CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
D. Technique of Data Collection
Before giving the treatment, the researcher gave a pre-test.
It took in 30 minutes. The material test that the writer used consisted of 10 items. The pre-test used to know the prior knowledge of the students‟ ability in speaking through Discovery Learning.
2. Treatment
The researcher gave treatment by using Discovery Learning. The treatment of the research was conducted in 6 meetings in which each meeting needs 120 minutes.
3. Post-test
Post-test was carried out in the l ast meeting. The writer employed post-test to find out the value of treatment whether the result of post-test better then pre-test or not.
E. Technique of Data Analysis
The data collect from the oral test was analyzed quantitatively. The steps were listed as follows:
1. Classifying the students‟ accuracy score.
To measure the speaking progress of students on the component observe, the students‟ scoring result is evaluate based on the speaking aspect below:
Accuracy
The rating score of students‟ speaking ability in term of accuracy dealing with pronunciation and vocabulary are:
1) Pronunciation
Table 3.1 Pronunciation scoring criteria
Classification Score Criteria
Very good 5
Pronunciation is slightly influenced by the mother tongue. Few minor grammatical and lexical errors but most utterances are correct
Good 4
Pronunciation is still moderately influenced by mother tongue but not serious phonological errors. A few grammatical and lexical errors but not only one or two major causing confusion
Fair 3
Pronunciation is influenced by mother tongue but only serious phonological errors. Several grammatical and lexical errors, some of which cause confusing.
Poor 2
Pronunciation is seriously influenced by mother tongue with errors causing a breakdown in a communication.
Many grammatical and lexical errors.
Very poor 1
Serious pronunciation errors as many basic grammatical and lexical errors. No evidence of having mastered nay of the language skill and areas practiced in the course.
Heaton (1988:100)
2) Vocabulary
Table 3.2 Vocabulary scoring criteria
Classification Score Criteria
Very good 5 They speak effectively and very good of using vocabulary.
Good 4 They speak effectively and good of using vocabulary.
Average 3 They speak sometimes hasty but fairly good of using vocabulary.
Poor 2 They speak hasty and more sentences are not appropriate using vocabulary.
Very poor 1 They speak hasty and more sentences are not appropriate using vocabulary, and little or no communication.
Heaton (1988:100).
2. Scoring the students‟ answer of pre-test and post-test Scoring =
3. Classifying the students‟ score into five classification Table 3.3. Category Students’ Speaking Score
Range Score Score Category
80-100 A Very Good
70-79 B Good
50-69 C Fair
40-59 D Poor
<49 E Very Poor
(Gay in Zyam 2019)
4. Calculation the mean of the students answere by using formula:
Where: = Mean score
∑ = The raw of all score N = The number of subjects
(Subana, et al, 2005)
5. The percentage of increasing achievement used the following formula:
P = Where: P= Percentage
X2= Average score of Post-test X1= Average score of Pre-test
(Gay, 1981)
6. The significance difference between the students‟ pre-test and post- test, the writer applied the formula as follow:
T =
Where:
T = Test of significance
D = The difference between the method pairs (X1–X2)
Md = The mean of Ds
∑
∑ ∑
N = Number of students
1
2 2
N N
N d d
Md
= The sum of the square
= The square of
(Subana, et al, 2005)
7. The criteria for the hypothesis testing is as follows:
Table 3.4. Hypothesis Testing
Comparison Hypothesis
H0 H1
t-test < t-table Accepted Rejected t-test > t-table Rejected Accepted
(Subana, et al, 2005)
Table 3.3 meant (1) the t-test value is smaller than t-table value, the null hypothesis is accepted, while the alternative hypothesis is rejected, and (2) the t-test value is equal to greater than t-table value, the null hypothesis is rejected while the alternative is accepted.
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
In this chapter, the researcher presents findings of the researcher and discussion. Findings consist of the ability to identify the vocabulary and pronunciation by using Discovery Learning. The discussion of the research covers further explanation of the findings.
A. Findings
1. Students’ Speaking Accuracy a. Pronunciation in Pre-test
Table 4.1 Rate Percentage and Frequency in Pre-test of Pronunciation
No Pre-test
Category Score Frequency Percentage
1 Very good 5 0 0%
2 Good 4 0 0%
3 Fair 3 5 25%
4 Poor 2 15 75%
5 Very poor 1 0 0%
Total 20 100%
The table showed that none (0%) out of 20 students had very good or good category, 5 (25%) out of 20 students had fair category, 15 (75%) out of 20 students had poor category, and none of students had very poor category. It means from the pre-test most of students less in Pronunciation due to 75% of students got poor category.
