CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
A. FINDINGS
During the research, the researcher gained some findings that cover the improvement of the students’ speaking vocabulary and pronunciation as well as their activeness in the teaching and learning process in class VIII-A at MTs Muhammadiyah Limbung. These findings were to cover the answers of the problem statements aimed to improve the students’ speaking skills in vocabulary and pronunciation.
The data of this study was quantitative data. The quantitative data were taken from the mean of students score in some tests. This research was conducted in VIII-A class with 30 students. This research was accomplished in two cycles. Each cycle consisted of four steps of action research (planning, action, observation, and reflection). The first cycle including d-test conducted in five meetings, and the second cycle was conducted in four meetings. In the last meeting of each cycle, the students were taken tests,cycle I testand cycle II test.
The data were taken from the tests result in the class, which was carried out in two cycles, there was nine meetings were conducted. The test was given to students in forms of d-test, cycle I test and cycle II test.
Table 4.1.Students’ score Indicators
Students score
D-test Cycle I Cycle II
Vocabulary 20 36.7 38
Pronunciation 24 37 38.9
Total 44 73.7 76.9
The table above indicates that there was improvement of the students’
speaking that focused on vocabulary and pronunciation from diagnostic-test to cycle I and cycle II (Diagnostic-Test < cycle I < cycle II). In diagnostic test, students’ score in vocabulary was 20. After implementation action learning strategy in cycle I, students score in vocabulary higher than diagnostic test and it was 36.7. Students’ score in cycle II alsohigher than cycle I, it was 38. It means there was improvement in students’ vocabulary.In diagnostic test, students’ score in pronunciation was 24. It was improved after implementation action learning strategy in cycle I, students’ score was 37. And students’ score in cycle II higher than cycle I, it was 38. It means there was improvement in students’
pronunciation.
From the table above, the mean score of students in vocabulary and pronunciation in diagnostic test was 44. It was improved after implementation of action learning strategy in cycle I, the score was 73.7. Students’ mean score in
cycle II was higher than cycle I, it was 76.9. it means there was significant improvement of students’ speaking skill in vocabulary and pronunciation during this research.
The improvement of the students’ speaking dealing with vocabulary and pronunciation at the eighth grade students’ of MTs Muhammadiyah Limbung can be seen clearly in the following table:
Table 4.2: The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking skill
Indicators
Students improvement D-test to
cycle I
Cycle I to cycle II
D-test to cycle II
Vocabulary 16.7 1.3 18
Pronunciation 13 1.9 14.9
Total 29.7 3.2 32.9
From the tableabove showed that there was improvement of the students’
speaking that focused on vocabulary and pronunciation from diagnostic test to cycle I test, from cycle I test to cycle II test, and from diagnostic test to cycle II test. The improvement of students’ vocabulary was very significant, in diagnostic test to cycle I test was 16.7, in cycle I to cycle II was 1.3, and in diagnostic test to cycle II test was 18. The improvement of students pronunciation also very significant. The improvement from diagnostic test to cycle I test was 13, from cycle I to cycle II was 1.9, and from diagnostic test to cycle II test was 14.9.
The table above showed the total improvement of students’ speaking skill
in vocabulary and pronunciation. It showed the students’ achievement in cycle II was the highest (Cycle II > Cycle I > Diagnostic- test). Total improvement in vocabulary and pronunciation from diagnostic test to cycle I test was 29.7, from cycle I to cycle II was 3.2, and from diagnostic test to cycle II test was 32.9.
After applicated the formula, the researcher found the percentage ofstudents speaking score improvementin terms of vocabulary and pronunciation from diagnostic test, cycle I test, and cycle II test can bee seen by considering the result of the students’ Diagnostic Test and the students’ achievement after taking action in cycle I test and cycle II test through the application of action learning strategy in teaching and learning process.
Table 4.3The Percentage of Students Score
TESTS
Unsuccessful got score >75 Successful got score >75
Freq Percentage % Freq Percentage%
D- test 28 93.3% 2 6.7%
Cycle I test 14 46.7% 16 53.3%
Cycle II test 3 10% 27 90%
From the table above, the percentage of students score ind-test, there was only 6.7 % (2 students) who successful got score>75 and there was 93.3% (28 students) who unseccessful got score>75 .
Inthe cycle I test there was 53.3 % (16 students) who got score>75 and there was 46.7% (14 students) who unsuccessful got score>75. Because the target was not achievedin the cycle I, the researcher worked hard in the cycle II to reach the target( score>75) and tried to evaluate the weakness in the cycle I. After tested and observed in thecycle II, the students’ speaking skill in vocabulary and pronunciation has a good improvement.
Thecycle II test,therewas90%(27 students) who got score>75 and there was 10% (3 students) who unsuccessful got score >75. It means the targer score >75 was achieved in cycle II.
