is classified as significant. The calculation result shows a significantly different of the students’ achievement.
5. Hypotheses Testing
Gay (2006: 349) stated that if the t-test value is equal to or greater than the t- table value, then the null hypothesis was rejected. Based on that explanation, the null hypothesis (H0) in this research is rejected because the t-test value (4.19) was greater than t-table value (2.021). And finally, alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted where there was improvement of the speaking performance of the students who have been treated through the use of Rotating Trio Exchange method.
T-test calculation also emphasizes that this research is significantly difference where the t-test value is 4.19 while t-table value for degree of freedom (d.f) = 51 andlevel of significance (α) = 0.05 is 2.021. It shows that t-test value is greater 2.169 points than t-table value.
In this research, before doing the treatment, the pretest was conducted. The researcher had prepared seven different situations with six various themes. They were hobby, love, friendship, favorite movie, annoying situation, and local uniqueness. The researcher mentioned the name of the student based on the attendance list. Thus, she asked the students to choose one of the seven situations randomly. When the student had taken his or her own, he/she would speak about the chosen situation within 1-2 minutes. They would do it in turn till all of the students got their turn.
In this part, the students were lack of the four components of speaking performance but most of their grammatical competence and discourse competence. For grammatical competence, most of their way to speak followed the Indonesian grammatical type. So, there were a lot of mistakes happened.
Furthermore, in discourse competence, the students spoke incoherently. And the organization of what they were being spoken were mostly in this part.
Considering the students’ problem in performing speaking in their pre test, the researcher conducted treatment for four meetings then would be continued by giving post test.
In the next meeting, the researcher conducted first meeting treatment. In this treatment, firstly, the researcher explained about the activities that day and
introduced simply about Rotating Trio Exchange method. After that, the materials had been distributed to the students before researcher gave demonstration and led a short discussion with the class. The researcher distributed the exercise sheet which contained list of questions. After that, each student asked 3 of his/her friends’ attitude based on the list and made a note based on their friends’ opinion.
As the main activity, the researcher chose 9 students randomly to make a report orally. They spoke in front of the class in turn by considering the four aspects or elements of speaking performance. After presenting a report, three of the students were giving a comment about their friends’ presentation. Even though not all of the aspects were getting better, but their motivation ensured the researcher that this research would be success. In the end of this meeting, the researcher gave additional explanation, correction, suggestion and opinion about the activity that day thus chose one best performer.
Meanwhile in the second meeting for the treatment, the researcher divided the students into six groups. In this meeting, the class would discuss about expressing love and expressing sadness. As in the first meeting, the researcher would give a simple demonstration and be followed by a short discussion to check the students’ understanding. Three of the six groups would be responsible to expressing love materials and some other groups would be responsible to expressing sadness. By this modification, the researcher expected the students were not feeling bored with the applied method. Every group was asked to make a conversation about their material. Then, after the group made it, the researcher asked every group to present a role play based on the conversation that had been
done. And after one group presented their work, one representative of every group who was chosen by the researcher randomly was asked to give comment about the performance of presenter. Besides that, every group also gave score for every presenter. In the end of this activity, the researcher gave additional explanation especially about the development of students’ speaking performance and was followed by determining the best group based on the calculation score.
In the third meeting, the researcher applied a quite different model from the second meeting treatment. After demonstrating the material which was expressing embarrassment and distributed it, the researcher asked the students to interview 3 of their friends about their embarrassment moment. Actually, this model was rather similar to the first meeting model. The students collected information about their friends’ embarrassing moment by taking notes. After finishing the interview, the researcher asked 9 students to report their work orally in front of their friends. They would be easier to speak because they tell their friends’ experience which they might have a similar experience. They had to speak by considering the elements of speaking performance especially in grammatical and discourse competence which were the most difficult of the students to improve. Not only were the presenters trained to perform a good speaking but also the audience. The audience would give comment after listening to the presenter report. And at last, the researcher gave correction for some mistakes happened during the activity.
