CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
D. Instrument of the Research
The instrument of this research was speaking test to measure the students’ vocabulary and fluency. In this test, each student could free to choose one topic among five topics were given by the researcher. Each of students was given five minutes to explain orally the procedure of making or doing something related the topic they had chosen. The topic was given about procedure text, namely: How to Make a Cup of Tea, How to Make Orange syrup, How to make a coffee, How to make a glass of
milk, and How to make a cup of pop mie. Next, the students choose one topic for presentation.
The scoring as follow:
1. Vocabulary
Table 3.3 Vocabulary Scoring
Classifications Score Criteria
Excellent 96-100 They speak effectively and excellent of using vocabulary Very Good 86-95 They speak effectively and very
good of using vocabulary
Good 76-85 They speak effectively and good
of using vocabulary
Fairly Good 66-75 They speak sometimes hasty and fairly good of vocabulary
Fair 56-65 They speak sometimes hasty,
fair of vocabulary
Poor 36-55
They speak hasty and more sentences are not appropriate in vocabulary
Very Poor 0-35
They speak very hastily, and more sentences are not appropriate using vocabulary and little or no communication.
(Harmer in Sugiati, 2014: 24) 2. Fluency
Table 3.4 Fluency Scoring
Classification Score Criteria
Excellent
96-100 They speak effectively and excellent of using smoothness Very good
86-95 They speak effectively and very good of using smoothness
Good
76-85 They speak effectively and good of using smoothness
Fairly good
66-75 They speak sometimes hasty and fairly good of smoothness
Fair
56-65 They speak sometimes hasty, fair of smoothness
Poor
36-55
They speak hasty and more sentences are not appropriate in smoothness
Very poor
00-35
They speak very hastily, and more sentences are not appropriate using vocabulary and little or no communication.
(Harmer in Sugiati, 2014: 26)
E. Data Collection
In collecting the data the researcher used oral test by having a score. The first scorer was the English teacher at SMP Unggulan Darussalam Maros and the second one was the researcher. The test was distributed about 100 minutes, in which each student was given time about five minutes to express their speaking ability on procedure text in making something related to the topic they chose.
F. Data Analysis
Data analysis was the last step in the procedure of experiment, in this case, processing the data. The data processing was the step to know the result of both the experimental class and the controlled class and also their differences. To find out the differences of student’s score in using the demonstration method.
In procedure text, the writer used speaking test, the writer used the comparative technique. The comparative technique was an analysis
technique to evaluate hypothesis concerning the differences between two variables examined statically. In the comparative technique, the variables were compared to recognize whether or not the differences were significant. The writer used t-test formula that adapted from Sudjiono Before using t-test formula; the writer had sought some formula below.
The formula of t-test was expressed as follow:
𝑡0: 𝑀𝑥 −𝑀 𝑦
𝑆𝐸 𝑀𝑥 −𝑀 𝑦
Note:
𝑀𝑥 : Mean of variable X 𝑀𝑦 : Mean of variable Y SE : Standar Error
Prior the calculation of t-test, there are several procedures to be taken.
They are as follow:
1. Determining mean of variable X with formula:
𝑀𝑥 : 𝜀𝑥
𝑁1
2. Determining mean of variable Y with formula:
𝑀𝑦 : 𝜀𝑦
𝑁2
3. Determining standar deviation score of variable X with formula:
𝑆𝐷𝑥 : 𝜀𝑋2
𝑁1
4. Determining standar deviation score of variable Y with formula:
𝑆𝐷𝑦: 𝜀𝑌2
𝑁2.
5. Determining standar error of mean of variable X with formula:
𝑆𝐸𝑚𝑥 : 𝑆𝐷𝑥
𝑁 1−1
6. Determining standar error of mean of variable X with formula:
𝑆𝐸𝑚𝑦 : 𝑆𝐷𝑦
𝑁 2−1
7. Determining standar error of difference of mean of variable X and variable Y with formula: 𝑆𝐸𝑚𝑥 −𝑚𝑦 ∶ 𝑆𝐸𝑚𝑥2+ 𝑆𝐸𝑚𝑦2
8. Determining t-tes with formula:
𝑡0: 𝑀𝑥 −𝑀 𝑦
𝑆𝐸 𝑀𝑥 −𝑀 𝑦
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS A. Findings
The results description collected through the test. In the discussion part, the researcher presents an interpretation of the findings. In this chapter, the researcher analyzed the data obtained from the students with only one group of pre-test and post-test. The data consisted of the result of the pre-test and post-test of experimental and control class. The pre-test was used compare the absorption of the students, and the post-test was used to test an alternative hypothesis.
