CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
F. Technique of Data Analysis
The data from the English speaking test gave score based on the three English speaking skill scoring classification. In this case the researcher gave score based on the students’ pronunciation, vocabulary and fluency.To make it clear the researcher described all classification as follow:
a. Pronunciation
Table 3.2Classification Score of Pronunciation
Classification Score Criteria
Excellent 91-100 Pronunciation is only very slightly influenced by the mother tongue. A few grammatical and lexical errors but only cause confusing.
Good 75-90 Pronunciation is still moderately influenced by the mother tongue. No serious phonological errors. A few grammatical and lexical errors but only cause confusing.
Fair 61-74 Pronunciation is influenced by mother tongue only a few serious phonological errors. Several grammatical and lexical errors, event some of which cause confusing.
Less 51-60 Pronunciation seriously influenced by the mother tongue with errors causing breakdown in communication. May basic grammatical and lexical errors.
Poor X<50 Serious pronunciation errors as well as many basic grammatical and lexical errors. No evidence of having mastered any of the language skills practice
in the course.
Heaton (1989)
b. Vocabulary
Table 3.3 Classification Score of Vocabulary
Classification Score Criteria
Excellent 91-100 Using vocabulary and idioms like native speakers.
Good 75-90 Sometimes using the inappropriate vocabulary.
Fair 61-74 Often using the inappropriate vocabulary, the conversation becomes limited because the students vocabulary.
Less 51-60 Using the wrong vocabulary sot it is difficult to understand.
Poor X<50 The vocabulary is limited.
Hayati (2017) c. Fluency
Table 3.4 Classification Score of Fluency
Classification Score Criteria
Excellent 91-100 Has to make an effort at times to search for words.
Nevertheless, smooth delivery on the whole and only a few unnatural pauses.
Good 75-90 Although he has to make effort and search for words, there are not unnatural pauses. Fairly
smooth, delivery mostly, in conveying the general meaning. Fairly range expression.
Fair 61-74 Has to make effort for much of time. Often has to reach for the desired the effort at time limited range of expression.
Less 51-60 Long pauses while he researches for desire meaning. Frequently fragmentally and halting delivery. Almost give up making the effort at times. Limited range of expression.
Poor X<50 Full of long the natural pauses. Very halting and fragmentary delivery. At the time gives us making the effort, very limited range of expression.
Heaton (1989) There were some steps to find out the students’ achievement in speaking ability:
1. After collecting the data, the researcher classifies the score of the students.
Classifying the students’ score into five classification score:
Table 3.5 Classification of Students Achievement Score
No Score Classification
1 91-100 Excellent
2 75-90 Good
3 61-74 Fair
4 51-60 Less
5 X<50 Poor
Depdiknas (1985) 2. To find out the mean score of the pre-test and post-test, the researcher used the
following formula:
𝑋 = 𝑋 𝑁 Where:
𝑋 = Mean score 𝑋 = Total score
𝑁 = Total number of student
(Gay, 1981:298) 3. Calculating the improvement of the students’ percentage of pre-test and post-
test by using the formula:
P= 𝑋2−𝑋1𝑋1 x100 Where:
% = the percentage of improvement X1 = Mean score of pre-test
X2 = Mean score of post-test
(Gay, 1981) 4. To know the significant differences between score of the pre-test and post-test,
the writer calculate the value of the test by using the following formula:
t = 𝐷
𝑛 𝐷2−( 𝐷)2 𝑛−1
𝐷 = 𝐷𝑁 Where:
t = Test of significant differences
D = The differences between two scores compared 𝐷 = The mean of different scores
𝐷= The sum of D scores
( 𝐷)2= The total number of students
(Gay, 1981:331)
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter deals with findings and discussions. The findings of the research consist of the description of the result from the data collected through speaking test (pre-test and post-test). Then the discussion was described further explanations and interpretation of the findings given the relation of the findings with the previous research.
A. Findings
To find out the answer of the research question in the previous chapter, the researcher used a speaking test. A pre-test was administrated before the treatment and post-test was administrated after doing the treatment to know the significant difference of students’ speaking ability before and after doing the treatment.