The fourth meeting was the last for doing treatment of this research. Once again, the class was divided into 6 groups like in the second meeting. Before
demonstrating and discussing materials, the copies of material were distributed to the groups. The researcher avoided using text-book. The material that day was expressing anger and expressing annoyance. Every group made a conversation by correlating the material and their experiences. After making sure that every group had finished their work, the researcher pointed out the group to present their work by role playing. The group should present it communicatively with their group members and not memorize it. The other group prepared comment about performance of their friends from the other group. Then gave them score based on their performance. The researcher gave comment in the end of activity that day and determined the best performance. The class was over after the researcher made a review about the activity that day and the improvement of the students’
speaking performance.
After giving treatment for four meetings, the researcher needed to conduct a post-test in the end of this research to know the improvement of the students speaking performance. The researcher conducted a post test by giving the students 7 different topics just like in pretest. Then, the students would be in turn to speak in front of the class after choosing their own topic randomly. The researcher made a record of their performance and analyzed it. The result showed that the students’
speaking performance was improved in all components. But, for grammatical competence and discourse competence were not improved as well as communicative effectiveness and intelligibility. For communicative effectiveness and intelligibility improved from adequate level to good level while grammar
competence and discourse competence improved just from fair to adequate level (see Appendix K).
1. The difficulties of the students’ in Communicative Effectiveness Some the utterances of the students were difficult to understand. The listener felt hard to understand the speaker’s sentence. For example, the sentence
“How want to study…” from grammatical point of view, that sentence was not a grammatical sentence. The researcher assumes that the speaker might want to say
“Who wants to study…” or the speaker also might want to say “How can I study…” In another case, one of the speakers also said “My friend is ever love….” It was a confusing sentence and also ungrammatical. The speaker might want to say “My friend is ever loved…” or “My friend had ever loved…”
These two examples are the representative of the students’ problem in communicative effectiveness.
2. The difficulties of the students’ in grammatical competence
Grammatical competence was one of the most difficult elements of the students in performing speaking besides discourse competence. And some of the students’ problems in grammatical competence will be presented as follows:
a. The use of pronoun For example:
- Ilove is for girl…
Should be: My love is for girl…
- Mylike because…
Should be: I like it because…
- Basket make I happy
Should be: Basket makes me happy - Sport can make me body health
Should be: Sport can make my body healthy - Because is very good film
Should be: Because it is a very good film - Reading book can make me knowledge…
Should be: reading book can make my knowledge…
b. The use of verb after modal auxiliary For example:
- I must to goto study…
Should be: I must go to study…
- I can’tconcentrationgood…
Should be: I can’t concentrate well…
- I shall to comethe party…
Should be: I shall come to the party…
- Listening music can to makeentertain my heart…
Should be: Listening music can entertain my heart…
c. Wrong order of the phrase For example:
- My love is the girl beautiful
Should be: my love is a beautiful girl
- Go to my home friend.
Should be: Go to my friend’s home.
- My film favorite
Should be: my favorite film d. Wrong use of to be
For example:
- They are canmake me to happy…
Should be: They can make me happy…
- I am needa smooth song…
Should be: I need a smooth song…
- I going to my homefriend…
Should be: I’m going to my friend’s home…
- My hobby islistening music and reading book…
Should be: my hobbies are listening music and reading book…
- I just watchingfor all the time…
Should be: I’m just watching for all the time…
e. Wrong agreement
- He always makeme happy…
Should be: He always makes me happy…
- Sport makeme healthy…
Should be: Sport makes me healthy…
- Singing makeme shake…
Should be: Singing makes me shake…
3. The difficulties of the students’ in discourse competence
In discourse competence, the students are occasionally incoherent and unclear in organizing their ideas while performing speaking. They sometimes found difficulties in putting their sentences together coherently and correlate each other. Cohesive devices should help them but they also were rarely even very limited to be used by the students. These problems gave a large impact of the students’ performance in speaking English from discourse competence side.