The result of data analysis found that the use of Demonstration method can improve the students’ speaking ability in procedure text at the IX Class of SMP Unggulan Darussalam Kab. Maros.
a. The mean score of vocabulary and fluency
Table 4.1 The mean score of the students’ vocabulary and fluency in pre-test and post-test
Index Group
Mean score
Pre-test Post-test
Vocabulary
Experiment 67.75 82.75
Control 65.4 73.9
Fluency
Experiment 60.3 83
Control 63.9 75.5
1. The Students’ Vocabulary
To answer the research questions in the previous chapter, the researcher administered a test, which was given twice to the students. Firstly, pre-test was given twice to the students. Firstly, pre-test was given before the treatment.
Secondly, post-test was given after the treatment. The result of the students’
speaking in the term of vocabulary in procedural text on pre-test and post-test of experimental and control groups were presented in the table below:
a. The rate percentage score of students in pre-test and post-test The rate percentage score of students in pre-test is shown as follows:
Table 4.2 the rate percentage score of students in experimental and control groups of pre-test in the term of vocabulary
No
Pre-test Post-test
Classification Score Experiment Control Experiment Control
F % F % F % F %
1 Excellent 96-100 - - - -
2 Very Good 86-95 - - - - 1 5% - -
3 Good 76-85 3 15% - - 15 75% 4 20%
4 Fairly Good 66-75 10 50% 9 45% 4 20% 14 70%
5 Fair 56-65 3 15% 10 50% - - 2 10%
6 Poor 36-55 3 15% 1 5% - - - -
7 Very Poor 0-35 1 5% - - - -
Total 20 100% 20 100
% 20 100% 20 100
% Table 4.2 above shows that pre-test score of students in control class was lower than the students in experimental group. The percentage of the experimental group, those who classified as good was 3 (15%) students, fairly good was 10 (50%) students, fair was 3 (15%) students, poor was 3 (15%) students, and very poor was 1 (5%) students. While, in the control group, those who classified fairly good was 9 (45%) students, fair was 10 (50%) students, poor was 1 (5%) student.
While the score in post-test, students in control group lower than the students in experimental group. In experimental group there was 1 (5%) student classified as very good, 15 (75%) students were classified as good, 4 (20%) students were classified as fairly good. While in control group there were 4 (20%) students classified as good, there were 14 (70%) students classified as fairly good, and there were 2 (10%) students classified as fair.
b. The mean score in pre-test and post test
Table 4.3 Mean score of the students’ pre-test and post-test Vocabulary
Test Group Mean Score
Pre-test Experiment 67.75
Control 65.4
Post-test
Experiment 82.75
Control 73.9
The table 4.3 above shows that the mean score of experimental group and control group were different before giving the treatment. After conducting the experiment, the score of post-test of experiment and control group showed a higher difference score of mean score. It means that there was improvement after conducting a treatment for experimental group. The mean score of students’ pre- test of experimental group was 67.75, while in control group the mean score was 65.4. The mean score of both groups were higher difference after the experimenting was conducted. The mean score of the students’ post-test of the experimental group after the treatment was 82.75, while the mean score of the students’ post-test in control group was 73.9. It means that, the mean score of experimental group is higher than control group (82.75>73.9).
The table 4.4 Gain Score of Mean Score
Group Pre-test Post-test Gained Score
Experiment 67.75 82.75 15
Control 65.4 73.9 8.5
2. The Students’ Fluency
To answer the research questions in the previous chapter, the researcher administered a test, which was given twice to the students. Firstly, pre-test was given twice to the students. Firstly, pre-test was given before the treatment.
