CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
E. Research Procedures
This research procedure used four stage:
1. Planning 2. Action 3. Observation 4. Reflection
The research procedures are divided into two cycles as follows:
Cycle 1
The activity in this research it has two works in four times meeting and then has stages as like this:
1. Planning
a. The researcher made lesson plan for four meeting.
b. The researcher made the observation sheet to observe the students’
activity and condition in learning process.
c. The researcher prepared the material.
2. Action
This action done in four meetings. The steps as follows:
a. The researcher explained to the students about the material.
b. Divided students into 5 or 6 person jigsaw groups.
c. Appointed one student from each group as the leader.
d. Divided the day’s lesson into 5-6 segments.
e. Assigned each students to learn one segments.
f. Gave students time to read over their segments at least twice and became familiar with it.
g. Form temporary “expert groups” by having one student from each jigsaw group join other students assigned to the same segment.
h. Brought the students back into their jigsaw groups.
i. Asked each students to present her or his segments to the group.
j. Floated from group to group, observing to the process.
k. At the end of the session, gave a quiz on the material.
l. At the end of cycle, the researcher gave them evaluation.
3. Observation
a. Identifying and making note of the activity. Researcher observed the students’ response, participation, the students’ activeness in the classroom, students’ attention and everything which is found during the teaching and learning process based on observation sheet that has been arrange.
b. Doing evaluation to know the students’ improvement.
4. Reflection
After collecting data, the observer evaluated the teaching-learning process. Reflection was done by seeing the result of the observation, whether Jigsaw Method was good in teaching learning process at SMA
Muhammadiyah 2 Makassar or not. So, the researcher can reflect data value evaluation in the first cycle to the second cycle.
Cycle II 1. Planning
a. Continuing the activities that has been done in the first cycle.
b. Repairing the weakness in the first cycle.
c. Making the planning lesson again in the scenario learning process from the result of cycle I reflection.
d. The teacher prepared the material.
2. Action
a. After getting the result of the data on reflection at cycle I, the researcher give material/theme that is discussed.
b. Divided students into 5 or 6 person jigsaw groups.
c. Appointed one student from each group as the leader.
d. Divided the day’s lesson into 5-6 segments.
e. Assigned each students to learn one segments.
f. Gave students time to read over their segments at least twice and became familiar with it.
g. Form temporary “expert groups” by having one student from each jigsaw group join other students assigned to the same segment.
h. Brought the students back into their jigsaw groups.
i. Asked each students to present her or his segments to the group.
j. Floated from group to group, observing to the process.
k. At the end of the session, gave a quiz on the material.
l. All the end of cycle the researcher gave them evaluations.
3. Observation
In this phase, the researcherobserved:
a. The students’ response, participation and everything which was found during the teaching and learning process based on observation sheet that has been arranged.
b. The students’ improvement in speaking skill.
c. Finishing evaluation to know the students’ improvement.
4. Reflection
After collecting the data, the researcher evaluated the teaching- learning process. Then, done reflection by seeing the result of the observation, whether the teaching learning process of speaking used Jigsaw method reach success criteria based on the test result of second action. From the result of the research, the researcher could draw conclusion that Jigsaw method could improve the students’ speaking skill.
F. Data Collection
The procedures of collecting the data are as follows:
1. Data was got from the students speaking progress for each cycle.
2. Data was got from observation sheet. Observation is use to find out the students’ data about implementation of jigsaw method in teachimg and learning process.
3. Data was got from students’ test each cycle.
From the last test, the researcher got the data in improvement of students’
speaking skill. There were two components that concerns of the researcher in this search to measure. Those were pronunciation and vocabulary which used criteria as follows:
Table 3. 1: The Scoring of Pronunciation
Classification Score Criteria
Excellent 5
Pronunciation and intonation are almost always very clear/accurate
Good 4
Pronunciation and intonation are usually clear/accurate with a few problems areas.
Average 3
Pronunciation and intonation errors sometimes make it difficult to understand the student.
Poor 2
Frequent problem with pronunciation and intonation.
Very Poor 1
The student’s speak very hasty, and more sentences are not appropriate in pronunciation and little or no communication.
(Hughes 1989:111)
Table 3.2 Scoring of Vocabulary
Classification Score Criteria
Excellent 5
Use of vocabulary or idioms is virtually that of a native speaker
Good 4
Sometimes uses inappropriate terms or must rephrase ideas because of lexical inadequacies.
Average 3
Frequently uses the wrong words, conversation somewhat limited vocabulary.
Poor 2
Misuse of word and very limited vocabulary make comprehension quite difficult.
Very Poor 1
Vocabulary limitations so extreme as to make conversation virtually impossible.
