The population of this research was 10th Grade students of SMA Negeri 4 Luwu Timur, which consist of 6 classes, 3 class of Science and 2 class of Social and 1 class of language class. Each class consist of 23 students so the total was 138 students.
b. Sample
The Sample of this research was class X of SMA Negeri 4 Luwu Timur the sample was chose by used purposive technique sampling. Total of the sample was 16 students from science class. The researcher chosed this class based on suggestion from the teacher when the researcher did observation in school.
D. Instrument of the Research
There were two kinds research instrument in this research namely tests were pre- test and post-test. The pre-test and post-test were conducted generate scores were to find out whether or not, interested approach method applied to student. The pre-test
conducted before treatment, in order to measure students ability of speaking. On the contrary, the post-test conducted after the treatment, in order to knew whether or not there was a changed on students in speaking skill.
E. Data Collection Method
The data collection in this research was Quantitative research. Quantitative research was research that used numbers in the calculation processed and identification of research results. The reason why researcher used quantitative research because with this type of data, researcher could used statistic to generalized a finding and looked at relationship between variables and could establish cause and effected in highly controlled circumstances.
The researcher collected the Pre-test and Post-test data to got the final result of the research. Pre-test applied to got the first achievement of the students before treatment, and the post-test applied to got the student‟s achievement after treatment.
In treatment, the researcher observed the learning processed when applied the strategy whether the students had good attitude or not toward the treatment.
F. Technique of Data Analysis
The data was collected through quantitative analysis. The steps were taken as follows:
1. To find out the students means score, the researcher applied the following formula:
̅=
Where:
X : Mean score
: The raw of the of all score N : The number of objects
(Gay, 2006)
2. To calculate the percentage of the students score, the formula which used as follows:
XI-X2
P = x 100 % X1
Where: P = percentage
X1 = the mean score of pre-test X2 = the mean score of post-test
(Gay, 2006)
3. After collected the data of the students, the researcher used rubric to classify students answer:
Table 3.2 Rubric The Assessment of Grammar (Accuracy)
No Criteria Score
1 The errors present in speech are so minor so that the message would be easily comprehended
5
2 The speech is still understood although it consists of many errors
4 3 The errors present in speech would frequently create
confusion
3
4 The serious errors present in speech makes the message difficult to understand.
2
5 The student makes many grammatical errors which makes the message non comprehensible.
1
(Brown, 2010) Table 3.3: Rubric The Assessment of Smoothness (Fluency)
No Criteria Score
1 Speaking fluently. 5
2 Speaking generally at normal speed. 4
3 Speaking too slowly 3
4 Speaking with many pauses 2
5 Speech is slow, hesitant and strained except for short memorized phrases; difficult to perceive continuity in speech;
inaudible
1
(Brown, 2010)
4. After collected the data of the students, we classified the score of the students‟
into the following criteria
a. The assessment of speaking accuracy consisted into grammar
Table 3.4 The classification students’ score the assessment of Grammar
Classification Score Criteria
Excellent 96 – 100 Few (if any) obvious grammatical or word order errors
Very Good 86 – 95 Some minor grammatical and vocabulary errors, but most of the words are correct Good 76 – 85 There are few obvious grammatical and word
order errors
Fairly Good 66 – 75 Occasionally there will be grammatically wrong words, although the meaning is vague Fair 56 – 65 Often make mistakes in grammar and word
order, sometimes ambiguous
Poor 36 – 55 Grammar and word order errors make understanding difficult. Must often rewrite the sentence or limit it to the basic mode Very Poor 0 – 35 Grammar and word order errors are so severe
that the speech is almost incomprehensible Arikunto (2009 : 298)
b. The assessment of speaking fluency consisted into smoothness
Table 3.5: The classification students’ score the assessment of Smoothness
Classification Score Criteria
Excellent 96 – 100 The speech is smooth and effortless, just like a mother tongue problem
Very Good 86 – 95 The use of language problems seems to have a slight impact on speech speed
Good 76 – 85 Speed and fluency are greatly affected by language problems
Fairly Good 66 – 75 Often hesitant, often forced to silence due to language problems
Fair 56 – 65 Speech is intermittent, making conversation almost impossible
Poor 36 – 55 Sometimes almost give up effort and have limited scope of expression
Very Poor 0 – 35 Inability to speak and talk is almost impossible Arikunto (2009 : 298)
5. To know the significant difference between the score of the pre-test and post- test, the researcher calculated the value of the test by used the following formula:
̅
√ ( ) ( )
Note:
t : Test of significant difference
D : The mean of the differences between the post-test ΣD2 : Sum of the squares of the differences between the
the pre-test and post-test
(ΣD2) : The square of the differences between the pre-test and post-test
N : The total number of sample.
