CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
D. Procedure of Collecting Data
The procedure of collecting data in this classroom action research includes observation sheet and speaking test.
1. Observation Sheet
The researcher observed the students‟ activities in following teaching and learning process in the class to find out the students‟ data about their presence and activeness in teaching learning process.
2. Speaking Test
The researcher gave speaking test to the students in order to know their improvement. The type of speaking test which used in this research was observing form. The research divided the students into pair and ask to speak about material that they have learned as well as grammatical.
In scoring the result of students‟ test were evaluated based on two aspects speaking below:
a. The assesment of speaking accuracy consisted into vocabulary and grammar.
Table 3.2 : The assessment of Vocabulary
Classification Score Criteria
Excellent 9.6 – 10 Speak without too great an effort with a fairly wide range of expression.
Searcher for words occasionally but only one or two unnatural pauses Very good 8.6 – 9.5 Speak without too great an effort with
a fairly wide range of expression.
Searcher for words occasionally but only three or four unnatural pauses.
Good 7.6 – 8.5 Has to make an effort at time to search for word. Nevertheless, smooth
delivery on the whole and only a few unnatural.
Fairly good 6.6 – 7.5 Although he has make an effort and search for words, there are not too many unnatural pauses. Fairly smooth delivery mostly. Occasionally
fragmentary but succeeds in conveying the general meaning. Fair range of expression.
Fair 5.6 – 6.5 Has to make an effort for much of the time. Often has to search for the desired meaning. Rather halting delivery and fragmentary. Range of expression often limited.
Poor 3.6 – 5.5 Long pause while he searched for the desired meaning. Frequently and halting delivery. Almost gives up making the effort at times. Limited range of expression.
Very poor 0.0 – 3.5 Full of long and unnatural pauses. Very halting and fragmentary delivery. At times gives up making the effort. Very limited range of expression..
(Heaton,1988:100) Table 3.3 : The assessment of Grammar
Classification Score Criteria
Excellent 9.6 – 10 Speak without too great an effort with a fairly wide range of expression.
Searcher for words occasionally but only one or two unnatural pauses.
Very good 8.6 – 9.5 Speak without too great an effort with a fairly wide range of expression.
Searcher for words occasionally but only three or four unnatural pauses.
Good 7.6 – 8.5 Has to make an effort at time to search for word. Nevertheless, smooth
delivery on the whole and only a few unnatural.
Fairly good 6.6 – 7.5 Although he has make an effort and search for words, there are not too many unnatural pauses. Fairly smooth delivery mostly. Occasionally
fragmentary but succeeds in
conveying the general meaning. Fair range of expression.
Fair 5.6 – 6.5 Has to make an effort for much of the time. Often has to search for the desired meaning. Rather halting delivery and fragmentary. Range of expression often limited.
Poor 3.6 – 5.5 Long pause while he searched for the desired meaning. Frequently and halting delivery. Almost gives up making the effort at times. Limited range of expression.
Very poor 0.0 – 3.5 Full of long and unnatural pauses.
Very halting and fragmentary delivery.
At times gives up making the effort.
Very limited range of expression.
(Heaton,1988:100) a. The assessment of speaking fluency consisted into smoothness and self
confidence.
Table 3.4 : The assessment of smoothness
Classification Score Criteria
Excellent 9.6 – 10 Easy to the listener to understand the speaker‟s intention and general meaning. Very few interruption or clarification required.
Very good 8.6 – 9.5 The speaker‟s intention and general meaning are fair clear. A few interruption by the listener for the sake of clarification are necessary.
Good 7.6 – 8.5 Most of what the speaker says is easy to follow. His attention is always clear but several
interruptions are necessary to help him to convey the message or seek clarification.
Fairly good 6.6 – 7.5 The listener can understand a lot of what is said, but he must constantly clarification. Cannot understand and then with considerable effort by someone who is used to listening to the speaker.
Fair 5.6 – 6.5 The listener can understand a little bit of what is said, but he must constantly clarification. Cannot understand and then with
considerable effort by someone who is used to listening to the speaker.
Poor 3.6 – 5.5 Only small bits (usually short sentence and phrase) can be understood and then with
considerable effort by someone who is used to listening to the speaker hardly anything of what is said can be understood.
Very poor 0.0 – 3.5 Even the listener make a listener make a great effort interrupts, the speaker is unable to clarify anything he seems to have said.
(Heaton,1988:100)
Table 3.5 : The assessment of self confidence
Classification Score Criteria
Excellent 9.6 – 10 Easy to the listener to understand the speaker‟s intention and general meaning. Very few interruption or clarification required.
