CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
A. Research Design
This research was called as experimental research. The researcher used one-group pretest-posttest design as one of pre-experimental design. There were pre-test, treatment and post-test. It investigated the effectiveness of using Elicitation technique in teaching speaking skill.
The researcher used pre-test, treatment and post-test to find the effectiveness of Elicitation Technique in teaching speaking skill.
Where:
O1: Pre-Test X: Treatment O2: Post-Test 1. Pre-Test
Pre-test was the starting point before doing the treatment. Pre-Test was useful to find out the students prior knowledge. The test used to find out the students capacity in speaking English.
O1 X O2
21
2. Treatment
Treatment was the important process to improve students’speaking ability. Treatment conducted in sixth meetings. The treatments were as follows:
1. Elicit inform: teacher did elicit inform in every meeting to find the students prior knowledge about material that will be given. Teacher also used this kind of elicitation to know the students activities before going to class. The aims to maintain good relationship with students.
2. Elicit confirm: teacher mostly did elicit confirm after giving the instruction to students about the activities that will be done. The aims to know that every student already understand about the instruction.
3. Elicit agree: teacher mostly did elicit agree during the explanation about the materials to keep the students attention, to know the students understanding and if all the students listening to the explanation.
4. Elicit commit: teacher mostly did elicit commit to deal the rules in the classroom. The aims to keep the classroom in control situation.
5. Elicit repeat: teacher mostly did the elicit repeat at the time students performed their dialogue in front of the class or at the time teacher introduced how to pronounce the vocabularies. The aims to make sure students pronounce every word correctly.
6. Elicit clarify: teacher mostly did elicit clarify during the discussion session. The aims to get more information and responses from each group.
3. Post-Test
After four times treatment, the researcher gave post-test to find out the students’progress in speaking skill.
B. Research Variables and Indicators 1. Variables
There were two variables in this research; those were independent variable and dependent variable. Independent variable was variable that gave effect to another variable. The variables were as follows:
1. Independent variable was the Elicitation Technique; the important process to improvethe students’ speaking ability.
2. Dependent variable wasthe students’ achievement in speaking ability.
2. Indicators
The indicatorof the students’ speaking achievement was accuracy.
In accuracy, the researcher found the effectiveness of Elicitation Technique in improving the students’ grammar and vocabulary achievement.
C. Research Hypothesis
There were two hypotheses in this research. They were H0 (Null Hypothesis) and H1 (Alternative Hypothesis).
1. H0 (Null Hypothesis): There was no significant between the students’
speaking ability in their accuracy after implementing Elicitation Technique as the treatment.
2. H1 (Alternative Hypothesis): There were some significant between the students’ speaking ability in their accuracy after implementing Elicitation Technique as the treatment.
D. Population and Sample 1. Population
This research conducted in SMA NEGERI 1 TINGGIMONCONG for the students in the academic year 2014. There were 500 students in the school which is divided into 18 classes. The second grade consisted of three IPA classes. There were IPA 1, IPA 2 and IPA 3. IPA 1 consisted of 30 students: 13 males and 17 females. IPA 2 consisted of 31 students: 10 males and 21 females. IPA 3 consisted of 30 students: 12 males and 18 females.
2. Sample
The researcher used Simple Random Sampling in Lottery way to determine the sample. The researcher did lottery for all IPA classes to determine the sample. The sample was IPA 2 which consisted of 31 students.
E. Research Instrument
In this research, the researcher used only one instrument. That was speaking test. It aimed to find out the effectiveness of Elicitation Technique in improving students’ grammar and vocabulary achievement.
F. Data Collection
The researcher got the data collection by doing speaking tests to the students. There was a pre-test to know the students’ speaking competence before doing the treatment. In pre-test, students did a conversation in front of the class in pair based on the situation was given. The researcher recorded student’s performance. After that, there was treatment. Finally, there was post-test to know the effectiveness of Elicitation Technique in improving the students’ speaking ability. In post-test, students did a conversation in front of the class in pair based on the situation was given. The researcher recorded student’s performance and then transcribed it. After that, the data was analyzed to get the students score in speaking.
