CHAPTER II: REVIEW RELATED LITERATURE
E. Research instrument
The instrument of the research was oral test were given twice. The first test was pretest and the second test was posttest.
2. Record
The test was organized to helped the researcher and made easier in gave the assessment to the students’ towards the implementation of Peer Tutoring Strategy in speaking skill in terms of pronunciation and fluency. It was helped the researcher to listened the record well of the students’ and pay attention about the pronunciation and fluency. The researcher listened carefully from the record that she already recorded in the class.
F. Data Collection
Procedures of data collection involved the following steps:
1. The students were given a pretest on speaking
2. The students were treated by applying Peer Tutoring Strategy 3. After the treatment, the students were given a posttest.
In scoring technique, there were two main aspects which were assessed, there were pronunciation and fluency.
a. Pronunciation
Table 3.1 (score criteria)
Classification Score Criteria
Excellent 9.6–10 They speak very understandable and high of pronunciation.
Very good 8.6–9.5 They speak very understandable and very good of pronunciation.
Good 7.6–8.5 They speak effectively and good of pronunciation.
Fairly good 6.6–7.5 They speak sometimes hasty but fairly good of pronunciation.
Fair 5.6–6.5 They speak sometimes hasty, fair of pronunciation.
Poor 3.6–5.5 They speak hasty and more sentences are not appropriate in pronunciation.
Very poor 0.0–3.5
They speak very hasty and more sentences are not appropriate in pronunciation and little or no communication.
(Harmer in Fadly, 2014: 31) b. Fluency
Classification Score Criteria
Excellent 9.6–10 They speak very understandable and high of smoothness.
Very good 8.6–9.5 They speak very understandable and very good of smoothness.
Good 7.6–8.5 They speak very understable and good of smoothness.
Fairly good 6.6–7.5 They speak sometimes hasty but fairly good of smoothness.
Fair 5.6–6.5 They speak sometimes hasty, fair of smoothness.
Poor 3.6–5.5 They speak hasty and more sentences are not appropriate in smoothness.
Very poor 0.0–3.5
They speak very hasty and more sentences are not appropriate in smoothness and little or no communication.
(Harmer in Fadly, 2014: 32) G. Data Analysis
The data analysis in Pre-experimental research from the test was analyzed with:
1. To find out the mean score, the researcher used the formula:
∑ X
N
= Mean Score
∑ X
= the sum of all scoreN = the total number of sample, (Gay, 2006:320)
2. To classified the students’ score, there are five categories standard of evaluating as follows:
No. Score Categories
1. 90-100 Excellent
2. 80-89 Very Good
3. 70-79 Good
4. 60-69 Fairly Good
5. 50-59 Fair
( Jacobs in Soleha 2008:20)
3. Calculating the values of t-test to indicate the significant of the different between the result of pre-test and post-test by using the formula:
X =
=
∑ (∑ )
( )
Notes: t : test (test of significant)
D : mean score (the score different)
(∑ ) : the square of all sums (sum of D score)
∑D : the sum of all squares (sum of D score)
N : number of subjects in particular group (number of students) D : the sum of the score different, it must be got by formula:
= ∑
Where:∑D : sum of D score
N : number of the students
Notes: Since D is the score different, it must be gotten by formula:
D= -
Where X1 : the students’ score on pretest
X2 :the students’ score on posttest, (Gay, 1981:331) The criteria depicts to refuse to receive the hypothesis that the hypothesis (Ho) receive the value of t-test is fewer or equal to the value of the table. However, when the value of t-test greater than that t-table, the hypothesis will reject and the alternative hypothesis (H1) will be received.
24 A. Findings
This chapter presented the findings of the research and discussions. The findings of the research covers with the result of the data collected through the test. In discussion part, the researcher describes the interpretation of the findings.