From the explanation above, there was improvement of result of the students score who successful got score >75 from D-test to Cycle I test, cycle I to cycle II test, and D-test to cycle II test. From D-test, there was 2 students or only 6.7% students from 30 students in class that successful got score >75 . In cycle I there was 16 students or 53.3%
students from 30 students in class that successful got score >75. In cycle II test there was 27 students or 90% students from 30 students in class that successful got score >75.
So, the improvement of students score from D-test before implementation of action learning strategy to cycle I test after implementation action learning strategy was 46.6% or 14 students. The improvement of students score in cycle I test to cycle II test was 36,7% or 11 students. And the improvement of students score in D-test to cycle II test was 83.3% or 25 students. And finally until the end of test there are
27 students or 90% from 30 students in class that successful got score >75 and only 3 students or 10% from 30 students in class that unsuccessful got score >75 until the end of reseach.
To see clearly the percentage of students who successful got improvement in speaking skill before implementation action learning strategy (d-test) and after implementation action learning strategy (cycle I and cycle II), the following chart was presented:
Chart 4.1 The percentage of students who successful got improvement in speaking skill
The chart above showed in diagnostic test, there was only 6.7%
from 30 students successful got score >75.There was significant improvement in cycle I, 53.5% from 30 students successful got score >75.
And in cycle II was 90% from 30 students successful got score >75. It means that cycle II was higher (90%) than cycle I (73.7%) and diagnostic test(6.7%) or cycle II > cycle I > diagnostic test. It also showed that the
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Diagnostic Test Cycle I test Cycle II test
result of Diagnostic-Test is the lowest mean score achievement.
B. Disscussion
This research was conducted to find out whether or not the use of action learning strategy improve students’ speaking skill in English lesson. The action learning strategy was one of the strategies that could be used by the teacher in teaching English to improve the students’ ability in speaking. It could be seen in findings of this research
Before taking a classroom action research through “Action learning Strategy”, the researcher hold diagnostic test to measure the students’ prior knowledge in English speaking. After gave D-test, the researcher found that the students’ speaking vocabulary and pronunciation at the first year students of Mts Muhammadiyah Limbung was very poor, so it must be improved.
1. The percentage of students score in D-Test
In D-test the researcher found the percentage of the students score from the formula that had been choosen before.The students’ speaking skill in English lesson at D-test was still low. From the criteria 2 students successful got score>75 or it was only 6.7%. In other side 28 students unsuccessful got score>75 or it was 93.3%. It could be concluded that the students’ speaking skill in English lesson was still low.
2. The percentage of students score in Cycle I test
In cycle I the researcher found the percentage of the students score
from the formula that had been choosen before. From the students speaking skill in Englis lesson at cycle 1 test, there was 16 students got successful got >75 or it was 53.3%. The other side 14 students unsuccessful got score>75 or it was 46.7 %. Cycle I test is categorized unsuccess. The result of standard of success criteria (SKM) minimum was >75 score.
Because of the target was not achieved in the cycle I, the researcher worked hard in the second cycle to reach the target( score>75) and try to evaluate the weakness in the cycle I. After testing and observing in thecycle II, the students’ speaking skill in vocabulary and pronunciation has a good improvement.
3. The percentage of students score in Cycle II test
In cycle II the researcher found the percentage of the students score from the formula that had been choosen before. From the table of analysis, the students’ speaking skill in English lesson increased. From the criteria 27 students success got score>75 or it was 90%. In the other side 3 students got failed or unseccessful got score>75 or it was 10%. It could be concluded that the students’ ability in speaking increased.
Cycle II test was categorized success. Because of the target score has been achieved, the research is not continued to the cycle III.
From the explanation above, there was improvement of result of the students score who successful got score >75 from D-test to Cycle I test, cycle I to cycle II test, and D-test to cycle II test. From D-test, there was 2 students or only 6.7% students from 30 students in class that
successful got score >75 . In cycle I there was 16 students or 53.3%
students from 30 students in class that successful got score >75. In cycle II test there was 27 students or 90% students from 30 students in class that successful got score >75. So, the improvement of students score from D-test to cycle I test was 46.6% or 14 students. The improvement of students score in cycle I test to cycle II test was 36,7% or 11 students.
And the improvement of students score in Dtest to cycle II test was 83.3% or 25 students. And finally until the end of test there are 27 students or 90% from 30 students in class that successful got score >75 and only 3 students or 10% from 30 students in class that unsuccessful got score >75 until the end of reseach.