G. Data Analysis
The data was collected through speaking test and analyzed quantitative. It employed inferential statistic using the steps undertaken as follows:
1. There were some components that researcher concerns to know the students’ speaking score. The students score determined by using the following tables:
a. The Assessment of Vocabulary
Table 3.1 The Assessment of Vocabulary
Classification Score Criteria
Excellent 6
Speak without too great an effort with a fairly wide range of expression. Searches for words occasionally but only one or two unnatural pauses.
Very Good 5
Has to make an effort at time to search for words. Nevertheless, smooth delivery on the whole and only a few unnatural.
Good 4
Although he has to 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.
Average 3
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 2
Long pauses 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 1
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)
b. The Assessment of Grammar
Table 3.2 The Assessment of Grammar
Classification Score Criteria
Excellent 6 Two or three minor grammatical and lexical errors.
Very Good 5 A few minor grammatical and lexical errors, but most utterances are correct.
Good 4 A few grammatical and lexical errors, but only are causing confusion.
Average 3 Several grammatical and lexical errors, some of which cause confusion.
Poor 2 Many grammatical and lexical errors.
Very Poor 1
No evidence of having mastered any of the language performances and areas practiced in the course.
(Heaton, 1988: 100)
2. Classified the students’ score into seven levels, which falled into seven classifications:
Table 3.3 Classification ofthe students’ score
No. Classification Score
1 Excellent 9,6–10
2 Very Good 8,6–9,5
3 Good 7,6–8,5
4 Fairly Good 6,6–7,5
5 Fair 5,6–6,5
6 Poor 3,6–5,5
7 Very Poor 0,0–3,5
(Layman, 1972:216).
3. Calculated the mean score by using the following formula:
= ∑ Where: X = Mean score
∑x = The sum of all score N = The number of students
(Gay, et.al. 1987: 320)
4. Analized the effectiveness of Elicitation Technique, the researcher used T- Test in following formula:
= d
∑ (∑ )
( )
Notation: = the mean of difference score
∑ = the sum of difference score
= the total number of sample
= test of the significance
(Gay, et. al. 1987: 355)
5. Analized the effectiveness of Elicitation Technique, T-Test has to be compared to T-Table. Here was the T-Table:
Table 3.4 Distribution of t–table Df
Level of Significance for two-tailed test
0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
Level of Significance for one-tailed test
0.25 0.1 0 0.025 0.01 0.005
1 1.000 3.078 6.314 12.706 31,821 63.657
2 0.816 1.886 2.920 4.303 6.965 9.926
3 0.765 1.638 2.353 3.183 4.541 5.841
4 0.741 1.533 2.132 2.776 3.747 4.604
5 0.727 1.476 2.015 2.571 3.365 4.032
6 0.718 1.440 1.943 2.447 2.143 3.707
7 0.711 1.451 1.895 2.365 2.998 3.499
8 0.706 1.397 1.860 2.306 2.896 3.355
9 0. 703 1.383 1.833 2.262 2.821 3.250
10 0.700 1.372 1.812 2.226 2.764 3.169
11 0.697 1.363 1.769 2.201 2.718 3.106
12 0.695 1.356 1.782 2.179 2.681 3.055
13 0.694 1.350 1.771 2.160 2.650 3.120
14 0.692 1.345 1.761 2.143 2.624 2.977
15 0.691 1.341 1.753 2.331 2.604 2.947
16 0.690 1.337 1.746 2.120 2.583 2.921
17 0.689 1.333 1.740 2.110 2.567 2.898
18 0.688 1.330 1.734 2.101 2.552 2.878
19 0.688 1.328 1.729 2.093 2.539 2.861
20 0.687 1.325 1.725 2.086 2.528 2.845
21 0.686 1.323 1.721 2.080 2.518 2.831
22 0.686 1.321 1.717 2.074 2.505 2.819
23 0.685 1.319 1.714 2.690 2.500 2.807
24 0.685 1.318 1.711 2.640 2.492 2.797
25 0.684 1.316 1.708 2.060 2.485 2.787
26 0.684 1.315 1.706 2.056 2.479 2.779
27 0.684 1.314 1.703 2.052 2.473 2.771
28 0.683 1.313 1.701 2.048 2.467 2.763
29 0.683 1.311 1.699 2.045 2.462 2.756
30 0.683 1.310 1.697 2.042 2.457 2.750
40 0.681 1.303 1.684 2.021 2.423 2.704
60 0.679 1.296 1.671 2.000 2.390 2.660
120 0.677 1.289 1.658 2.890 2.358 2.617
0.674 1.282 1.645 1.960 2.326 2.576
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter consists of two sections, namely the findings of the research and discussion. The findings of the research were presented as data description and in the discussion section there were further explanations of the findings.