`1 : Constant Number
(Gay, 2006)
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter particularly presented the finding of the research which were presented as data description and discussion of the findings reveals argumented and further interpretation of the findings.
A. Findings
After conducted the research, the researcher obtained two kinds of data; the score of pre-test and the score of post-test. Pre-test was gave before the treatment and post-test was gave after the treatment. The results were presented as follows:
1. The Students Achievement in Speaking Skill by the Use of Practice Rehearsal Pairs Strategy
In analyzed the data, the achievement of students speaking skill used of Practice Rehearsal Pairs Strategy which was focused on Accuracy in terms of grammar and Fluency in terms of smoothness as indicators at SMA Negeri 4 Luwu Timur as result of the students assessment pre-test and post-test was described as follows:
34
Table 4.1: Table the improvement of students speaking skill in pre-test and post-test
Indicators
Mean Score Improvement
(%) Pre-Test Post-Test
Accuracy (Grammar)
56.88 68.75 20.86 %
Fluency (Smoothness)
73.75 80.00 8.47 %
Mean Score 65.31 74.38 13.87 %
The table above showed the students enhancement in speaking skill score as result of calculated of students pre-test and post-test at students speaking skill used Practice Rehearsal Pairs Strategy. Where the students score in pre- test in speaking Accuracy are 56.88 and post-test 68.75 it means that there was improvement between pre-test and post-test 20.86%. The students score in pre-test in speaking Fluency pre-test 73.75 and post-test are 80.00 therefore, the improvement 8.47 %.
The research findings from the table above, indicated that there was the progressed the students‟ score from pre-test to post-test after doing treatment used Practice Rehearsal Pairs Strategy. To saw clearly the progressed of the students‟
reading comprehension could be presented as the following chart.
The data above can also be shown in the figure below:
Figure 4.1. The Improvement of Students’ Speaking Skill
2. The Mean Score and Improvement of Students’ Speaking Accuracy In Terms of Grammar
The researcher used Practice Rehearsal Pairs Strategy in treatment to saw the improvement of students‟ speaking accuracy in terms of grammar and there was improvement in pre-test to post-test. It showed from mean score of the students in pre-test and post-test and also improvement percentage. It could saw in the table below:
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Accuracy Fluency
56.88
73.75 68.75
80
Pre-test Post-test
Table 4.2: The Mean Score and Improvement of Students’ Speaking Accuracy In Terms of Grammar
Indicator
Mean Score
Pre-test Post-test
1 Grammar 56.88 68.75
Improvement 20.86 %
The table 4.2 above showed that, the mean score in pre-test was lower than mean score of post-test. The mean score in pre-test was 56.88, it caused that most of students still used uncorrect grammar such as they used present tense when they wanted to express their idea in the past. It happened because they did not know to used past tense, they thought that they used past tense and also they did not know formula of tenses. After the researcher gave treatment by used Practice Rehearsal Pairs Strategy the score of the students‟ had improved. It showed in post-test which to be 68.75. The students‟ speaking was suitable, they could develop their idea based on the topic.
The result of pre-test and post-test had improvement which was 20.86 %.
The data showed that used Practice Rehearsal Pairs Strategy in speaking could improve students‟ speaking accuracy in term of grammar.
The data above can also be shown in the figure below:
Figure 4.2: The Improvement of Students’ Speaking Accuracy In Terms of Grammar
The graphic above showed, there was improvement of the students‟ in speaking accuracy in term of grammar from pre-test with the mean score was 56.88 to post- test with the mean score was 68.75. So, the improvement of pre-test to post-test was 20.86%.
56.88
68.75
20.86
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Pre-test Post-test Improvement
Pre-test
Post-test
The mean score and Improvement the students' speaking accuracy in term of grammar
Table 4.3: The Rate Frequency and Percentage of The Students’ Speaking Accuracy In Term of Grammar In Pre-test and Post-test.
Score Classification
Pre-test Post-test
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage 96 – 100 Excellent
0 0 0 0
86 – 95 Very Good
0 0 0 0
76 – 85 Good
0 0 7 43.75 %
66 – 75 Fairly Good
0 0 2 12.5 %
56 – 65 Fair
7 43.75 % 4 25 %
36 – 55 Poor
9 56.25 % 3 18.75 %
0 – 35 Very Poor
0 0 0 0
Total Score 16 100 % 16 100 %
The table 4.3 above showed that the Classification of the students‟ speaking accuracy in term of grammar in pre-test and post-test from 16 students‟. There were no one students‟ got excellent, very good, fairly good and very poor in pre-test, 7 students got score (fair) with percentage 43.75 %, 9 students got score (poor) with percentage 56.25 %.