b. Pronunciation in Post-test
Table 4.2 Rate Percentage and Frequency in Post-test of Pronunciation
No Post-test
Category Score Frequency Percentage
1 Very good 5 9 45%
2 Good 4 0 0%
3 Fair 3 8 40%
4 Poor 2 3 15%
5 Very poor 1 0 0%
Total 20 100%
The table showed that 9 (45%) out of 20 students had very good category, none out of students had good category, 8 (40%) out of 20 students had fair category, and none of students had poor and poor category. After the researcher implemented the Discovery Learning in teaching speaking ability most of students‟ post-test had improvement in vocabulary due to 15% of students got poor category.
c. Vocabulary in Pre-test
Table 4.3 Rate Percentage and Frequency in Pre-test of Vocabulary
No Pre-test
Category Score Frequency Percentage
1 Very good 5 0 0%
2 Good 4 0 0%
3 Fair 3 7 35%
4 Poor 2 13 65%
5 Very poor 1 0 0%
Total 20 100%
The table showed that none (0%) out of 20 students had very good or good category, 7 (35%) out of 20 students had fair category, 13 (65%) out of 20 students had poor category, and none of students had very poor category. It means from the pre-test most of students less in vocabulary due to 65% of students got poor category.
d. Vocabulary in Post-test
Table 4.4 Rate Percentage and Frequency in Post-test of Vocabulary
No Post-test
Category Score Frequency Percentag e
1 Very good 5 15 75%
2 Good 4 0 0%
3 Fair 3 5 25%
4 Poor 2 0 0%
5 Very poor 1 0 0%
Total 20 100%
The table showed that 15 (75%) out of 20 students had very good category, none out of students had good category, 5 (25%) out of 20 students had fair category, and none of students had poor and poor category. After the researcher implemented the Discovery Learning in teaching speaking ability most of students‟ post-test had improvement in vocabulary due to 75% of students got good category.
2. The Improvement of Students’ Accuracy in Speaking
The improvement of students‟ pronunciation and vocabulary by using Discovery Learning at eighth grade student of SMPN 28 Kepulauan Selayar could be seen on the following table:
Table 4.5 The Improvement of Students‟ Accuracy in Speaking Ability
No Indicators Mean score Improvement
Pre-test Post-test (%)
1 Pronunciation 2.25 3.35 48.89%
2 Vocabulary 2.25 3.8 68.89%
Total 4.50 7.15 58.89%
The table showed the improvement of students‟ vocabulary and pronunciation by using Discovery Learning. The students‟
pronunciation showed the improvement between pre-test and post- test was 48.89%. The students‟ vocabulary showed that the improvement was 68.89% and Total score improvement of the students‟ accuracy in speaking ability was 58.89%.
3. Hypothesis Testing
The hypothesis was tested by using inferential analysis. In this case, the researcher used t-test (test of significance) for independent sample test, that was a test to know the significant difference between the result of students‟ mean scores in pretest and posttest the researcher used t-test analysis on the level of
significant (α) = 0.05 with the degree of freedom (df) = N – 1, where N = Number of subject (20 students) then the value of t- table was 2.093 the t-test statistical, analysis for independent sample was applied.
The result of the data analysis t-test of the students‟
speaking ability by using Discovery Learning in table 4.6.
Table 4.6 The T-test of Students‟ Improvement
Components t-test value t-table value
Speaking 13.25 2.093
The table showed that the value of the t- test was higher than the value of t-table. The t-test value were greater than t-table (13.25>2.093). It indicated that there was significant difference between the students‟ speaking in the class before and after using Discovery Learning at the eighth grade students of SMPN 28 Kepulauan Selayar.
The hypothesis was needed to find out whether the hypothesis was accepted or rejected. If the result of t-test was lower than t-table‟ value, the null hypothesis (H0) would be rejected, and if the result of t-test was higher than t-table‟ value, the alternative hypothesis (H1) would be accepted.
The Null Hypothesis (H0) was rejected and Alternative Hypothesis (H1) was accepted where the t-test value of speaking ability 13.25 were higher than t-table 2.093. Therefore, there was a
significant difference between the result of students‟ pre-test and post-test in speaking ability by using Discovery Learning.
B. Discussion
Based on the findings, the speaking ability of the eighth grade students of SMP 28 Kepulauan Selayar by using Discovery Learning significantly improved. It was proven by the students‟ speaking ability by using Discovery Learning showed the improvement in terms of vocabulary and pronunciation. From the improvement showed the process in pre-test and post-test. The result of the students‟ speaking in pretest was low, especially in pronunciation.
The researcher gave the treatment by using Discovery Learning, so that the students could show the improvement in post-test. In pre-test, the researcher gave Speaking Performance (monologue) about “Last Holiday” to know their prior knowledge before using Discovery Learning.
In pre-test, students‟ speaking ability was less. Almost of students were very hard to pronouns the words and lack of vocabulary.
So the researcher gave the treatment by using Discovery Learning. As the result, students become more active and good in speaking. They would be easy to pronouns the words.
From explanation above the researcher concluded that Discovery Learning was found to be potential to provide better in teaching learning process, especially in teaching speaking skill. This was proven after the researcher implemented the Discovery Learning.