Very good 8.6 – 9.5 The speaker‟s intention and general meaning are fair clear. A few interruption by the listener for the sake of clarification are necessary Good 7.6 – 8.5 Most of what the speaker says is
easy to follow. His attention is always clear but several
interruptions are necessary to help him to convey the message or seek clarification..
Fairly good 6.6 – 7.5 The listener can understand a lot of what is said, but he must constantly clarification. Cannot understand and then with considerable effort by someone who is used to listening to the speaker.
Fair 5.6 – 6.5 The listener can understand a little bit of what is said, but he must constantly clarification. Cannot understand and then with
considerable effort by someone who is used to listening to the speaker Poor 3.6 – 5.5 Only small bits (usually short
sentence and phrase) can be understood and then with
considerable effort by someone who is used to listening to the speaker hardly anything of what is said can be understood.
Very poor 0.0 – 3.5 Even the listener make a listener make a great effort interrupts, the speaker is unable to clarify anything he seems to have said.
(Heaton,1988:100)
Technique of Data Analysis
In assessing the students‟ progression during learning speaking material through Think-Pair-Share Method, the researcher used speaking assessment of speaking accuracy. The assessment divided in two categories; they were the assessment of students‟ accuracy and fluency in speaking. Each assessment has different criteria.
These assessment consider being very important in speaking skill due to quite complex with other skills. The data on the students‟ speaking abilty in terms of accuracy and fluency were analyzed in the following procedures:
1. To find out the mean score of the students‟ test, the researcher used the formula :
∑
Notation: = Mean score ∑ Total score
= The number of students
( Gay, 1981:289).
2. To classify the students‟ score, there were seven classifications which were used as follows:
Table 3.6 The Classification of students score
Classification Score
Excellent 9.6 – 10
Very good 8.6 – 9.5
Good 7.6 – 8.5
Fairly good 6.6 – 7.5
Fair 5.6 – 6.5
Poor 4.6 – 5.5
Very poor 0.0 – 4.5
(Depdikbud in Hamka, 2011:25)
3. To calculate the percentage of the students‟ score, the formula which was used as follows:
Notation :
P = Rate Percentage F = Frequency
N = The total number of students
(Sudjana in Hamka, 2011:26)
4. To calculate the percentage of the students‟ activeness in learning process the formula which was used as follows:
Notation :
P = Rate Percentage Fq = Frequency
N =Total sample (Sudjana in Hamka, 2011:26)
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter consists of findings of the research and its discussion. The findings of the research presents the result of the students‟ improvement in speaking ability that covers the students‟ speaking accuracy and the students‟ speaking fluency toward the application of Think Pair Share Method, and the discussion of the research covers further explanation of the findings.
A. Findings
1. The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Accuracy
The Think-Pair-Share Method improved the students‟ speaking ability that covered speaking accuracy dealing with vocabulary and grammar at the Eight grade students of SMP Pesantren Guppi Samata. The result of the improvement that the use of Think-Pair-Share method in teaching learning process is able to improve students‟
speaking accuracy after D-test, action in cycle 1 and cycle II. To see clearly the improvement of the students speaking accuracy can be seen in the following table:
Table 4.1: The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Accuracy
Indicators D - Test Cycle I Cycle II
Improvement (%) DT - CI
CI – CII
Vocabulary 6.53 6.85 7.97 0.32 1.12
Grammar 5.81 6.59 7.73 0.78 1.14
∑ 12.34 13.44 15.70 1.10 2.26
42
X 6.17 6.72 7.85 0.55 1.13
The table above shows that the Think-Pair-Share Method improved the students‟ speaking accuracy from the test cycle I to cycle II. In which cycle II is the highest between cycles I. The table above indicated that the mean score of D-test was 6.17, categorized fairly good. The mean score of the students‟ speaking accuracy in cycle II was 7.85, catogrized good, highest between cycle I where the mean score of the students was 6.72, catogrized fairly good. It indicates that the improvement of the students‟ speaking accuracy from cycle I to Cycle II was 1.13.
The use of Think-Pair-Share method in teaching learning process is able to improve the students‟ speaking accuracy after action in cycle I and cycle II in which the students‟ result in cycle II was the highest (Cycle II>Cycle I) and the improvement of students‟ speaking accuracy from cycle I to cycle II is 1.13.