(Hughes 1989:111)
G. Data Analysis
After collecting the data, the researcher classified the score of the students.
In classifying the students’ score, there were seven classifications which used as the following:
No Classification Scores
1.
2 3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Excellent Very good Good Fairy good Fairy Poor Very Poor
9.6-10 8.6-9.5 7.6-8.5 6.6-7.5 5.6-6.5 4.6-5.5 0.0-4.5 (Depdikbud 1985:5) The data from cycle I and cycle II was analyzed through the following steps:
1. Calculating mean score of the students’ speaking test by using the following formula:
𝑋 = Σ x N
Where: X : mean score
Σ x : the sum of all score
N : the total number of sample
(Sudijono, 2012:81) 2. To know the percentage of the students’ improvement by applying the
following formula:
P = 𝑋2−𝑋1
𝑋1 × 100 Where P : Percentage
X1 : The first main score X2 : The second main score
(Sudjana in Hamka, 2011:27)
CHAPTER IV
FINDING AND DISCUSSION
This chapter consists of findings of the research and discussion that contains data analysis in detail. The findings of the research cover of the result of data cycle I and 2 about students’ speaking skill related to the action that has been applied.
A. Findings
1. The Improvement Students’ Speaking Ability in Term of Pronunciation a. Students’ Mean Score of Pronunciation in Speaking Skill
The students’ mean score of pronunciation in speaking skill in class X SMA Muhammadiyah 2 Makassar through Jigsaw as result of the students’
assessment, described as follow:
Table 4.1: Score of Students’ Pronunciation in Speaking Skill
Variable
The Students’ Score Improvement
C1 → C2 Cycle I Cycle II
Pronunciation 4.96 7.83
Table 4.1 shows there was a significant improvement of students’
pronunciation from evaluation in cycle I the students’ pronunciation become 4.96, and evaluation in cycle II, the students’ achievement in the main idea become 7.83. Table 4.1 also indicates of students’ pronunciation improved significantly where the students’ pronunciation in cycle I was 4.96 and cycle II 7.83. So, the improvement of students’ pronunciation from cycle I to cycle II was 57.86%.
To see clearly the improvement the students’ pronunciation can be seen figure 4.1 was presented:
Figure 4.1: The Improvement of the Students’ Pronunciation in Speaking Skill
Figure 4.1 shows that there was the improvement of students’
pronunciation from cycle I, and cycle II. Where the students’ evaluations in cycle I students’ pronunciation achievement from cycle I was 4.96, and the cycle II was 7.83. So, the improvement of students’ pronunciation from cycle I to cycle II was 57.86%. Figure 4.1 shows that there was an improvement of students’
pronunciation after taking an action in cycle I and cycle II through Jigsaw.
b. The Criteria and Percentage of the Students’ Pronunciation
The criteria and percentage of the students’ pronunciation score presents the result of the students’ speaking skill through Jigsaw. The students’ score cycle
4.96
7.83
Cycle I Cycle II
I and cycle II were classified into some criteria. They were presented in the table below:
Table 4.2: The Criteria the Percentage of the Students’ Pronunciation
No Score Classification
Cycle I Cycle II
Freq % Freq %
1 9.6 – 10 Excellent 0 0 6 20.68%
2 8.6 – 9.5 Very good 0 0 3 10.34%
3 7.6 – 8.5 Good 0 0 9 31.03%
4 6.6 – 7.5 Fairly good 4 13.79% 8 27.58%
5 5.6 – 6.5 Fairly poor 6 20.68% 0 0
6 4.6 – 5.5 Poor 9 31.03% 3 10.34%
7 0 – 4.5 Very poor 10 34.48% 0 0
Total 29 100 29 100
Table 4.2 shows that there was a significant improvement the percentage of students’ speaking skill in terms of pronunciation are 4 students (13,79%) got fairly good, 6 students (20.68%) got fairly poor, 9 students’ (31.03%) got poor, 10 students (34.48%) got very poor and none of the students for the other classification. And then, the cycle II the percentage of the students speaking skill in term of pronunciation are 6 students (20.68%) got excellent, 3 students (10.34%) got very good, 9 students (31.03%) got good, 8 students (27.58%) got fairly good, 3 students (10.34%) got poor, and none of the students for the
classification. It means there was a significant improvement from cycle I to cycle II.
2. The Improvement Students’ Speaking Skill in Term of Vocabulary a. Students’ Mean Score of Vocabulary in Speaking Skill
The mean score of students’ vocabulary in speaking skill in class X SMA Muhammadiyah 2 Makassar through Jigsaw as result of the students’ assessment, described as follow:
Table 4.3: Score of Students’ Vocabulary in Speaking Skill
Variable
The Students’ Score Improvement
C1 → C2 Cycle I Cycle II
Vocabulary 4.71 7.62
Table 4.3 shows that there was a significant improvement of students’
vocabulary from evaluation in cycle I the students’ vocabulary become 4.71, and evaluation in cycle II, the students’ achievement in the main idea become 7.62.