A. Findings
1. The Effectiveness of Elicitation Technique toward the Students’ Speaking Achievement in Terms of Accuracy (Vocabulary)
The findings will presents the result of pre-test and post-test, the comparison between the significance value t-test and t-table, and percentage the development of the students’ speaking ability in terms of accuracy (vocabulary) by using Elicitation Technique. The data will be shown in the table and diagram or graphic.
a. The Effectiveness of Elicitation Technique toward the Students’ Speaking Ability in Terms of Accuracy (Vocabulary).
Table 4.1 Mean Score of Pre-Test and Post-Test in Term of Accuracy (Vocabulary).
Variable Pre Test (X1) Post Test (X2) % Vocabulary in
Speaking 7.25 7.87 8.55%
31
The table above describes that the development of the students in speaking rises up 0.62 points or 8.55%. The result of post-test can be classified as good.
The score has risen up through the use of Elicitation Technique.
This table indicates that there is a development of the students’ speaking ability term of accuracy (vocabulary). The following diagram will show the development of the students clearer:
Graph 4.1 Mean Score of the Students’ Pre-Test and Post-Test
The diagram above shows that post-test is higher than pre-test. It indicates that there is development of the students’ speaking skill in term of accuracy (vovabulary). The students’ speaking ability about the accuracy (vocabulary) has been risen up.
The development above is also followed by the significance of the students’ speaking ability in terms of accuracy (vocabulary). After calculating through the t-test and comparing with t-table. Obviously, there is a significant develop of the students’ speaking ability in terms of accuracy (vocabulary). The table will present the data:
6,8 7 7,2 7,4 7,6 7,8 8 8,2
Pre-test Post-test
b. The Significant Development of the Students’ Speaking Ability in Terms of Accuracy (Vocabulary) by Using Elicitation Techniquue.
Table 4.2 T-Test and T-Table Value in Speaking Test.
Variable t-test t-table Comparison Classification Speaking Test 15 2.042 t-test > t-table Significant
The table above presents that there is a significant development of the students’ speaking ability after being treated by using Elicitation Technique. This conclusion is taken after calculating t-test and comparing with t-table to determine whether it is significant or not. T-table value can be determined by finding the degree of freedom (d.f). degree of freedom (d.f) is found through the formula (N- 1) = (31-1) = 30. So, that, the d.f = 30 and signifiicat level (p) = 0.05. Therefore, we can determine the value of t-table used is 2.042 and the result is the value of t- test (15) is greater than value of t-table (2.042). The researcher concludes that there is a significant different of the students’ speaking ability in terms of accuracy (vocabulary) by using Elicitation Technique.
2. The Effectiveness of Elicitation Technique toward the Students’ Speaking Achievement in Terms of Accuracy (Grammar)
This findings will presents the result of the pre-test and post-test, the comparison between the significance value t-test and t-table, and percentage the development of the students’ speaking ability in terms of accuracy (grammar) by using Elicitation Technique. The data will be shown in the table and diagram or graphic.
a. The Effectiveness of Elicitation Technique toward the Students’ Speaking Achievement in Terms of Accuracy (Grammar)
Table 4.3 Mean Score of Pre-Test and Post-Test in Term of Accuracy (Grammar).