The result of research findings, found that teaching speaking through jigsaw technique can improve the students’ achievement in accuracy and fluency. The finding of this research described the improvement of students speaking in pre- test and post-test, the frequency and the percentage of students’ score, and hypothesis test.It could be seen the result data analysis as follows:
1. The Students’ Improvement
1.1. The Improvement of the Students’ Accuracy
The use of jigsaw technique was effective to improve the students’
speaking accuracy which focused on pronunciation and vocabulary. It could be seen from the table below based on the students’ score of accuracy:
Table 4.1
Mean Score of Students’ Accuracy in Pre-Test and Post-Test
Indicator
Score
Improvement Pre-test Post-test
Pronunciation 60.33 72.69 20.48%
Vocabulary 56.63 70.05 23.69%
𝑿 116.96 142.74
22.04%
𝑿 58.48 71.37
The table above shows the students’ improvement of speaking accuracy by using jigsaw technique. The table indicates that there is a significant improvement of the students’ speaking accuracy in terms of pronunciation and vocabulary from pre-test and post-test. The students’ mean score of pronunciation in pre-test was 60.33 and post-test was 72.69. The students’ mean score of the vocabulary in pre- test was 56.63 and pro-test was 70.05. The students’ main score of accuracy in pre-test was 58.48 and post-test was 71.37. The improvement of the students’
speaking accuracy in pre-test and post-test was 22.04%. Based on the findings above, we can say that the improvement of students’ speaking accuracy was
significantly different because the mean score of post-test was higher than pre- test.
To see clearly the improvement of the students’ speaking pronunciation, look at the following chart:
Chart 4.1
Improvement of the Students Accuracy
1.2. The Improvement of the Students’ Fluency
The use of jigsaw technique was effective to improve the students’
speaking fluency. It could be seen from the table below based on the students’
score of fluency:
Table 4.2
Mean Score of Students’ Fluency in Pre-Test and Post-Test Score
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Pre-Test Post-Test Improvement 58.48
71.37
22.04
Indicator Pre-test Post-test Improvement
Fluency 56.19 69.66 23.97%
The table above shows that, the students’ mean score of fluency in pre-test was 56.19 and post-test was 69.66. The improvement of the students’ speaking fluency in pre-test and post-test was 23.97%. In the other words we can say that, the improvement of speaking fluency was significantly different because the mean score of post-test was higher than pre-test.
To see clearly the improvement of the students’ speaking fluency, look at the following chart:
Chart 4.2
The Improvement of the Students Fluency
1.3. The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Ability both of Accuracy and Fluency
The use of jigsaw technique was effective to improve the students’
speaking ability. It could be seen from the table below based on the students’
score of speaking ability.
Table 4.3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Pre-Test Post-Test Improvement 56.19
69.66
23.97
The Students’ Mean Score of Speaking Abilityboth of Accuracy and Fluency in Pre-Test and Post-Test
Indicator
Score
Improvement Pre-test Post-test
Accuracy 58.48 71.37 22.04%
Fluency 56.19 69.66 23.97%
𝑋 114.67 141.03
22.98%
𝑋 57.337 70.515
The table above shows that, the students’ mean score of accuracy in pre- test was 58.48 and post was 71.37. The students’ mean score of fluency in pre-test was 56.19 and post-test was 69.66. The students’ mean score of speaking ability in pre-test was 57.337 and post-test was 70.515. The improvement of the students’
speaking ability in pre-test and post-test was 22.98%. Based on the findings above, we can say that the improvement of students’ speaking ability was significantly different because the mean score of post-test was higher than pre- test.
To see clearly the improvement of the students’ speaking ability, look at the following chart:
Figure 4.3
The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Ability both of Accuracy and Fluency
2. The Frequency and Percentage of the Students’ Speaking 2.1. The Frequency and Percentage of Accuracy
The data of speaking test of the students’ were obtained by speaking in term of accuracy. In order to knew the students’ speaking, the score of speaking accuracy observed as follow:
Table 4.4
Frequency and the Rate Percentage of Pre-Test and post-Test in Accuracy
No
Pronunciation
Classification Pre-Test Post-Test
F % F %
1 Excellent 0 0 0 0
2 Good 0 0 19 52.72
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Pre-Test Post-Test Improvement
57.337
70.515
22.98
3 Fair 12 33.3 17 47.28
4 Less 18 50 0 0
5 Poor 6 16.7 0 0
Total 36 100% 36 100%
The table classification above, shows that the classification students’ score of accuracy was divided in fifth classification, namely excellent, good, fair, less, and poor. The table shows the frequency of speaking accuracy in pre-test and post-test from 36 students.