Secondly, post-test was given after the treatment. The result of the students’
speaking in the term of fluency in procedural text on pre-test and post-test of experimental and control groups were presented in the table below:
a. The rate percentage score of students in pre-test and post-test The rate percentage score of students in pre-test is shown as follows:
Table 4.5 the rate percentage score of students in experimental and control groups of pre-test in the term of fluency
No
Pre-test Post-test
Classification Score Experiment Control Experiment Control
F % F % F % F %
1 Excellent 96-100 - - - -
2 Very Good 86-95 - - - - 6 30% - -
3 Good 76-85 3 15% - - 8 40% 5 25%
4 Fairly Good 66-75 6 30% 9 45% 6 30% 15 75%
5 Fair 56-65 3 15% 8 40% - - - -
6 Poor 36-55 4 20% 3 15% - - - -
7 Very Poor 0-35 4 20% - - - -
Total 20 100% 20 100
% 20 100% 20 100
%
Table 4.5 shows that pre-test score of students in control group was lower than the students in experimental group. The percentage of the experimental
group, those who classified as good was 3 (15%) students, fairly good was 6 (30%) students, fair was 3 (15%) students, poor was 4 (20%) students, very poor was 4 (20%) students. While, in the control group those who classified as fairly good was 9 (45%) students, fair was 8 (40%) students, and poor was 3 (15%) students.
While score in post test, the students’ achievement in experimental group was higher than in control group. In experimental group 6 (30%) students were classified as very good, 8 (40%) students were classified as good, and 6 (30%) students were classified as fairly good. While, in control group, 5 (25%) students were classified as good, and 15 (75%) were students classified as fairly good.
b. The Mean Score in Pre-test and Post-test Table 4.6 Mean Score Pre-test and Post-test
Fluency
Test Group Mean Score
Pre-test Experiment 60.3
Control 63.9
Post-test Experiment 83
Control 75.5
The table 4.7 shows that the mean score of experimental group and control group were different before giving treatment. After conducting the experimenting, the score of post-test of experimental and control group showed a higher difference score of mean score. It means that, there was an improvement after conducting a treatment for experimental group. The mean score of students’ pre- test of experimental group was 60.3, while in the control group the mean score was 63.9. The mean score of both groups were higher difference after the experimenting was conducted. The mean score of students’ post-test of the experimental group after treatment was 83, while the mean score of the students’
post-test in control group 75.5. It means that the mean score of experimental group was higher than control group (83>75.5).
Table 4.7 Gain Score of Mean Score
Group Pre-test Post-test Gained Score
Experiment 60.3 83 22.7
Control 63.9 75.5 11.6
3. The Significant of Vocabulary and Fluency
the researcher had used t-test analysis on the level of significant (p) 0.050 with the degree of freedom with (df)= (N1+ N2) -2) = (20+20)-2) = 38) and then the
value of t table was 38 (2.02). The t test statistical analysis for independent sample was applied the following table showed the result of t-test calculation.
Table 4.8 T-test value of the students’ speaking ability in procedural text Indicator T-test T-table Comparison Classification Vocabulary 2.42 2.02 t-test>t-table Significant
Fluency 3.27 2.02 t-test>t-table Significant
Table 4.9 shows that t-test value of vocabulary was greater than t table value (2.42>2.02) and also t-test value of fluency was greater than t-table value (3.27>2.02). it meant that, there was significance difference between the students without demonstration method before and after researcher used demonstration method in teaching speaking. It was show the null hypothesis (H0) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted.
From the analysis above, the researcher conclude that there was significant difference between the pre-test and post-test of the students’ speaking ability after
giving treatment for developing their ability in speaking procedural text through demonstration method.
B. Discussion
Based on the result of the data analysis, it is proven that students improvement in vocabulary and fluency by using demonstration method got better. It could be seen by the comparison between pre-test and post-test of the experimental group that could be seen on the (appendix 2-3), there was an improvement on the students’ score where the pre-test score in the term of vocabulary was 67.75 and the post-test was 82.75, and then the pre-test in the term of fluency was 60.3 and the post-test was 83.
Moreover, the findings from the calculation of the study and hypothesis testing above showed that the speaking score in the terms of vocabulary and fluency of the students in experimental group had a significant difference after the use of demonstration method was done in compared to the control group achievement who did not receive the demonstration method as on the experimental group, but receive the usual treatment as the teacher uses in the class. The statement above was strengthened by the findings on the independent t- test computation.