Variable Pre Test (X1) Post Test (X2) % Grammar in
Speaking 6.69 7.63 14.05%
The table above describes that the development of the students in speaking rises up 0.94 points or 14.05%. This development is high enough. The result of post-test can be classified as good. it has risen up the score to one upper level, from fairly good level to the good level through the use of Elicitation Technique.
This table indicates that there is a development of the students’ speaking ability term of accuracy (grammar). The following diagram will show the development of the students clearer:
Graph 4.2 Mean Score of the Students’ Pre-Test and Post-Test in Terms of Accuracy (Grammar)
6,5 6,6 6,7 6,8 6,9 7 7,1
Pre-test Post-test
The diagram above shows that post-test is higher than pre-test. It indicates that there is a highly enough development of the students’ speaking skill in term of accuracy (grammar). The students’ speaking ability about the accuracy (grammar) has been risen up.
The development above is also followed by the significance of the students’ speaking ability in terms of accuracy (grammar). After calculating through the t-test and comparing with t-table. Obviously, there is a significant develop of the students’ speaking ability in terms of accuracy (grammar). The table will present the data:
c. The Significant Development of the Students’ Speaking Ability in Terms of Accuracy (Grammar) by Using Elicitation Technique.
Table 4.4 T-Test and T-Table Value in Speaking Test (Grammar) Variable t-test t-table Comparison Classification Speaking Test 10.142 2.042 t-test > t-table Significant
The table above presents that there is a significant development of the students’ speaking ability after being treated by using Elicitation Technique. This conclusion is taken after calculating t-test and comparing with t-table to determine whether it is significant or not. T-table value can be determined by finding the degree of freedom (d.f). degree of freedom (d.f) is found through the formula (N- 1) = (31-1) = 30. So, that, the d.f = 30 and signifiicat level (p) = 0.05. Therefore, we can determine the value of t-table used is 2.042 and the result is the value of t- test (10.142) is greater than value of t-table (2.042). The researcher concludes that
there is a significant different of the students’ speaking ability in terms of accuracy (grammar) by using Elicitation Technique.
B. Discussion
1. The Effectiveness of Elicitation Technique toward the Students’
Speaking Achievement in Terms of Accuracy (Vocabulary)
Based on the data analysis from the students’ pre-test and post-test in speaking ability in terms of accuracy (vocabulary), there was development after treatment. In the pre-test, from 31 students only 8 (25.806%) students got the good score, 17 (54.838%) students got the fairly good score, 4 (12.903%) students got the fair score and 2 (6.451%) got poor. None of them got the excellent, very good and very poor score.
In pre-test, the students mostly needed more time to think about what they were going to say. Some of them were doing repetition. Sometimes they repeated the words twice or three times to finish their statement. A few students combined English and Bahasa to finish their statements. Then, very few students spent more time to speak and sometimes the researcher did not understand with their statements. Perhaps they knew the word that they were going to say but they were confuse about how to say the words in correct pronunciation so they were feeling afraid.
After implementing Elicitation Technique, the students vocabulary achievement was significantly improved. The researcher Elicit the students in various ways to find the vocabularies that students did not know. Then researcher
wrote on the board for the students. After that, researcher taught the students the way to pronounce the words and also the meaning.
In the post-test, the students’ score was significantly improved. It was proved by the fact that there were 8 (25.806%) students got the very good score, 13 (41.935%) students got the good score, 9 (29.032%) got fairly good score and 1 (3.225%) students got the fair score. None of them got the excellent, poor and very poor score.
The students speaking ability in the post-test were significantly improved.
Mostly students spoke fluenly eventhough sometimes they made repetition. Very few students were still doing repetition about the words that they were going to say.