And after the researcher gave treatment to the students‟ through Practice Rehearsal pairs Strategy the score of students‟ had improved. There were no one students‟ got excellent, very good, and very poor in post-test, 7 students‟ got score
(good) with percentage 43.75 %, 2 students‟ got score (fairly good) with percentage 12.5 %, 4 students‟ got score (fair) with percentage 25 %. The data showed that used Practice Rehearsal Pairs strategy improved the students‟ speaking accuracy in term of Grammar.
3. The Mean Score and Improvement of Students’ Speaking Fluency In Terms of Smoothness
Researcher also assessed students‟ smoothness in speaking skill. It was began pre-test to post-test after researcher gave pre-test and post-test, there was improvement of students speaking fluency in terms of smoothness. It was indicated by the significance difference between students‟ pre-test and post-test score. Beside that, researcher also had counted improvement percentage of students‟. It showed at the following table:
Table 4.4: The Mean Score and Improvement of Students’ Speaking Fluency In Terms of Smoothness
Indicator
Mean Score
Pre-test Post-test
1 Smoothness 73.75 80.00
Improvement 8.47 %
Table 4.4 showed that the mean score of the pre-test was 73.75 while the mean score of the post-test increased 80.00. The result of pre-test and post-test had improvement which was 8.47%. The data showed that used Practice
Rehearsal Pairs Strategy in speaking could improved students‟ speaking fluency in term of smoothness.
The data above can also be shown in the figure below:
Figure 4.4: The Improvement of Students’ Speaking Fluency In Terms of Smoothness
The graphic above showed, there was improvement of the students‟ in speaking fluency in term of smoothness from pre-test with the mean score was 73.75 to post- test with the mean score was 80.00. So, the improvement of pre-test to post-test was 8.47%.
73.75
80
8.47
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Pre-test Post-test Improvement
Pre-test
Post-test
The mean score and Improvement the
students' speaking Fluency in term of smoothness
Table 4.5: The Rate Frequency and Percentage of The Students’ Speaking Fluency In Term of Smoothness In Pre-test and Post-test.
Score Classification
Pre-test Post-test
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage 96 – 100 Excellent
0 0 0 0
86 – 95 Very Good
0 0 0 0
76 – 85 Good
11 68.75 % 16 100%
66 – 75 Fairly Good
0 0 0 0
56 – 65 Fair
5 31.25 % 0 0
36 – 55 Poor
0 0 0 0
0 – 35 Very Poor
0 0 0 0
Total Score 16 100% 16 100%
The table 4.5 above showed that the Classification of the students‟ speaking fluency in term of smoothness in pre-test and post-test from 16 students‟. There were no one students‟ got excellent, very good, fairly good, poor and very poor in pre-test, 11 students got score (good) with percentage 68.75%, 5 students got score (fair) with percentage 31.25%.
And after the researcher gave treatment to the students‟ through Practice Rehearsal pairs Strategy the score of students‟ had improved. There were no one students‟ got excellent, very good, fairly good, fair, poor, and very poor in post-test,
16 students‟ got score (good) with percentage 100%. The data showed that used Practice Rehearsal Pairs strategy improved the students‟ speaking fluency in term of smoothness.
Table 4.6 The Mean Score and Improvement of the Students’
Pre-test and Post-test in Speaking Skill
No Indicator
Mean Score
Pre-test Post-test
Grammar
65.31 74.37
Smoothness Percent
Improvement 13.87%
Table 4.6 showed that the mean score of the pre-test was 65.31 while the mean score of the post-test increased 74.37. The improvement of the students‟
mean score in pre-test and post-test was 13.87%.
The data above can also be shown in the figure below:
Figure 4.6: The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Skill
Figure 4.6 showed that the improvement of the students‟ speaking skill was significantly, as the result at this item was the mean score of the post-test was greater than the mean score in pre-test. It means that the used practice rehearsal pairs strategy could improved students‟ speaking skill.
65.31
74.37
13.87
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Pre-test Post-test Improvement
Pre-test
Post-test
The Improvement of the students' speaking skill
Table 4.7 The Rate Frequency and Percentage of Students’
Speaking Skill Score
Classification
Pre-test Post-test
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage 96 – 100 Excellent
0 0 0 0
86 – 95 Very Good
0 0 0 0
76 – 85 Good
0 0 7 43.75%
66 – 75 Fairly Good
5 68.75% 8 50%
56 – 65 Fair
0 0 1 6.25%
36 – 55 Poor
11 31.25% 0 0
0 – 35 Very Poor
0 0 0 0
Total Score 16 100 % 16 100 %
Table 4.7 above showed the rate frequency and percentage of score in pre-test and post-test from 16 students. This table shows 5 (68.75%) students were classified as fairly good, 11 (31.25%) students were classified as poor and none of the students got fair, excellent, very good, good, and very poor in pre-test. While post-test result show 7 (43.75%) students were classified as good, 8 (50%) students were classified as fairly good, 1 (6.25%) students were classified as fair and none of students got excellent, very good, poor and very poor.