Based on the explanation above, the researcher concluded that the finding of this research prove the statement from WIAL-World Institute for Action Learning (2015) that stated action learning is effective for solving problems and made the participants to be more creative, think critically, and work collaboratively. The researcher agree with the statement because the finding of this research showed that the students’
ability in speaking improved and become well in the first meeting to the next meting by applying Action Learning Strategy. It was improved because of the teacher knew how to control the class and created the class to be active. Besides that, the action learning strategy helped the students to understand the subject easily. So, this research showed that action learning strategy worked effectively and efficiently in helping students’
ability in speaking at VIII-A grade of MTs Muhammadiyah Limbung and this learning has apllied successfully and able to improve students’ ability in speaking.
This research finding alsosimilar to Armasita (2017) that reported there was80% effective to use action learning strategy to impove students’ speaking skill, but the finding of this research was higher and 90% more effective.There was also a lot of previous of related studies that found similar finding but used different method. Irfan (2008) reported that 90% of the students were increaseing in speaking through problem based learning strategy. He said that 97% were effective in speaking.Muhammadong (2008) also reported that 95.5% of the students were improved in speaking through inquiry-based learning strategy. He said that 95% were effectively in speaking.Cangara (1992) also reported that 97,5% of the subject were interested in studying English by using picture. He said that 95% of the subject were positively affected their interest.
Based on the perception above, the researcher concludedthat all the findings was similar that improving students speaking skill but they applied different method. It means there was a lot of effective method to improve students’ speaking skill in learning and teaching process. One of methods is Action Learning Strategy.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion
Based on the data analysis in chapter IV, the conclusion was drawn as following:
1. Action learning strategy can improve students’ speakingability showed by the students’ score. Furthermore, from the students’ response toward the teaching and learning activity during CAR. It can be concluded that the students like action learning strategy. It proven by their participation in the class conversations, discussions, performs in front of the class pronunciation andvocabularyin English lesson.
2. The students were more active and participated inteaching-learning process of speaking. Therefore, action learning strategy can be alternative strategy for teacher in teaching speaking which can improve and keep their speaking. In the first test (d-test) only 2 students of 30 students (6.7%) successful passed the KKM 75.In the second test (cycle I test) the students who got the score up 75 or passed KKM were 16 students of 30 students (53.3%). In the third test (cycle II-test) the students who successful passed KKM 75 were 27 students of 30 students (90%).
3. The result showed the increasing of students’ score from the d-test to cycleII test. In the d-test, there was only 6.7 % (2 students) who got point >75. Inthe cycle I test there was 53.3 % (16 students) who got
43
point>75. It means that therewasincreasing46.6%.Thecycle II test,therewas90%(27 students) who got point >75. The increasing was about 43.4 % and the total increasing of students’ score from d-test until cycle II test was 83.3 %. It can be concluded that action learning strategy worked effectively and efficiently in helping students’ ability in speaking at VIII-A grade of MTs Muhammadiyah Limbung and this learning has apllied successfully and able to increased students’ ability in speaking.
B. Suggestion
In this part, the researcher would like to give some suggestions to be considered by English teacher asfollows:
a. Action learning strategy would be very helpful to improve students’ skill in speaking, so the teacher needs to maintain using action learning strategy as alternative technique of the teaching process in junior highschool.
b. The teacher should give clear explanation and instruction in directing her students using action learningstrategy.
c. The teacher should control the students’activities.
Finally, the researcher realizes that this research still have some weakness and mistakes. Therefore, the researcher would like to accept any constructive suggestion to make research better.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agustina.(2016).Model pembelajaran Micro Action learning, Progresive Inquiry dan Problem Solving.Retrivied from Journal https://senangbacaweb.wordpress.com/2016/04/05/model-
pembelajaran-mikro-action-learning-progressive-inquiry-dan- problem-solving-2/on April,2016.
Arikunto. (2013). Metode Penelitian Sebuah Kelas Secara Bersama (Class Action Research).
Armasita. (2017). Improving Students’ Speaking Skill by Using Action Learning Strategy at MTS PAB 1 Helvita.Thesis Fakultas Ilmu tarbiyah dan keguruan,UIN Sumatra.
Brown,G. andYule,G.(1989).Teaching the Spoken Language :Approach Based on the Analysis of Conversational English. Australia : Cambridge University Press.
(2008) The function of Speaking Skill. Cambridge :Cambridge University Press.
Brown, H.D. (2001). Teaching by Principles.Longman. New York: Longman Bryne, Donn. (1987). Teaching Oral English. New Edition. New York : Longman Cangara.(1992). The Effect of the Using on Speaking at SMA 5. Ujung Pandang.
Thesis UNM.
Chaney.A.L.(1998).Teaching Oral Communication in Grades K-8.Boston :Allyn and Bacon.