Based on the data, we can see that rate percentage of the post-test is higher than the pre-test. It means that the students’ speaking ability in terms of accuracy (vocabulary) was significantly increased.
Based on the students’ mean score in the pre-test and post-test in terms of accuracy (vocabulary), the researcher saw that they were significantly different.
The mean score of students’ pre-test was 7.25 and post-test was 7.87. And then, the result of the t-test indicates that the t-test value 15 was higher than the t-table 2.042.
Hypothesis text if the t-test value was greater than the t-value at the level significance 0.05 and degree of freedom 31, then the alternative hypothesis (H1) is accepted and null hypothesis (H0) is rejected. If the t-test value is lower than t-
table at the level of significance 0.05 and degree freedom 31, then the alternative hypothesis would be rejected.
2. The Effectiveness of Elicitation Technique toward the Students’
Speaking Achievement in Terms of Accuracy (Grammar)
Based on the data analysis from the students’ pre-test and post-test in speaking ability in terms of accuracy (grammar), there was improvement after the treatment. In the pre-test, from 31 students 2 (6.451%) students got the good score, 21 (67.741%) students got the fairly good score, 5 (16.129%) students got the fair score and 3 (9.677%) students got poor score. None of them got the excellent, very good and very poor score.
In pre-test, mostly students did not know how to ask questions grammatically and how to answer the questions. Mostly students answer the question with really simple answers. Some of them repeated their statement to think about the right statement arrangament. Then, some other students spent long time to arrange to their statements.
The implementation of Elicitation Technique was really helpful the students to improve their grammar knowledge. By giving various questions, researcher found that in teaching grammar sometimes teacher must using local language to make sure that every single students understand about the material.
In the post-test, the students’ score was significantly increased. It was proved by the fact that there were 1 (3.225%) students got the very good score, 11 (35.483%) students got the good score, 14 (45.161%) students got fairly good score, 4 (12.903%) students got fair sore and 1 (3.225%) students got the poor
score. None of them got the excellent and very poor score. Based on the data above, we can see that rate percentage of the post-test is higher than the pre-test. It means that the students’ speaking ability in terms of accuracy (grammar) was significantly improved.
After implementing Elicitation Technique as the treatment, the students ability in speaking accuracy (grammar) was improved significantly. Most of the students spoke fluent with only few mistake in making correct grammatical statements. Very few of them needed long time and repetition to make correct grammatical statements.
Basedon the students’ mean score in the pre-test and post-test in terms of accuracy (grammar), the researcher saw that they were significantly different. The mean score of students’ pre-test is 6.69 and post-test is 7.63. And then, the result of the t-test indicates that the t-test value 10.142 is higher than the t-table 2.042.
These datas shows that using Elicitation Technique to improve the students’
speaking ability effective.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
This chapter consists of two parts. The first part deals with the conclusion of the finding, and the second part deals with suggestion.
A. Conclusion
Based on the findings and discussion, the researcher concludes that:
1. The students’ speaking ability in terms of accuracy (vocabulary) of SMA Negeri 1 Tinggimoncong in academic year 2015/2016 is good before using Elicitation Technique. It is process by the mean score of the pre-test (7.25) then developed after treatment by using Elicitation Technique. Mean score of post-test (7.87), it means that the speaking ability at the second year students of SMA Negeri 1 Tinggimoncong developed about 8.55% after applying Elicitation Technique. While for the students’speaking ability in terms of accuracy (grammar) of SMA Negeri 1 Tinggimoncong in academic year 2014/2015 is fair before using Elicitation Technique. It is process by the mean score of the pre-test (6.69) then developed after treatment by using Elicitation Technique. Mean score of post-test (7.63), It means that the speaking ability at the second year students of SMA Negeri 1 Tinggimoncong developed about 14.05% after applying Elicitation Technique.
2. Using Elicitation Technique has significant role to develop speaking ability at the second year students of SMA Negeri 1 Tinggimoncong. It is
40