- The students in group will make a conversation about their own material.
- After that, every group should present their work
- Every group given comment or opinion for other groups.
- Every group also was give score for other groups.
- The best performance was determined.
- The researcher give additional explanation, opinion about the activity, suggestions, and chose one best group of the speaking performance.
3. Post test
Post test was conducted as in pretest but in this session the student would meet 7 topics that were different from in pretest.
Every speaker, both in pretest and post test will be recorded to be analyzed based on the scoring rubric of all indicators used to measure the speaking performance.
wants to convey is clear and easy to understand.
-Is well elaborated.
-Delivers generally sophisticated ideas.
3. 3
Adequate
The response:
-Occasionally displays obscure points; however, main points are still conveyed.
-Includes some elaboration.
-Delivers somewhat simple idea.
4. 2
Fair
The response:
-Often displays obscure points, leaving the listener confused.
-Include little elaboration -Delivers simple ideas
5. 1
Limited
The response:
-Is generally unclear and extremely hard to understand.
-Is not well elaborated
-Delivers extremely simple, limited ideas.
6. 0
No
The response:
-Is incomprehensible.
-Contains not enough evidence to evaluate.
Table 3.4 Grammatical Competence: Accuracy No Score and
classification Criteria
1. 5
Excellent
The response:
-Is grammatical accurate
-Display a wide range of syntactic structures and lexical form
-Display complex syntactic structure (relative clause, embedded clause, passive voice, etc) and lexical form.
2. 4
Good
The response:
-Is generally grammatically accurate without any major errors (e.g., article usage, subject/verb agreement, etc.) that obscure meaning.
-Displays a relatively wide range of syntactic structures and lexical form
-Displays relatively complex syntactic structures and lexical form.
3. 3
Adequate
The response:
-Rarely displays major errors that obscure meaning and a few minor errors (but what the speaker wants to say can be understood).
-Displays a somewhat narrow range of syntactic structures; too many simple sentences
-Displays use of somewhat simple or inaccurate lexical
form. Displays somewhat simple syntactic structures.
4. 2
Fair
The response:
-Displays several major errors as well as frequent minor errors, causing confusion sometimes.
-Displays a narrow range of syntactic structures, limited to simple sentences
-Displays use of simple and inaccurate lexical form.
5. 1
Limited
The response:
-Is almost always grammatically inaccurate, which causes difficulty in understanding what the speaker wants to say.
-displays lack of basic sentence structure knowledge -Displays generally basic lexical form.
6. 0
No
The response:
-Displays no grammatical control.
-Displays severely limited or no range and sophistication of grammatical structure and lexical form -Contains not enough evidence to evaluate.
Table 3.5 Discourse Competence: Organization and Cohesion No Score and
classification Criteria
1. 5
Excellent
The response:
-Is completely coherent.
-Is logically structured—logical openings and closures;
logical development of ideas.
-Displays smooth connection and transition of ideas by means of various cohesive devices (logical connectors, a controlling theme, repetition of key words, etc.).
2. 4
Good
The response:
-Is generally coherent.
-Displays generally logical structure
-Displays good use of cohesive devices that generally connect ideas smoothly.
3. 3
Adequate
-Is occasionally incoherent.
-Contains parts that display somewhat illogical or unclear organization; however, as a whole, it is in general logically structured.
-At times displays somewhat loose connection of ideas.
-Displays use of simple cohesive devices.
4. 2
Fair
-Is loosely organized, resulting in generally disjointed discourse.
-Often displays illogical or unclear organization, causing some confusion
-Displays repetitive use of simple cohesive devices; use
of cohesive devices are not always effective.
5. 1
Limited
The response:
-Is generally incoherent.
-Displays illogical or unclear organization, causing great confusion.
-Displays attempts to use cohesive devices, but they are either quite mechanical or inaccurate leaving the listener confused.
6. 0
No
The response:
-Is incoherent
-Displays virtually non-existent organization.
-Contains not enough evidence to evaluate
Table 3.6 Intelligibility Pronunciation and prosodic features (intonation, rhythm, and pacing)
No Score and
classification Criteria
1. 5
Excellent
The response:
-Is completely intelligible although accent may be there.
-Is almost always clear, fluid and sustained.
-Does not require listener effort.
2. 4
Good
The response:
-May include minor difficulties with pronunciation or intonation, but generally intelligible.
-Is generally clear, fluid and sustained. Pace may vary at times.
-Does not require listener effort much.
3. 3
Adequate
The response:
-May lack intelligibility in places impeding communication.
-Exhibits some difficulties with pronunciation, intonation or pacing
-Exhibits some fluidity
-May require some listener efforts at times.
4. 2
Fair
The response:
-Often lacks intelligibility impeding communication.
--Frequently exhibits problems with pronunciation, intonation or pacing.
-May not be sustained at consistent level throughout.
-May require significant listener effort at times.
5. 1
Limited
The response:
-Generally lacks intelligibility
-Is generally unclear, choppy, fragmented or telegraphic.
-Contains frequent pauses and hesitations
-Contains consistent pronunciation and intonation problems.
-Requires considerable listener effort.
6. 0
No
The response:
-Completely lacks intelligibility
-Contains not enough evidence to evaluate.
Kim, Hyun Jung. (2010:27) 2. Computing the frequency and the rate percentage of the students’scores.
P = x 100
Where: P : percentage
: Mean Score of Students’ Post-Test of Experimental Class : Mean Score of Students’ Post-Test of Control Class
(Gay, 1987) 3. Calculating the mean score of the students’ speaking performance by using
the following formula:
N X
XWhere: X = mean score
X = the number of all scores N = the number of students(Gay, 1987 : 361)
4. Calculating the standard deviation using the following formula:
SD = 1
)
( 2
2
n n X X
Where : SD = standard deviation
X2 = the total sum of the test squared
X = the total sum of test n = the number of all students(Gay, 1987:362) 5. Finding out the significant difference between the mean score of two classes
in some independent variables by calculating the value of the independent t- test.
The formula was:
t =
2 1 2
1
2 1
2 1
n 1 n
1 2 n n
SS SS
X X
Where, X1 = the mean for experimental class X2 = the mean for control group
SS1= the sum of squares for experimental group SS2= the sum of squares for control group
n1= the number of students in experimental group n2= the number of students in control group
(Gay, 1987:404)
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the research findings and their discussion. The findings of the research cover the description of the result of data collecting through the test. The discussion will describe the interpretation of the findings.