1. TheImprovement of the Students’Pronunciation in Speaking Skill
The improvement of the students’speaking skill in terms of pronunciation and fluency at the eleven grade students of SMA PESANTREN PUTRI YATAMA MANDIRI KAB. GOWA can be seen clearly in the following table:
Table 4.1 The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Skill in Term of Pronunciation.
No. Indicator Pre-test Post-test
1. Mean Score 57 66
2. Improvement 15.78%
Table 4.1 indicates the significant improvement of the students’
pronunciation. The mean scores in term of pronunciation students’ in the pre test was categorized as fair or the score was (57). The mean scores of pronunciation in post-test was categorized as fairly good or the score was (66). It means that using Peer Tutoring Strategy in SMA PESANTREN PUTRI YATAMA MANDIRI KAB. GOWA on treatment improved the students’ speaking skill in term of pronunciation.
Graphic 4. 1 The Mean Score of the Students’ Speaking Skill in Term of pronunciation
Graphic 4.1 shows that there was improvement of the students’ in speaking in term of pronunciation from pre-test with the mean score was 57 to post-test with the mean score was 66. The improvement of pre-test to post-test was 15.78%.
2. The Improvement ofStudents’Speaking Skill in Term of Fluency
The implementation of Peer Tutoring Strategyin improving the students’
speaking skill in term of fluency at the eleventh grade students of SMA PESANTREN PUTRI YATAMA MANDIRI KAB. GOWA can be seen clearly in the following table:
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
The mean scores of the students' speaking skill in term of pronunciation
Pre- test Post- test improvement 26.2%
Table 4.2 The Improvement the Students’Speaking Skill in Term of Fluency
No. Indicator Pre-test Post-test
1. Mean Score 58 65
2. Improvement 11.86%
Table 4.2 indicates the significant improvement of the students’fluency.
The mean score in term of fluency of the students’ in the pre-test was categorized as fair (58). The mean score of fluency in the post-test was categorized as fairly good or the score was (65). It means that using Peer Tutoring Strategy on treatment improvedthe students’ speakingkill in term of fluency.
Researcher also assessed students’ fluency 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 skill in term of fluency. It was indicated by the significant 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:
Mean score in pre-test was 58, it caused that most of students’ still can not speak fluently. Mean score of post-test was 65, it was improved from pre-test.
Based on the data in pre-test and post-test had happened improvement of students’ speaking skill. The percentage of improvement the students’ in pre-test to post-test was 11.86%. It was mean that the implementation of Peer Tutoring Strategyat the eleventh grade students’ of SMA PESANTREN PUTRI YATAMA MANDIRI KAB. GOWA improvedstudents’fluency in speaking skill.
The students’ result in the pre-test and post-test of the students achievement had improve which was 15.78 % in term of pronunciation and 11.86% in term of fluency. The data showed that the implementation of Peer Tutoring Strategy at the eleventh grade students’ of SMA PESANTREN PUTRI YATAMA MANDIRI KAB. GOWA in speaking improved students’ speaking skill in term of pronunciation and fluency.
Graphic 4.2 The Mean Score of The Students’ Speaking skill in Term of fluency
Graphic above showed that there was improvement of the students in speaking accuracy viewed of fluency from pre-test with the mean score was 58 to post-test with the mean score was 65. Post-test score was higher than pre-test score so the improvement of pre-test to post-test was 11.86%. The improvement was significant difference.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
The mean scores of the students' speaking skill in term of fluency
Pre- test Post-test
improvement 30.08
It proved that there was significant improvement of students’speaking skill in term of pronunciation and fluency by Using Peer Tutoring Strategy at the Eleventh grade students’ of SMA PESANTREN PUTRI YATAMA MANDIRI KAB. GOWA. Based on the result above, we could conclude that the implementation of Peer Tutoring Strategy improved the students’ speaking skill in terms of pronunciation and fluency.
3. Significance of Pronunciation and Fluency
The researcher had used t-test analysis on the level of the significance (p) 0,05 with the degree of freedom (df) = N-1, where N = was number of students (18 students) and then the value of t-table was 1.740. The t-test statistical analysis for independent sample was applied. The following table showed the result of t- test calculation.