Based on the result above, it could be concluded that the rate percentage in post- test was higher than the rate percentage in pre-test. None of the students got excellent and very good in both pre-test and post-test but the score increased significantly in post-test.
4. Test of Significance Testing and Hypothesis
To know the level of significance of pre-test and post-test, the researcher used t-test analysis on the level significance was (p) 0.05 with the degree of freedom (df) + N-1, where N= number of subject (16 students). Table 4.8 showed the result of t-test calculation of students‟ speaking skill.
Table 4.8 The Comparison of T-test and T-table Students’ Speaking Skill Score
Variable t-test t-table
Using Practice Rehearsal Pairs Strategy 6.52 2.331
Table 4.8 indicated that the values of the t-test were higher than the value of the t-table. It was indicated that there was a significant difference between the result of the students‟ pre-test and post-test by using Practice Rehearsal Pairs Strategy.
a. Hypothesis Testing
The researcher used t-test analysis for the level of significance (a) = 0.05 and the degree of freedom (df) = 16-1= 15. While the value of t-test is 6.52 and the value of t-table is 2.331, the table 4.6 showed that the result of t-test
(6.52) was higher than the value of t-table (2.331). It‟s mean the Null (H0) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted. Therefore, there was significanted difference between the students‟ speaking skill in learning used Practice Rehearsal Pairs Strategy.
B. Discussions
The major purpose of this research was to find out whether or not the use of practice rehearsal pairs strategy could improved students‟ speaking skill in terms of accuracy and fluency. The result of this research showed that the used of practice rehearsal pairs strategy improved students‟ speaking skill in terms of accuracy (grammar), and fluency (smoothness). There were possible explanations for the result found in this research.
1. The Improvement of the Student’s Speaking Skill in term of Grammar First, researchers conducted pre-test on students to measured or understand their speaking ability. The results showed that the students' speaking ability was still at an intermediated level. In the pre-test, the researcher found that the problem was that students had difficulty in missused words, and their vocabulary was very limited, so students did not know what they wanted to said.
The students also found the fastest way, such as by used Google Translate to translate their words, so that they could not remembered the word and were too lazy to memorized a new word.
Researchers found that the problem was that students made grammatical errors when they spoke English directly. By observed the proportion of students,
it could be proved that 43.75% of students were classified as fair and 56.25%
were classified as poor.
In first step researcher gave a pre-test to students by gave some topics and they should told about their experience related to the topic they chosed. After gave pre-test, the researcher gave them treatment. In this case, researcher taught the students by used practice rehearsal pairs strategy. The treatment was conducted in six meetings to measured the improvement of students‟ grammar after used practice rehearsal pairs strategy in learning process.
In terms of treatment, the teacher focused on analyzed the students' grammatical errors in the speech. Then the teacher wrote on the whiteboard and explained the correct grammar to the students.
After the treatment was given, the researcher performed a post-test. The results showed that the students' post-test scores had improved. They were finallytr able to speak with correct grammar, although they still made some obvious grammatical errors. It can be said that the use of practice rehearsal pairs strategies in increased students‟ speaking skill in term of grammar was successful.
2. The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Skill in Term of Smoothness Researchers conducted pre-tests on students to measure or understand their speaking ability. The results showed that the students' speaking skill was still at an intermediate level. The problem that the researchers found in the pre-test is
that students were slow to be affected by language problems in terms of speed and smoothness.
In pre-test, the researcher used practice rehearsal pairs strategy then asked the students to discussed in their group and move to another group to continued discussed after several minutes. The result of pre-test was students got 68.75%
categorized as good and got 31.25% categorized as fair. After giving pre-test, researcher gave them treatment. It was conducted in six meeting to measure students‟ smoothness after used practice rehearsal pairs strategy in learning process.
In the treatment process, teacher focused to the smoothness of students' speech. At the end of the discussion, students make a brief summary of a topic that had discussed before.
After the treatment, at the last meeting, the researchers conducted a post-test on them. In the post-test, the researchers found that the smoothness of students had improved. It could be said that the used of practice rehearsal pairs strategy to improve students' speaking skill in fluency was successful
It was similar. With Anderson (2012) statement that practice rehearsal pairs could brought variety and flexibility to the language classroom by extended the range of teaching strategy, helped students to developed the communicative skill.