To see clearly the improvement of the students‟ speaking accuracy, look at the following figure:
Figure 4.1: The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Accuracy The figure above indicated that the mean score of D-test was 6.17, categorized fairly good. Then, the mean score of the students‟ speaking accuracy in the cycle I was 6.72, categorized fairly good fewer than cycle II that was 7.85, categorized good and after evaluation in the cycle II the improvement of the students‟
speaking accuracy is 1.13 from test cycle 1 to cycle II (6.72<7.85). Therefore, the application of think pair share method improves the students‟ speaking accuracy, and the improvement is significant (fairly good good).
2. The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Fluency
The improvement of the students‟ speaking fluency through Think Pair Share Method dealing with smoothness and self-confidence by using test at The Eight Grade of SMP Pesantren Guppi Samata. The result of the improvement that the use of
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5
6.17 6.72 7.85
The Improvement of The Students' Speaking Accuracy
Diagnostic Test Cycle I Cycle II
Think-Pair-Share Method in teaching learning process is able to improve students‟
speaking fluency after D-test, action in cycle 1 and cycle II. To see clearly the improvement of the students speaking fluency can be seen in the following table:
Table 4.2: The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Fluency
Indicators D - Test Cycle I Cycle II
Improvement (%) DT - CI
CI - CII
Smoothnes 5.90 7.10 8.22 1.20 1.12
Self-
Confidence
6.10 6.62 8.54 0.52 1.92
∑ 12.00 13.72 16.76 1.72 3.04
X 6.00 6.86 8.38 0.86 1.52
The table above shows that Think-Pair-Share Method also improved the speaking fluency of the students from test cycle I to cycle II In which cycle II was highest than cycle I. The mean of D-test was 6.00, categorized fair. The mean score of the students‟ speaking fluency in cycle II was 8.38, categorized good, higher than cycle I where the mean score of the students was 6.86, categorized fairly good in cycle I of speaking fluency. It indicates that the improvement of the students‟
speaking fluency in cycle I to cycle II, the improvement in cycle I to cycle II was 1.52. It indicates that it improved significantly through Think-Pair Share Method.
To see clearly the improvement of the students‟ speaking fluency, look at the following figure:
Figure 4.2 : The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Fluency The figure above shows that the mean of the D-test was 6.00, categorized fair.
Then, the students‟ speaking fluency in the cycle I was 6.86, categorized fairly good fewer than cycle II that was 8.38, categorized good and after evaluation in the cycle II the improvement of the students‟ speaking fluency is (6.86<8.38). Therefore, the use of Think-Pair-Share Method improves the students‟ speaking fluency, and the improvement is significant (fairly good good).
3. The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Ability
The Think-Pair-Share Method imrpoved the students‟ speaking ability that covered speaking accuracy and fluency at The Eight Grade of SMP Pesantren Guppi Samata. The result of the improvement that the use of think pair share method in teaching learning process is able to improve students‟ speaking ability after D-test,
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5
6 6.86 7.85
The Improvement of The Students' Speaking Fluency
Diagnostic Test Cycle I Cycle II
action in cycle 1 and cycle II. To see clearly the improvement of the students speaking ability can be seen in the following table:
Table 4.3: The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking ability
Indicators D – Test Cycle I Cycle II
Improvement (%) DT - CI
CI - CII
Accuracy 6.17 6.72 7.85 0.55 1.13
Fluency 6.00 6.86 8.38 0.86 1.52
∑ 12.17 13.58 16.23 1.41 2.38
X 6.08 6.79 8.11 0.71 1.19
The table above shows that Think-Pair-Share Method improved the students‟
speaking ability from the test cycle I to cycle II In which cycle II was highest than cycle I. The mean score of D-test was 6.08, categorized fair. Then, the mean score of the students‟ speaking ability in cycle II was 8.11, categorized good, highest than cycle I where the mean score of the students was 6.79, categorized fairly good of speaking ability. It indicates that the improvement of the students‟ speaking ability in cycle I to cycle II was 1.19. It indicates that it improves significantly through Think- Pair-Share Method.
The table above shows that the use of Think-Pair-Share Method in teaching learning process is able to improve the students‟ speaking ability after action in cycle I and cycle II in which the students‟ improvement in cycle II is the highest (Cycle II>Cycle I).
To see clearly the improvement of the students‟ speaking accuracy, look at the following figure :
Figure 4.3 The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Ability The figure above shows that the mean score of D-test was 6.08, categorized fair. Then, the students‟ speaking ability in cycle I was 6.79, categorized fairly good fewer than cycle II was 8.11, categorized good and after evaluation in the cycle II the improvement of the students‟ speaking ability was 1.19 from cycle I (6.79<8.11).
Therefore, the use of Think-Pair-Share Method improved the students‟ speaking ability, and the improvement is significant (fairly good good).