Table 4.3 The t-Test Analysis of The Students’ Improvement
No. Components t-Test Value t-Table Value Description
1. Pronunciation 7.46 1.740 Significance
2. Fluency 7.17 1.740 Significance
Table 4.3 above showed that t-test value of pronunciation was greater than t-table value (7.46> 1.740) and also t-test value of fluency was greater than t-table value (7.17> 1.740). It means that there was significance difference between the students’ speaking skill before and after researcher used Peer Tutoring Strategy speaking skill at the Eleventh grade students’ of SMA PESANTREN PUTRI YATAMA MANDIRI KAB. GOWA. It was showed that the nul hypothesis (H0) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted.
B. Discussion
The description of data collected from speaking skill in terms of pronunciation and fluency it was explain in the previous section showed that the students’speaking skill in pronunciation and fluency in speaking was improved. It was supported by mean scoresand percentage of the students’ pre-test and post- test result. Based on the finding above, the implementation of Peer Tutoring Strategy made the students’ have mean score that was higher in speaking skill than before they knowed Peer Tutoring Strategy.
1.The Improvement of Students’ Speaking Skill in Term of Pronunciation Speaking skill in term of pronunciation was about the skill to speak and pronounce the word well. According to Harmer (1991:15), one of the aspect of speaking is Pronunciation, is an act or result of production the sound of speech including articulation vowel formation, accent and inflection. Often with reference to some standard of contents or accept proficiency. Pronunciation is an essential aspect in speaking and has a great function in speaking, because people could understand what the other people said by used pronunciation well.
In the first meeting when researcher gave pre-test, researcher looked the most of students can not pronounce the word well. They was gotten difficult to speak with pronounce well. It could be seen in the table 4.1 that the students’
speaking achievement in pre-test’s mean score was poor, it was57.
After the students had given treatment, mean score in post-test from students had improved to become 66. It was higher score than pre-test score. Pre –test to post-test score, there was improvement score of students from low to high
by implementing Peer Tutoring Strategy. The improvement percentage showed 15.78% had improved students’ speaking skill viewed from pronunciation.
2.The Improvement of Students’ Speaking Skill in Term of Fluency
To speak fluently, we must have both rhythm in our speaking and an absence of non fluency in our word. Rhythm has to do with regularly of irregularity of accenting and phrasing with which we present our words.
Harmer in Nursyamsi (2010:12) stated that fluency is the quality or condition of being fluent. Fluency is highly complex notion relate mainly to smoothness of continuity in discourse. It includes a consideration of how sentence are connected, how sentence patterns vary in word- order and omit elements of structure and also certain aspects of the prosody of discourse.
Based on finding above in implementing Peer Tutoring Strategy in the class, the data was collected by the text as explanation in the previous finding section showed that the students’ speaking skill in term of fluency significantly improvement. It could saw in mean score of pre-test and post-test and also improvement percentage on the table 2 and graphic 2.
The data on table 4.2 showed that the score of fluency improved from 58 in pre-test’s mean score to65. After calculating of score between pre-test and post-test score, researcher found that skill of students’ improved which was to be 11.86% from mean score 58 in pre-test to 65 in post-test. It means that the implementation of Peer Tutoring Strategy at the eleventh grade students’ of SMA PESANTREN PUTRI YATAMA MANDIRI KAB. GOWA was succes to make the students’improve their speaking skill in terms of pronunciation and fluency.
3. Significance of Pronunciation and Fluency
After calculating the value t-test analysis then it was compared with t-table value so researcher found that the value of t-test was greater than the t-table value, it means that null hypothesis (H0) was rejected and alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted because there was difference significant mean score of test that had given by researcher before and after researcher thought speaking skill in term of pronunciation and fluency by implementing Peer Tutoring Strategy.