Cook. (2009). It’s All in a Word. London: Profile
Finochiaro,M and Sako,S. (1983). Foreign Language Testing : A Practical Approach to Language Pedagogy. San Fransisco : prentice Hall. P.
145
Fisher, R. (1990). Teaching Children to Think.Basil BlackwelGandner, R
&Lamber, W. (1972).Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Fulcher, G (2003). Assesing Second Language Speaking. Cambridge University
Press.
Harmer,J.(1991). The Practice of English language Teaching. Malaysia : Longman.
(2001).The practice of English Language
Teaching.Edinburgh:pearsoneducation Limited.
(2003).The Practice of English Language Teaching: Longman Handbooks for Language Teaching. USA: Longman.
(2007). How to Teach English. Essex: Pearson Education Limit Heaton, J.B.(1980).The Speaking Ability.English.Newyork : Longman.
(1989).Speaking English Language Test. Newyork : Longman.
Hirai.(2010).Academic Language/ Literacy Strategies for Adolescents A
“How To” Manual for Educators. New York: Rutledge companion.
Irfan.(2008). Increasing The Students Speaking Ability through Problem Based Learning Strategy. Thesis FKIP Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar.
Jeffrey,D.M.(2003) A Participation Points System to Help Passive Students Communicate. CELE Journal 12, final,David J., FE Participation
Points.pdf.Retrieved at www. asia-
u.ac.jp/053%20CELE%20Jrnl%2.htm on August 7,2011
Kemmis,S.,McTaggart, R.(1988).The Action Research Planner. (3rded). Geelong, Australia :Deakin University Press.
Maxom,M.(2009). Teaching English as a Foreign Language for Dummies.
London: Wiley. A John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, Publication.
Muhammadong.(2008). Improving Students’ Speaking ability through Inquiry Based Learning Strategy.Thesis FKIP Universitas Mmuhammadiyah Makassar.
Nunan, David. (2003). Practical English Language Teaching Speaking.Newyork : McGraw-Hill Companies.
Oxford Advance Dictionary. (1995). Oxford : Oxford University.
Pedler, Mike. (2011). Action Learning for Manager.
Revans,R.W.(1969),“Alienation and Resistance to Change”, Management Decision, 3(1), Spring, pp. 10–14.
Richard.(2008). Teaching Listening and Speaking: From Theory to Practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ruebling.(2007). Action Learning : Creating the Connection Between Good Intentions and great execution. Gama International Journal : January/February.
Tarigan. (1981) . Speaking As a Language Skill. Bandung : Angkasa.
Webster.(1983). University Dictionary.Massachusettss, USA : A & C Merriam Company, publishers.
(1989). Third New International Dictionary, Fourth Edition Printed in Great Britain. Britain: Oxford University Press.
WIAL.(2015).World Institute of Action Learning. Wasington DC. Retrived from https://wial.org/
APPENDIX 1
INSTRUMENT Diagnostic Test
ACTIVITY : SPEAKING TEST
TIME : 1 x 45 Menit
INSTRUCTION: Do as what the instruction says!
1. Please introduce yourself in front of the class?
2. Do in pair and ask your friends’ respond about the following situation:
-If you have a problem, where do you always share your problem? Why?
APPENDIX 2
CYCLE I TEST
ACTIVITY : SPEAKING TEST
TIME : 1 x 45 Menit
Do in pair!
1. What do you know about Congratulation?
2. Make a dialogue about congratulation, and practice in front of class!!!
3. If your friend invites you to come to his house but you have home work.
And what will you do?
APPENDIX 3
CYCLE II TEST
ACTIVITY : SPEAKING TEST
TIME : 1 x 45 Menit
1. Discuss with your group and explain what the Advantages and disadvantages of watching TV, and report orally in front of class.
WATCHING TV
APPENDIX 4
STUDENTS’ D-TEST SCORE
The researcher gave test before implementation of action learning strategy. The following tableis
Table. Students D-Test Score
NO Name
D-TEST
Score Successful Criteria (>75)
1 Student 1 48 Unsuccessful
2 Student 2 35 Unsuccessful
3 Student 3 35 Unsuccessful
4 Student 4 49 Unsuccessful
5 Student 5 31 Unsuccessful
6 Student 6 35 Unsuccessful
7 Student 7 45 Unsuccessful
8 Student 8 31 Unsuccessful
9 Student 9 76 Successful
10 Student 10 45 Unsuccessful
11 Student 11 40 Unsuccessful
12 Student 12 56 Unsuccessful
13 Student 13 77 Successful
14 Student 14 46 Unsuccessful
15 Student 15 40 Unsuccessful
16 Student 16 50 Unsuccessful
17 Student 17 38 Unsuccessful
18 Student 18 39 Unsuccessful
19 Student 19 39 Unsuccessful
20 Student 20 41 Unsuccessful