4. The Improvement of the Students’ Activeness in Teaching Learning Process
The Think-Pair-Share Method improved the students‟ activeness in teaching learning process at The Eight Grade of SMP Pesantren Guppi Samata. The result of
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5
6.08 6.79
8.36
The Improvement of The Students' Speaking Ability
Diagnostic Test Cycle I Cycle II
the improvement that the use of Think-Pair-Share Method in teaching learning process is able to improve students‟ activeness in teaching learning process after action in cycle 1 and cycle II. To see clearly the improvement of the students activeness in teaching learning process can be seen in the following table:
Table 4.4: The Observation Result of the Students’ Activeness in Teaching and Learning Process.
Cycles Activeness
1st Meeting (%)
2sd Meeting (%)
3th Meeting (%)
4th Meeting (%)
Cycle I 54.80 60.57 64.42 72.22
Cycle II 76.04 79.16 86.11 89.81
The table above shows that the result of students‟ observation in learning process through think pair share method in every meeting in cycle I to cycle II got improved. It was proved by the percentage of students‟ activeness were getting higher in every meeting in both cycle I and cycle II. In the first meeting of cycle I the students activeness was 54.80% and in the first meeting of cycle II 76.04%. In the second meeting of both the cycle I and II the students‟ activeness were 60.57% and 79.16%. It indicated that the students more actively participate in the second meeting of cycle II than cycle I. In the third meeting of cycle II the students also more actively participate than in the third meeting of cycle I. In the cycle I the students‟ activeness was 64.42% and in the second cycle was 86.11%. Then, in the fourth meeting of
cycle I and cycle II also shows a significant improvement where the activeness in the cycle I was 72.22% and 89.81% in the cycle II.
To know the improvement clearly, look at the following figure:
Figure 4.4: The students’ activeness in learning speaking.
Based on the figure above, shows the students‟ observation in learning speaking by using Think-Pair-Share Method at The Eight Grade of SMP Pesantren Guppi Samata . In figure above, presents the students‟ situation during teaching learning process in speaking from cycle I to the cycle II. From the graphic it is known that there is changing of students‟ situation learning from cycle I to cycle II. The students‟ participation in learning speaking is fair within the mean score 63.00% and the changed to be 82.78%. From that, the improvement of the students‟ activity from cycle I to cycle II is 19.78 %.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
1 2 3 4 5
63
82.78
The Students' Activeness in Learning Speaking
#REF! Cycle I Cycle II
B. Discussion
In this part, discussion deals with the interpretation of findings derive from the result of findings about the observation result of the students‟ speaking ability in terms of accuracy dealing with grammar and vocabulary and fluency dealing with smoothness and self-confidence toward the application of Think-Pair-Share Method.
1. The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Accuracy Dealing With Vocabulary and Grammar.
a. Vocabulary
The Think-Pair-Share Method improved the students‟ speaking accuracy in terms of vocabulary can be seen the difference by considering the result of the students‟ improvement after D-test, taking action in cycle I and cycle II through the application Think-Pair-Share Method in teaching learning process.
The improvement of the students‟ speaking vocabulary through Think Pair Share Method had effective method. After using the method, the researcher found that the students‟ score in cycle I is 6.85 % and in the cycle II became 7.97 %.
During the teaching and learning process in cycle I, the researcher finds that the students are difficult to speak in a correct vocabulary it caused by their language still influence by mother tongue and most of them do not have vocabulary stock for delivering their ideas. To solve this problem the researcher
has done cycle II and revise the previous lesson plan, give them deep explanation and repeated the word still they can get it.
From the explanation above the researcher analyzes that the think pair share method can improve students‟ speaking vocabulary where the students mean score in cycle II higher than cycle I. The scores are acquired from the presentation of data analysis, and the improvement is presented in higher number of the students to show that the improvement is significant such as: In the test cycle I where 6 students (22.22%) was fair, 20 students (74.07%) was fairly good and 1 students (3.70%) was good (table 7). In cycle II, it improves again where 20 students (74.07%) was good and 3 students (11.11%) was very good (table 4.5).
These score percentage above indicated that the use of Think-Pair- Share Method can improve the students‟ speaking accuracy in term of vocabulary. The vocabulary that students use when they are speaking is more varieties after giving action I and action II than before giving the action where the students‟ vocabulary when they are speaking was very limit. Based on the explanation above can be seen that the students speaking accuracy dealing with vocabulary improved significantly.
b. Grammar
The Think-Pair-Share Method improved the students‟ speaking ability in terms of grammar can be seen the difference by considering the result