Meanwhile, when it was found that the value of t-test was lower than t-table value, it means that the null hypothesis (H0) was accepted and alternative hypothesis (H1) was rejected because there was not difference significant mean score of test that had given by researcher before and after researcher thought speaking skill by implementing Peer Tutoring Strategy.
4. Hyphothesis Testing
T-test value of pronunciation was greater than t-table (7.46> 1.740) and also t-test value of fluency was greater than t-table 7.17> 1.740). It means that there was significant difference between students’ speaking skill before and after they got Peer Tutoring Strategy from researcher in speaking skill in terms of Pronunciation and fluency at theEleventh grade students’ of SMA PESANTREN PUTRI YATAMA MANDIRI. Then, the data showed that null hypothesis (H0) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted.
32
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
This chapter consists of two sections; one is conclusion, which were based on the research findings and the discussions. The other one is suggestion, which was based on the conclusions proposed.
A. Conclusion
Based on the findings and discussions in the previous chapter, the researcher concluded as follows:
Peer Tutoring Strategy improves the students’ speaking skill in term of pronunciation. It is proved by the result of the statistical analysis at the level of significance 0.05 which indicates that t-test value of generic structure was greater than the t-table while t-table (7.46 >1.740). In addition, Peer Tutoring Strategy improves the students’ speaking skill in termof fluency. It is proved by the result of the statistical analysis at the level of significance 0.05 which indicates that t- test value of generic structure was greater than the t-table while t-table (7.17
>1.740)
B. Suggestion
Based on the conclusion above, the researcher presents some suggestions as follows:
1. It is recommended for the English teachers that they use Peer Tutoring Strategy to teach speaking skill because it can bring a positive improvement for the students especially in pronunciation and fluency.
2. It is suggested for the English teachers to apply Peer Tutoring Strategy as one of the alternative strategy in teaching speaking skill.
3. The students are expected to increase their intensity in learning speaking through Peer Tutoring Strategy.
4. It is suggested that the English teachers maximize for the English speaking skill in giving guidance to the students in learning and teaching speaking process.
5. Future researchers may use quasi-experimental research to know the comparison whether or not the use of Peer Tutoring Strategy is effective in improving students’ abilities in other skills, such as writing, reading and listening. Then, future researchers also may conduct the study on the use of Peer Tutoring Strategy to see the effect on the use of it.
39
Arrand, K. 2009. Peer Tutoring, Media and Communications, England: Conventry University.
Brost, Jolen., M, 2011. An Evaluation of the Peer Tutoring Program at Chippewa Valley Technial College in Eau Claire, WI. Eau Claire: University of Wisconsin-Stout.
Craddock, Hollie., R. 2014. Tutoring EFL students for improvements in Language skills in Marshall University. Huntington, USA: Marshall University.
Eva, C., & Morgan, W. 2005. Peer Tutoring in Speaking. Hongkong: Hon Wah College.
Gay,L.R and Peter Airasian. 2006. Educational Research : Competencies for Analysis and Applications. Eighth Edition. Prentice Hall Publisher. New Jersey.
Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Harlow: Pearson Education
Harmer, Jeremy. (1998). How to Teach English. London: Longman
Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching (4th ed). England:
Pearson Education Limited.
Hornby, AS. 1995. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English.
London: Oxford University Press.
Knight, J. 2013. The Use of Peer Tutoring to Enhance the Grammar Skills of Business Student at The University of the West Indies. Barbados:
Educational Research Association.
Nurjihadiah. 2012. Improving Students’ Speaking Ability Through Peer Teaching Tutoring Strategy at SMP NASIONAL MAKASSAR. Makassar: Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar.
Okilwa, N. 2007. The Effects of Peer Tutoring on Academic Performance of Students with Disabilities in Grade 6 Through 12: A Synthesis of the Literature.Texas: The University of Texas at Austin.
Prihatno. 2004. Peer Tutoring: A Step Forward Towards Inclusion. New Delhi:
Educationia Confab.