Table 4.1 also indicates of students’ vocabulary improved significantly where the students’ vocabulary in cycle I was 4.71 and cycle II 7.62. So, the improvement of students’ vocabulary from cycle I to cycle II was 61.78%.
To see clearly the improvement the students’ vocabulary can be seen figure 4.2 was presented:
Figure 4.2: The Improvement of the Students’ Vocabulary in Speaking Skill Figure 4.2 shows that there was the improvement of students’
vocabulary from cycle I, and cycle II. Where the students’ evaluations in cycle I students’ vocabulary achievement from cycle I was 4.71, and the cycle II was 7.62. So, the improvement of students’ pronunciation from cycle I to cycle II was 61.78%. Figure 4.2 shows that there was an improvement of students’
pronunciation after taking an action in cycle I and cycle II through Jigsaw.
b. The Criteria and Percentage of the Students’ Vocabulary
The criteria and percentage of the students’ vocabulary score presents the result of the students’ speaking skill through Jiigsaw. The students’ scores of
4.71
7.62
Cycle I Cycle II
cycle 1 and cycle II were classified into some criteria. They were presented in Table 4.4
Table 4.4: The Criteria the Percentage of the Students’ Vocabulary No Score Classification
Cycle I Cycle II
Freq % Freq %
1 9.6 – 10 Excellent 0 0 5 17.24%
2 8.6 – 9.5 Very good 0 0 2 6.89%
3 7.6 – 8.5 Good 0 0 9 31.03%
4 6.6 – 7.5 Fairly good 3 10.34% 7 24.13%
5 5.6 – 6.5 Fairly poor 2 6.89% 3 10.34%
6 4.6 – 5.5 Poor 10 34.48% 3 10.34%
7 0 – 4.5 Very poor 14 48.27% 0 0
Total 29 100 29 100
Table 4.4 shows that there was a significant improvement the percentage of students’ speaking skill in term of vocabulary are 3 students (10.34%) got fairly good, 2 students (6.89%) got fairly poor, 10 students (34.48%) got poor, 14 students (48.27%) got very poor and none of the students for the other classification. And then, the cycle II the percentage of the students speaking ability in term of vocabulary are 5 students (17.24%) got excellent, 2 students (6.89%) got very good, 9 students (31.03%) got good, 7 students (24.13%) got fairly good, 3 students (10.34%) got fairly poor, 3 students (10.34%) got poor and
none of the students for the classification. It was mean there was a significant improvement from cycle I to cycle II.
- The Improvement of Students’ Speaking Skill in Terms of Pronunciation and Vocabulary
The improvement of students’ speaking skill in term of pronunciation and vocabulary class X SMA Muhammadiyah 2 Makassar through Jigsaw and result of the students’ assessment, described as follow:
Table 4.5: The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Skill in Terms of Pronunciation and Vocabulary
Variable
The Students’ Score Improvement
C1 → C2 Cycle I Cycle II
Pronunciation 4.96 7.83 57.86%
Vocabulary 4.71 7.62 61.78%
Table 4.5 shows that there was an improvement of students’ speaking skill in terms of pronunciation and vocabulary. In pronunciation there was improvement students’ speaking skill from the cycle I was 4.96 and cycle II was 7.83. So the improvement students’ speaking skill from cycle I to cycle II was 57.86%. In vocabulary there was also improvement of students’ speaking skill from the cycle I was 4.71 and cycle II was 7.62. So the improvement of students’
speaking skill from cycle I to cycle II was 61.78%. Table 4.5 shows that there was an improvement of speaking skill after taking an action in cycle I and cycle II through Jigsaw.
To see clearly the improvement of the students’ speaking skill in terms of pronunciation and vocabulary, is seen in Figure 4.3.
Figure 4.3: The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Skill in Terms of Pronunciation and Vocabulary
Figure 4.3 shows the improvement of students speaking skill through Jigsaw cycle II was higher than cycle I in pronunciation (4.96 and 7.83) and then vocabulary (4.71 and 7.62). So in cycle II was higher 7.72 than cycle I 4.83. After evaluation in cycle I and cycle II, there was an improvement of the students’
speaking skill that show clearly in the chart after taking an action in the cycle through Jigsaw.
Pronunciation Vocabulary 4.96
4.71 7.83
7.62
B. Discussions
In the previous research findings, it showed that the students’ speaking skill through Jigsaw to improved from very low to the high mean score of speaking skill. The researcher had made the action of cycle II more interesting than cycle I. Therefore, the students’ speaking skill in cycle II was better than cycle II.