The result means that the null hypothesis was rejected and there was significant difference between post-test means of the control and experimental group. In other words, the students’ in control group after the treatment on the use of demonstration method which had been given.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
This chapter consists of two parts. The first part presents some conclusions based on the data analysis and findings in the previous chapter. The second part presents some suggestions based on the findings and conclusions of this research.
A. Conclusions
As has been stated on the previous chapter, the present study investigated the effectiveness of Demonstration method to improve students’ speaking ability in Procedure Text. The study employed quasi-experimental design in SMP Unggulan Darussalam Kab. Maros. Two classes, each of which consists of 20 students, were selected as the control group and the experimental group.
Demonstration method was effective to be used to improve students’ speaking ability especially in the terms of vocabulary and fluency because there was a significant difference between the progresses in speaking of the students who were studying through demonstration method and those who were not taught by demonstration method. The students can increase their vocabulary and fluent in speaking.
B. Suggestions
Researcher gave motivate and explanation about the important of speaking skill as well as the other skills. And then, researchers, teachers should be more creative to enrich their material. They can use demonstration method to motivate the students in learning English especially in teaching speaking procedural text.
Finally the researcher should gave more chance and guidance practice to speak as
the one way to develop the students’ speaking ability especially in the terms of vocabulary and fluency.
In other hand, this research is completely done, but it still has many weakness, there were four weakness: The fisrt is Demonstration method requires special teaching skills, because without it, the implementation of the demonstration will be ineffective. The Second, Facilities such as equipment, places, reasonable costs are not always prepared. The Third, Demonstration method requires careful preparation and planning in addition to requiring considerable time. The fouth, If the appliance is very small or the placement is incorrect, the demonstration cannot be seen clearly by all the students so the students will not understand the lesson well.
However, using demonstration method is a bit complicated because it requires a lot of preparation, but this method is very useful in imroving students’
speaking skills.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Aimah, Siti. (2008). Demons
tration as a Medium in the Teaching of Writing Procedure Text: An Action Research via http://jurnal.unimus.ac.id access on 13th June 2012 at 8.00 am
Abimanyu, Sapta. 2013.
http://saptaabimanyu.blogspot.co.id./2013/02/aspects-of-speaking- performance.html
Blaz, Michael. 2000.” Oral Language Assessment in Foreign Language Class”. Retrieved for www.learnnc.org/DPI/instserv.nsf/I D/OralLanguageAssessment/Sfile/ oralAssessment.pdf on March 27th 2013.
Brown. H Doughlas.2003. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New Jersey: san Francisco State University Cresswell, Jhon W. 2012 “Educatioanal Research”. Boston. Pearson
education
Cambridge Advance Learner’s Dictionary: 2008. Third Edition.
Darakshan, at all. 2016. Developing EFL learners speaking ability: Accurancy
and fluency. Vol. 6, No. 2,
(http://dx.doi.org./10.5539/ells.v6n2pl77), Published May 23, 2016.
Destianka, Arsila.2011. “ The Effect of Demonstration Method towards Students’ Ability to Write Procedure Text”. Semarang: Panca Sakti Universitas Tegal. Retrieved for http://perpus.fkipups.web.id/v5/?m od=opaq.koleksi.form&page=2444 &perpus=pusat&berkode=PB1091 1131 on March 27th 2013.
Ginting, Irma Ekianti. (2012). Improving Students’ Achievement in Writing Procedure Text through Project Method. Medan: University Negeri
Medan. Retrieved For
http://digilib.unimeb.ac.id./improvingstudents- achievement-in- writing procedure-text-throgh-projectmethod- 25462.html
Gay, L.R., (2006). Educational Research. Columbus: Prentice-Hall
Harmer, Jeremy. 2007. How to Teach English, An Introduction to the Practice of English Language Teaching. England : Pearson Education Limited.
Khan, Intakhab Alam. 2013. Speaking Skill and Teaching Strategy: The Case of an EFL Classroom. Elixie.edu.tech 58, (www.elixipublisher.com). Published, March 28 2013.