In pre-test, there were 0 students (0%) who categorized to “Excellent”, 0 students (0%) who categorized “Good”, 12 students (33.3%) who categorized to
“Fair”, 18 students (50%) who categorized to “Less”, and 6 students (16.7%) who categorized to “Poor”. While in post-test there were 0 students (0%) who categorized to “Excellent”, 19 students (52.72%) who categorized to “Good”, 17 students (47.28%) who categorized to “Fair”, 0 students (0%) who categorized to
“Less”, and 0 students (0%) who categorized “Poor”.
Based on the result above, indicated that the students’ speaking accuracy in pre-test was dominant classification in “Fair” and “Less”. While students’
speaking accuracy in post-test was dominant classification in “Good” and “Fair”
nobody students’ got bad score. Based on the result on accuracy above, there were an improvement students’ score of accuracy in pre-test to post-test.
2.2. The Frequency and Percentage of Fluency
The data of speaking test of the students’ were obtained by speaking in term of fluency. In order to knew the students’ speaking, the score of speaking fluency observed as follow:
Table 4.5
Frequency and the Rate Percentage of Pre-Test and post-Test in Fluency
No
Fluency
Classification Pre-Test Post-Test
F % F %
1 Excellent 0 0 0 0
2 Good 0 0 15 41.7
3 Fair 8 22.2 17 47.2
4 Less 12 33.3 4 11.1
5 Poor 16 44.5 0 0
Total 36 100% 36 100%
The table above shows that the classification students’ score had was divides in fifth classification in fluency, namely excellent, good, fair, less, and poor. The table shows that score of fluency in pre-test and post-test from 36 students.
In pre-test, there were 0 students (0%) who categorized to “Excellent”, 0 students (0%) who categorized “Good”, 8 students (22.2%) who categorized to
“Fair”, 12 students (33.3%) who categorized to “Less”, and 16 students (44.5%) who categorized to “Poor”.While in post-test there were 0 students (0%) who categorized to “Excellent”, 15 students (41.7%) who categorized to “Good”, 17
students (47.2%) who categorized to “Fair”, 4 students (11.1%) who categorized to “Less”, and 0 students (0%) who categorized “Poor”.
Based on the result above, indicated that the students’ speaking fluency in pre-test was dominant classification in “Less” and “Poor”. While in post-test was dominant classification in “Good” and “Fair” nobody students’ got bad score. It means that, there were an improvement students’ score of fluency in pre-test to post-test.
3. Hypothesis Testing
Based on the result of speaking, the students’ score in pre-test and post- test determined the value of t-test knew the improvement of the students’ after conducting treatment by using jigsaw technique is successful. The value of t-test can be seen from the table below about speaking ability.
Table 4.6
The Value of T-test Pre-Test and Post-Post
Variable T-Test T-Table Comparison Classification
Speaking
18.17 2.03011 T-Test> T-Table (18.17>2.03011)
Significant
The table above shows that the t-test value of the students is higher than the value of t-table. After calculating the t-test value got score (18.17) and t-table was (2.03011). The result of statistical analysis at the level significance with degree of freedom (df)=n-1, where df=36-1 and df=35 indicate that there were a
significant difference between the mean score of post-test and pre-test. The mean score of pre-test was (86.63) and post-test was (102.88). In addition, the t-test value was bigger than t-table value (18.17>2.03011). It means that, the null hypothesis (H0) was rejected and alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted. It is said that there was a significant difference between the students’ speaking before and after using Jigsaw Technique.
From the explanation above, the hypothesis (H1) is accepted and the Null Hypothesis (H0) is rejected. In other words, jigsaw technique can be used to improve the students’ speaking English.
