CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD RESEARCH METHOD
A. Finding
40 CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter particulary presented the finding of the research cover with the description of the students’ improvement in Accuracy and Fluency. In the discussion part, the researcher described the findings in detail.
41
students’ speaking ability by using Communicative Approach. Where the students score in diagnostic test is different from the students’ test in the first cycle. The mean score in the diagnostic test 4,78, the first cycle is 5,35, and in cycle II is 7,15. The assessment of the diagnostic test to cycle I was greater than the diagnostic test (5,35 > 4,78), second cycle was greater than the first cycle (7,15
>5,35 ) and classified as good. And then, improvement from the diagnostic test to the first cycle was 36,42% and the first cycle to the second cycle was 33,54%.
Based on the percentages above there are significant improvements of the students by using Communicative Approach. To see clearly the improvement of the students’ speaking Accuracy, the following graphic is presented.
Graphic 1: . The Students’ Improvement in Accuracy
The chart above shows that the improvement of the students’ Accuracy from the diagnostic test(4,78) to the first cycle (5,35) is 36,42%, and the first cycle (5,35) to the second cycle (7,15) is 33,38% . Therefore there was the improvement
D-test CI CII
Accuracy 4.78 5.35 7.15
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Accuracy
42
of the students’ in content and the target can be achieved. Finally, the Communicative Approachis effective for students.
2. Improvement of the Students’ Fluency.
In implementation of Communicative Approach in speaking , the researcher found that the mean score of Fluency aspect in the second cycle was greater than the mean score of Fluency in the first cycle. It would be described in the table below:
Table 4.2 The students’ Improvement in Fluency
No Indicators
Mean Score Improvement (%)
D-test CI CII
Dtest- CI
CI-CII
D test- CII
1 Smoothness 4,42 5,46 5,17
23,53 39,93 72,85 2 Self Confidence 5,07 5,17 7,19
2,58 39,07 42,66
∑ 9,46 10,63 14,83 26,11 115,51 79,00
4,73 5,32 7,42 13,05 57,75 39,50
The data in the table above showed the students’ speaking ability in Fluency as the result of calculating of the diagnostic test, the first cycle and the second cycle at the students’ speaking ability by using Communicative Approach, where the students’ score in the diagnostic test, the first cycle and the second cycle was different. The mean score in the diagnostic test is 4,73, the first cycle is 5,32, and
43
the second cycle was 7,42. The assessment of the diagnostic test to cycle I was greater than the diagnostic test (5,32 > 4,73), and the achievement of the second cycle was greater than the first cycle (7,42 > 5,32) and classified as good.
Based on the percentages above there was a significant improvements of the students by using Communicative Approach. To see clearly the improvement of the students’ speaking Fluency, the following chart presented.
Graphic 4.1: The Students’ Improvement in Fluency .
The chart above showed that the improvement of the students’ Fluency from the diagnostic test(4,42) to the first cycle(5,46) was 25,53%, and the first cycle (5,46) to the second cycle (5,17) was 39,93%. Therefore there was the improvement of the students’ in Fluency and the target can be achieved. Finally, the Communicative Approachwas effective for students.
1 2 3
Fluency 4.73 5.32 7.42
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Fluency
44
3. The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Ability through Communicative Approach
The implementation of Communicative Approachin improving the students’ speaking ability covered Accuracy and Fluency. The improvement of the students’ speaking ability could be seen clearly in the following table:
Table 4.3 The Students’ Improvement in Speaking Ability
No Indicators
Mean Score Improvement (%)
D-test CI CII
Dtest- CI
CI- CII
D test- CII
1 Accuracy 4,78 5,35 7,15 36,42 33,54 49,66
2 Fluency 4,73 5,32 7,42 13,05 39,50 57,75
∑ 9,51 10,67 14,57 49,47 73,04 107,41
4,76 5,34 7,29 24,74 36,52 53,71
The table above indicates that there was improvement of the students’
speaking ability from the diagnostic test, the first cycle and the second cycle was different. After evaluation in the first cycle the students’ speaking ability becomes (24,74) and categorized as good and the second cycle (53,71). which categorized as very good. The improvement of students’ speaking ability achieve from the diagnostic test to the first cycle 24,74%, and the first cycle to the second cycle 36,52%. There was also significant improvement of the students’ speaking ability from the diagnostic test to the first cycle and the first cycle to the second cycle.
45
The table above proves that used of Communicative Approachin teaching and learning process was able to improve the students’ speaking ability after taking action in the first cycle and the second cycle where the students’
achievement in the second cycle was greater than the first cycle, and the first cycle was greather than the diagnostic test.
To see clearly the increase of the students’ speaking ability, the following chart presented:
Graphic 4.2 The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Ability
The chart above shows, that the improvement of the students’ speaking ability from the diagnostic test to the first cycle 24,74%, the first cycle to the second cycle 36,52%, from diagnostic test to the second cycle 53,71%. From the diagnostic test to the first cycle the giving score were classified from fair to good, and the first cycle to the second cycle the giving score were classified from good to very good. After evaluation in the first cycle and the second cycle, there was a
DT to CI CI to CII DT to CII