Topping, K. 2005. Trends in Peer Learning. Scotland: University of Dundee.
Ur, Penny (1996). A course in language teaching: practice and theory.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zimmerman, C. B. (1997). Historical trends in second language vocabulary instruction. In J. Coady and T. Huckin (Eds) Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition, 5-19. Cambridge, CUP
Kelas/Semester : XI / 1
Alokasi Waktu : 1 x 45 menit ( 1x pertemuan )
Topik Pembelajaran : Expressions of relief, pain, and pleasure
Pertemuan Ke : 2
A. Standar Kompetensi Mendengarkan
1. Memahami makna dalam percakapan transaksional dan interpersonal resmi dan berlanjut (sustained) dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari.
Berbicara
2. Mengungkapkan makna dalam teks percakapan transaksional dan interpersonal resmi dan berlanjut (sustained) dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari.
B. Kompetensi Dasar
1.1 Merespon makna dalam percakapan transaksional (to get things done) dan interpersonal (bersosialisasi) resmi dan berlanjut (sustained) secara akurat, lancar, dan berterima yang menggunakan ragam bahasa lisan dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari dan melibatkan tindak tutur: menasehati, memperingatkan, meluluskan permintaan, serta menyatakan perasaan relief, pain, dan pleasure.
3.1 Mengungkapkan makna dalam percakapan transaksional (to get things done) dan interpersonal (bersosialisasi) resmi dan berlanjut (sustained) dengan menggunakan ragam bahasa lisan secara akurat, lancar dan berterima dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari dan melibatkan tindak tutur: menasehati, memperingatkan, meluluskan permintaan, serta menyatakan perasaan relief, pain, dan pleasure.
C. Indikator Pencapaian Kompetensi
Indikator Pencapaian Kompetensi Nilai Budaya Dan Karakter Bangsa
Merespon ungkapan-ungkapan relief, pain, dan pleasure
Mengungkapkan perasaan relief, pain, dan pleasure
Mempraktekkan tindak tutur menyatakan perasaan relief, pain, dan pleasure
Religius, jujur, toleransi, disiplin, kerja keras, mandiri, demokratis, rasa ingin tahu, semangat kebangsaan, cinta tanah air, menghargai prestasi, bersahabat, cinta damai, gemar membaca, peduli lingkungan, peduli sosial, tanggung jawab, mandiri
Berorientasi pada tugas (bermotivasi, tekun/tabah, bertekad, enerjik).
Pengambil resiko (suka tantangan, mampu memimpin)
Orientasi ke masa depan (punya perspektif untuk masa depan) D. Tujuan Pembelajaran
Pada akhir pembelajaran siswa dapat :
Merespon ungkapan-ungkapan relief, pain, dan pleasure
Mengungkapkan perasaan relief, pain, dan pleasure
Mempraktikkan tindak tutur menyatakan perasaan relief, pain, dan pleasure E. Materi Pokok
Gambar dan dialog yang memuat ungkapan menasehati, memperingatkan, meluluskan permintaan, serta menyatakan perasaan relief, pain, dan pleasure
Expression of relief Expression of pain Expression of pleasure
o Good heavens o Thanks God I am
alive
o Thanks for heaven o I am relief that..
o God bless me o God bless you
Please, leave me alone.
I can’t tell my pain in words
It brought me a lot of miseries
My heart is so burdened
I’m so sad to hear this
I’m feeling bad at this time being
It’s wonderful.
How marvelous
I am please with it / that.
It’s mypleasure.
It gives me pleasure.
That’s great.
That terrific.
I am happy with ……
I like it.
I love it.
Dialog 1
Andika : What a terrible journey it is!
Andina : Is there any problem with your journey my husband?
Andika : Yes, I took a flight from New York to come here. When I were in the middle of the journey.My plane struck a turbulence . It shook hard and went down a couple of feet. My head hit the front chair. Look! It is wounded. I feel headache and all my body is in pain.