B. Discussion
The research finding indicates that the students’ speaking ability using jigsaw technique shows the improvement of the students speaking ability in term of accuracy has focused on pronunciation and vocabulary, and fluency. From the improvement shows the process in pre-test and post-test.
The improvement of students’ speaking skill is caused applying jigsaw technique to students’ in post-test. In pre-test the researcher gave the students’
instruction to speak in front of the class before applying jigsaw technique. After the researcher given the treatment to the students’, the students’ become active and more enjoyable to speak in learning process through working group in the classroom. The description of data collection through speaking test was explained in previous findings section show that the students’ after the application of jigsaw technique is significant.
In applying of jigsaw technique in teaching speaking, the researcher finds that the mean score of students’ speaking ability in post-test was greater than
score of pre-test. The use of jigsaw technique improved students’ accuracy. It was proved by the improvement from pre-test to post-test. The mean score of accuracy in post-test was 71.37 greater than the mean score of pre-test 54.48. The improvement of students’ accuracy was 22.04%. The mean score of fluency in post-test was 69.66 greater than the mean score in pre-test 56.19. Thus, the improvement of students’ fluency was 23.97%. The mean score of speaking ability both of accuracy and fluency in post-test was 70.515 greater than the mean score in pre-test was 57.337. Thus, the improvement of students’ speaking ability was 22.98%.In other side, the researcher found that the result between t-test and t- table showed that the t-test was greater than t-table. The t-test was 18.17 while t- table was 2.03011. It means that, there was significance difference between pre- test and post-test.
Based on the result of speaking test, the students’ speaking ability was improved. It was proved by the result of post-test in terms of accuracy and fluency. The category score of accuracy which the score of pre-test was fair 33.3 and post-test was good 52.72. The category of fluency which the score of post-test was poor 38.9 and post-test was good 36.08.
After applying jigsaw technique on speaking, the students’ speaking was improve because they were used some new vocabulary that the students find during the learning process. The students were familiar with the vocabulary they knew so that the students actively speaking and more enjoyable to appear in teachinglearningactivities, so the students were fluent in speaking. Based on the result of data analysis the researchers conclude that the use of jigsaw technique is effective to improve the students’ speaking ability in teaching process.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESSTION A. Conclusion
Based on the research findings and discussions in the previous chapter, the researchers conclude that the implementation of jigsaw technique improve the students speaking ability especiallyinclassX.AP 1 at SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Bontoala.
After applying jigsaw technique, thestudents weremore active and enjoyableinteaching andlearningactivitiesand also theywere
morefamiliarwiththewordsthey learntsothattheir
speakingabilityimproved.Theimplementationof Jigsawtechniquegivespositive effectson thestudents’speakingabilitybecause after applying jigsaw technique, the students more active and increasethestudents’ enthusiasm in speaking to appear in front of their friends. The improvement of students’ speaking skill is canbeseenfromthe students’speakingachievement.
In applying of jigsaw technique in teaching speaking, the researcher finds that the mean score of students’ speaking ability in post-test was greater than score of pre-test. The mean score of speaking ability both of accuracy and fluency in post-test was 70.515 greater than the mean score in pre-test was 57.337. Thus, the improvement of students’ speaking ability was 22.98%.In other side, the researcher found that the result between t-test and t-table showed that the t-test was greater than t-table. The t-test was 18.17 while t-table was 2.03011.It means that the null hypothesis (H0) was rejected and alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted.
Based on the explanation above, we can see that jigsaw technique is effective to improve the students’ speaking ability which focused on accuracy and fluency in teaching speaking. Jigsaw technique is one way in improving students to speak up and to be active in front of the class with positive attitude.
B. Suggestion
Based on the result of the data analysis, the researcher would like to give some suggestions as follow:
1. The researcher suggest to the English teacher to use jigsaw technique as an alternative ways in teaching and learning English to improve the students’
speaking ability.
2. The researcher suggests to the English teacher to make students interest in English learning, because it is very important before applied jigsaw technique as a teaching technique in group learning.