In cycle I, the researcher gave less explanation about Jigsaw to students, so they seem like the shock. They were still confused about how to use that method in speaking. But in cycle II, the students’ really enjoyed to speaking by using Jigsaw because the researcher had explained this method clearer than cycle I. At first, the students’ were very lazy tried to describe things. But, the researcher always tried to stimulate the students’ anxiety of what the speaking skill will be about.
1. The Improvement of Students’ Pronunciation in Speaking Skill through Jigsaw
In this part, discussion deals with the interpretation of findings derived from the result of findings about the observation result of the students’ speaking skill in terms of pronunciation and vocabulary, and the observation result of the students’ presence activeness in teaching and learning process by using Jigsaw.
To improve the students’ speaking skill, the researcher decided to use Jigsaw and then prepared to do cycle I that consisted of four phases namely:
planning, action, observation, and reflecting. In cycle I, the researcher found that the students still difficult and confused to speak. They often inhibited about trying
to say things in a foreign language in the classroom, worry about making mistake, and they were shy. The difficulty of the students in speaking had been analyzed, so the researcher had to think the solution of the problem. The researcher decided to do cycle II by doing revision in the lesson plan. In cycle II, the researcher got a good response from the students. Students mistake, and they were shy. The difficulty of the students in speaking had been analyzed, so the researcher had to think the solution of the problem. The researcher decided to do cycle II by doing revision in the lesson plan. In cycle II, the researcher got a good response from the students. Students are fair active and confident to speak in English. They can enjoy the teaching and learning process, and their score was improved in cycle II.
2. The Improvement of Students’ Vocabulary in Speaking Skill through Jigsaw
In improving the students’ vocabulary in speaking skill, the researcher used Jigsaw. The finding result shows the students’ improvement of the students’
vocabulary.
In cycle I, the researcher found that the students still difficult and confused to speak. They often inhibited about trying to speak in the classroom, worry about making mistake, and they were shy. The difficulty of the students in speaking had been analyzed, so the researcher had to think the solution of the problem. The researcher decided to do cycle II by doing revision in the lesson plan. In cycle II, the researcher got a good response from the students. Students are fair active and confident to speak in English. They can enjoy the teaching and learning process, and their score was improved in cycle II.
The researcher has change the activity more interesting in cycle II so that the students could show improvement, in the first cycle the researcher gave less explanation about jigsaw to students’ seemed like confused. But in cycle II, the students really enjoyed the technique because the researcher gave them explanation intensively and motivation when teaching and learning process. At the first, the researcher found that the students difficult to speak. So the technique could so the improvement by doing some interesting efforts from cycle I to cycle II. The researcher prepared well before did the second cycle. The researcher knows what the weakness and the strengths, because the researcher did reflection.
Based on the results which found by researcher in each cycles of this research, we could see that most of students were interested in learning English speaking through jigsaw. They confidence to express their ideas in speaking activity inside classroom, most of them could minimize their fears and shy to speak, the frequency and percentage of students’ speaking skill were increased well in each jigsaw could motivate the students to be active and had a great participation in speaking activity during teaching and learning process in classroom. Another aspect that found by researcher in speaking English such as low motivation to speak, not have enough vocabularies to express their ideas, feeling shy when they spoke in front of their friends, still rigid express their ideas through oral communication, unfamiliar with good technique to speak easily, well that caused of difficulties in expressing their ideas, etc during teaching and learning process in classroom who was not active in speaking.
The researcher found in cycle I, that although all of the students know how to speak most of them were difficult to understand what they have to speak.
Learning process in the cycle I was not really successful, so the researcher decided to did cycle II, the researcher revised the lesson plan. Where, when the researcher explained about jigsaw should explain more clearly, if needed gave chance to the students to ask about the material.
From the explanation previously, the researcher analyzed that the students’
speaking skill in term vocabulary by using jigsaw was improved, where the students’ mean score in cycle I was higher than cycle II. The researcher also analyzed the percentage of students’ progress in speaking skill through jigsaw. It means that the students’ achievement in vocabulary especially after using jigsaw in classroom were the teaching and learning process. By using this method the students and the researcher were cooperate each other in improving students’
knowledge.
The result of cycle II in using jigsaw showed that the students’ improve to seem the result of the second cycle action process, analyzed, understood and made conclusion activity. The researcher analyzed first cycle to know whether the action of this cycle reached success criteria based on the result of second action.
This score was taken from students’ correct and calculating by using mean score in data analysis. After that, the researcher used the score of cycle I and cycle II to find out the students’ improvement percentage. The students’ improvement in using jigsaw.