Lily Yanuarty. 2014. “The effect of demonstration method of teaching procedure text towards students speaking ability”. Solo: English language education department faculty of education and teacher training Mahaputra Muhammad Yamin University. Solo
M.Miftahul Huda, (2015) Improving students ability in writing procedure text through demonstration. Unpublish Thesis. Semarang : English language education department faculty of education and teacher training Walisongo State Islamic University. Semarang
Nurnaili, Erni. 2009. Improving the Speaking Ability of the Second Year Students of SMPN 1 Salo Kabupaten Kampar Through Demonstration Method. Unpublished Thesis. Riau : English Education Study Program Language and Arts Department, Universitas Riau. Riau
Oxford Learner Pocket Dictionary. 2008:10
Patel and Praven. 2008.English Language Teaching. Jaipur: vaisahali Nagar.\
Rora, Ade Prima. 2015.http://adeprimarora.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/the- components-of-speaking-skill/
Richards, Jack C and Willy A. Renandya, 2002. “Methodology in Language Teaching”.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, Jack C. 2008. Teaching Listening and Speaking. New York.
Cambidge University Press.
Richards Jack C. & Theodore S. Rodgers. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching, a Description and Analysis. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed 2001.
St Asriati, A. M. The use of predict explain observe explain in improving the students’ speaking ability at the eleventh year of SMA batara gowa (An Experimental).
Siti Sulastri,(2013). The Implementation of demonstration method to teach speaking procedure text. Unpublish Thesis. Magetan : English department doctor Nugroho University. Magetan
Sari, Louma.2004.Assesing Speaking. Newyork: Kambridge University.
Todd Helmestine.2014. The different between Experimental and control group.
https://www.thoughtco.com/control-and-experimental-group- differences-606113
Yanti, Fadila.2011. “The influence of Using Video on Students’ Speaking Ability in Procedure Text”. Tasik Malaya: Universitas Siliwangi Retrieved for http://journal. Unsil-246-.html
Yount, Rich. 2006. Research Design and Statistical Analysis for Christian Ministry I. Newyork: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc
Yang, Yingjie I.J. 2014. The Implementation of Speaking Fluency in Communivative Language Teaching: An Observation of Adopting the 4/3/2 Activity in High
Zainal Arifin, (2014). Penelitian pendidikan : Model penilitian experiment.
PT.Remaja Rosda karya offset :Bandung
Zainal Aqib, (2013). Model-model media dan strategi pembejaran kontekstual (inovatif). Yrama widya : Bandung
APPENDIX 1
DAFTAR HADIR SISWA KELAS IX A No Students Experimental Class 1 2 3 4 5
1 S-01 Sartina
S
2 S-02 Nadiyah
3 S-03 Zulkifli Zainuddin
4 S-04 Nurafiah
5 S-05 Syarmilah
6 S-06 Fadillah Syamsuddin
7 S-07 Arni Dwi Lestari
8 S-08 Andini
9 S-09 Sakinah
10 S-10 Fitra Ramadhani
11 S-11 Mutmainnah
12 S-12 Hasnah
13 S-13 Farhan
14 S-14 M. Imrah Jumrah
15 S-15 Febrina Falentira
16 S-16 Nurjannah
17 S-17 Nurdianto
18 S-18 Hasanuddin
s 19 S-19 Norma Ningsih
20 S-20 Alfina
DAFTAR HADIR SISWA KELAS IX B No Students Control Class 1 2 3 4 5
1 S-01 Farhan Aditya
2 S-02 Ahmad Rifki Pratama
3 S-03 Frardamayanti
4 S-04 Rina Aprilia
5 S-05 Risnawati
S 6 S-06 Zulkifili
7 S-07 Arni Gusmarni
8 S-08 St. Risda
9 S-09 Hasrul
a 10 S-10 Fiar Damayanti
11 S-11 Andi Alfian
12 S-12 Firdaus
13 S-13 Indri
14 S-14 Fitrah Auliah
15 S-15 St. Fatima
16 S-16 Hajrah
17 S-17 M. Fadli Akbar
S 18 S-18 Nurwanda
s 19 S-19 St. Aisyah
20 S-20 Adelia Faranty