3. The researcher suggests to the teacher should be creative in teaching English especially speaking because in teaching speaking need more method or technique in improving it.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alamsyah. 2017. The Use of Ice Breaker to Improve Students’ Speaking Ability at the Junior High School (SMP Negeri 3 Ma’rang) Pangkep. Makassar:
Muhammadiyah University of Makassar.
Ardawati. 2010. Developing Students’ Speaking Skill through Motivate, Activate, and Parcipate (MAP) Formula. Makassar: Muhammadiyah University of Makassar.
Asrul, Asri. 2010. Improving Students’ Speaking Ability through the Use of Sugestopedia Method. Makassar: Muhammadiyah University of Makassar.
Astriani, Maileny. 2013. The Influence jigsaw Technique Toward Students’
Speaking Ability of the Second Year at Madrasah Aliyah Darul Ulum Tandun. Darul Ulum Tandun: Madrasah Aliyah Darul Ulum Tandaun.
Awalia, Dina. 2016. The Correlation Between the Students’ Sociolinguistis
Competence and Their Speaking Ability. Makassar: Muhammadiyah University of Makassar.
Azizah, Muna Nur. 2017. Improving Students’ Activeness in Speaking Using Jigsaw II of SMAN 1 Kandawangan. Pontianak: Tanjungpura University Pontianak.
Brown, Douglas H. 2004. Language Assessment Principles and Classroom practices. San Fransisco: Longman.
Brown,H.D.2000.PrinciplesofEnglishLanguageandTeaching,Fourth Edition. NewYork.Longman.
Burn,Anne.1999.CollaborativeActionResearchforEnglish Language Teacher.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Desiana, Eka Ayu. 2013. The Implementation of Jigsaw Technique in Improving Students’ Oral Production of Recount Text.Vol 2 Nomor 8. Available at http://jurnal.fkip.unila.ac.id/index.php/123/article/view/1964/1331(accesse d on January 15,2019)
Diyah, Dheni. 2010. The Use of Jigsaw to Improve Speaking English Ability.Thesis S-1. Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta.
Harmer, Jeremy. 1991. The Practice of English Language Teaching. London:
Longman.
Harris. 1984. Language Testing Handbook. Second edition. London. Mucmilan Publisher.
Hersulastuti. 2010. Implementing Jigsaw Technique in Speaking Class of Describing Someone: A Reflection. Journal MagistraNo. 73. [Online]
Availableat: http://journal.unwidha.ac.id/index.php/magistra/issue/view/11 . [Accessed onJuny 21, 2019]
Hornby, A.S.1995. OxfordAdvancedLearner’sDictionaryof Current English(5thEd).NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Hosni, Samira Al. 2014. Speaking Difficulties Encountered by Young EFL Learners. Volume 2.
Iwashita. 2010. Assessed Levels of Second Language Speaking Proficiency.
Britana.Oxfor University Press 2008.
Pollard, L. 2008.Teaching English: A Book to Help You Through Your First Two Years in Teaching.
Richard, J,C. 2001. Curriculum Development in Language Teaching.Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Rosalinda, Eka Lisya. 2017. Using Cue Cards Media in improving Students’
Speaking Ability. Thesis.Makassar.Muhammadiyah University of Makassar.
Syukur, Helmi. 2013. Building Up Students’ Speaking Achievement though Jigsaw Technique. Jurnal Adabiyah. Vol. 16 Nomor 2/2016. Available at http://journal.uinalauddin.ac.id/index.php/adabiyah/article/view/1699/pdf(
accessed on November 19,2018)
Utari, Risadiah. 2013. Using Jigsaw Technique to Improvethe Speaking Ability of theGradeVII Studentsof SMPN3DepokintheAcademicYearof 2010/2011.
Thesis. Yogyakarta: YogyakartaState University.
Wahyudi, Tri. 2014. Improving Students’ Speaking Ability through Jigsaw Task”
Thesis. Lampung: Lampung University.
Willis, G. B. (2004). Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zahrah, Annisa Fatimatus. 2018. The Use of Story Sequence As An Alternative Medium to Enhance Students’ Speaking Skill. Thesis. Makassar:
Muhammadiyah University of Makassar.