMA Negeri 10 Kota Tangerang Selatan Mata Pelajaran : Bahasa Inggris
Kelas/Semester : XI/I (Controlled Class)
Standar Kompetensi :Mengungkapkan makna dalam percakapan transaksional dan interpersonal resmi dan berlanjut dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari.
Kompetensi Dasar :Merespon makna dalam percakapan transaksional dan interpersonal (bersosialisasi) resmi dan berlanjut (sustained) secara akurat, lancar, dan berterima yang menggunakan ragam bahasa lisan dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari dan melibatkan tindak tutur: menyampaikan pendapat, meminta pendapat.
Alokasi Waktu : 2 x 30 menit pertemuan maya (5 pertemuan) D. Indikator
b. Kognitif (i) Kognitif Proses
- Mengidentifikasi makna kata
- Mengidentifikasi makna tindak tutur menyampaikan pendapat - Merespon tindak tutur menyampaikan pendapat
- Mengidentifikasi makna tindak tutur meminta pendapat - Merespon tindak tutur meminta pendapat
- Menanggapi pendapat dengan menggunakan argumen
- Mengidentifikasi makna dan tindak tutur menyampaikan pendapat (ii) Kognitif Produk