4. The difficulties of the students’ in intelligibility
In intelligibility, the most problems were faced by the students is mispronunciation. They sometimes pronounced words inaccurately. The cases will be presented as follows:
a. The word “because” was always pronounced as /bI’kaus/ but it should /bI’kÞz/
b. The word “ball” wasalways pronounced as /bal/ but it should /bol/
c. The word “cute” was pronounced as /cute/ but it should /kju:t/
d. The word “good” was pronounced as /god/ but it should /gυd/
e. The word “love” was always pronounced as /lov/ but it should /lΛv/
f. The word “body” was pronounced as /bodi/ but it should /bÞdi/
g. The word “wise” was pronounced as /wis/ but it should /waІz/
h. The word “always” was pronounced as /alwais/ but it should /o:lweiz/
The improvement of the students in their test was mostly coming from their communicative effectiveness or their ability to speak understandable.
Communicative effectiveness was improved in both groups, experimental and control group. In experimental group increase 22 points, from 60 (adequate) in pretest to 82 (good) in post-test. For control group, the improvement was just 4 points, from 60 (adequate) in pretest to 64 (adequate) in post-test. From these data, the classification shows that the data in control class not improved as well as in experimental group. A good improvement of the students in experimental group is reached because one of the features of Rotating Trio Exchange method which offers students-centered approach. The students-centered doesn’t make teacher as the only source of the knowledge where everything that teacher said must be true.
But the students can be actively finding out information from other sources to support their progressivity to build their knowledge by themselves. In the classroom the space for the students was larger than teacher. They have larger time to discuss with everyone in classroom. And this activity treats the students to transmit their idea with others because transmission of the idea becomes the main point of communicative effectiveness. Such what Nash, S. (2010:1) had conveyed that effective communication means putting your message across in a way that is easy to understand. Moreover, Rotating Trio Exchange method implemented it.
The second item of speaking performance was grammatical competence.
This variable measures the students’ ability to speak grammatically. In experimental class, grammatical competence improved 18 points, from 42 (fair) in pretest to 60 (adequate) in post-test. Different from the students in experimental class, control class students cannot show the improvement. It can be proved by the score of the students in pretest which was not increased in post-test. The point 42
(fair) was the score of the students both in pretest and post-test. The data shows that the students quite difficult to speak grammatically, it’s proved by the score of the students. It becomes the lowest score among all items. It can be realized that speaking grammatically was difficult, especially for beginner. In Rotating Trio Exchange method, the students are treated not to use text-book. By non text-book teaching, the students will be more practice it than actualized in their work sheets where might be they will finish their work sheet but knowledge doesn’t transmit to the concept. In this case, Rotating Trio Exchange method makes students practice their grammatical knowledge in their speaking activity, therefore by the process of practice then correction let the students to put in mind the concept of grammatical rules.
The two other items discourse competence and intelligibility looks similar to two previous variables where the significant improvement are more to experimental group rather than control group. Furthermore, discourse competence and intelligibility in experimental group are always able to move up the classification of the students one level. Meanwhile, in control group the students are not always. It was clearly shown in appendix E.
Rotating Trio Exchange method helps the students to improve their speaking. Especially in discourse competence, learning through Rotating Trio Exchange method can improve the students’ capability of connecting their speaking with context. The context here means the students experience themselves. Recall Paul (2007:1) in explaining discourse competence mentions context as an agency. In dictionary, agency can be defined as connector. In this
case, Paul (2007:1) explained how language connects to the context. In other words, the students are able to perform a good speaking by treating them to speak about their closest environment first, such as experience, home and hobby, which everybody has. And step by step, it will be more and more expanded to the more difficult topic, such as politics and economics where are quite far from the students’ life. It will encourage the students that perform a good speaking is not a difficult thing.
At last, Intelligibility in speaking performance becomes an indicator to the success speaking. As in chapter II, intelligibility means good output of the speaker. It also contains accuracy, such accuracy of pronunciation. Some students sometimes find difficulties to perform a speaking because their failure to pronounce well. Hence, others can’t receive the message of their speaking or listener will misunderstand. Rotating Trio Exchange method involves students in more practice than learning theory more without practice. It encourages the students to do something while learning. Therefore, Rotating Trio Exchange method makes students in a good habit, include with pronunciation. They will serve their selves with pronounce words correctly without realizing it.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
This chapter deals with two parts, they are conclusions and suggestions.
Conclusions present the findings of this research based on the data analysis and discussion in previous chapter, while suggestions deal with what the researcher recommended to do.