First, Discovery Learning could increase students‟ motivation.
In the class the teacher divided students into several group. Here, the students could discuss the material, shared their knowledge and gave some feedback to others members‟. This could help students‟ to understand the material well. This condition could attract students‟
motivation in learning.
Lastly, Discovery Learning could improve students‟ activity and academically. Here the students would more active due to Discovery Learning is a technique where students are given a chance think, asked, and discover the material by themselves. Here, the students identified the problem statement that given by the teacher and collected and interpreted the data information with their groups‟
member. After that, each group presented their paper and it gives more opportunities to student to speak up and practice their speaking ability.
All of it could improve students‟ activity and academically. It is related with Mufida (2015) found that the use of Discovery Learning in teaching speaking was effective due to the students become more active in oral activities and all of activities can make the students do not feel bored.
Discovery learning is one of teaching method in curriculum 2013. This method requires the learners to become active in doing experiment, collecting the data, and analyzing the data. These activities are suitable to the implementation of student-centered learning that puts teachers just as facilitator or expositor. It means that, the learners
must be able to solve or guess the problems which are given by the teacher. It can make the learning process be more useful and effective because by giving the problem, the teacher tries to give stimuli for the students.
After seeing the improved of the students‟speaking ability in terms of identify the vocabulary and pronunciation by using Discovery Learning. It was concluded that the use of Discovery Learning improve the students‟ ability in speaking in terms to identify the vocabulary and pronunciation. It could be showed from the students‟
speaking test in pre-test and post-test. In pre-test, most of students were difficult to pronounced the words and lack of vocabulary. But, the students‟speaking post-test, most of students were easily to pronounced the words and good in speaking.
It can be concluded that using Discovery Learning should be applying in speaking due to students more understand easily the material that given by the teacher. And also Discovery Learning has given positive impact for the students.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. CONCLUSION
The students‟ speaking ability by using Discovery Learning at the eighth grade students of SMPN 28 Kepulauan Selayar significantly improved. It was proved by the mean score before and after giving treatment was 46 becomes 72.5 and improve 57.6% with the t-test value orientation was greater than t-table (13.25>2.093) at the eighth grade students of SMPN 28 Kepulauan Selayar.
B. SUGGESTION
Based on the conclusion above, the researcher presents some suggestions as follows:
1. The teacher should implement Discovery Learning in teaching learning activity. Because Discovery Learning is effective method and give positive impact and the students will more understand easily the material.
2. In this research, the researcher use Pre-experimental design to know the students‟ improvement in speaking. For the next researcher may use True-experimental research design to know whether or not the use of Discovery Learning is effective in improving students‟ speaking ability.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ali, Gunay Balım. 2009. The Effects of Discovery Learning on Students‘ Success and Inquiry Learning Skill. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research. p. 2-3.
Armasita. 2017. Improving Students’ Speaking Skill in English Lesson with Action Learning Strategy. Thesis. Medan: The State Islamic University of North Sumatra.
Balim, A. G. 2009. The Effects of Discovery Learning on Students’ Success and Inquiry Learning Skills. Egitim Arastirmalari-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 35, 1-20.
Broughton. 1980. Teaching English as Foreign Language. London and New York: Routledgeang Legal Paul.
Brown, H. Douglas. 1980. Principle of Language learning and Teaching (1st edition) New York: Longman.
Castronova, J. A. 2002. Discovery Learning for the 21st century: what is and how it compares to traditional Learning in effectiveness in the 21st century?
Creswell, John W. 2012. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. America: Pearson,
Boston.
Depdikbud. 1985. Research and Practice. Random House: Tim Pengembang Ilmu Pendidikan.
Emzir.2015.Metodologi Penelitian Pendidikan. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.
Fulcher, G. 2013. Testing Second Language Speaking. Harlow: Logman/Pearson Education.
Gay, L.R. 1981. Educational Research Competences for Analysis and Application. Columbia: Clures E Marri Publishing Company.
Ginusti, Gallis Nawang. 2014. Improving Speaking Skills of Grade VIII Students of SMP Negeri 2 Godean Through Pictures.Yogyakarta:Yogyakarta State
University.
Harmer, J. 2001.Practice of English Language Teaching. Edinburgh Gate:
Logman.p.269.
Hajar, Sayyidatul. 2016. The Use of Discovery Learning to Improve the Students’
Reading Comprehention. Thesis.Salatiga: State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) Salatiga.
Hasibuan, Nur Oktaviani. 2018. The Effect of Applying Discovery Learning Model on the Students’ Speaking Achievement. Thesis. Medan: Universitas Sumatra Utara.
Heaton, J. B. 1988. Speaking Ability as the Ability to Communicate Ideas Appropriately.
Hidayatullah, Syarif. 2016. The effectiveness of Group Discussion on Students‟
Speaking Skill.
Hornby. 1995. Definition of Speaking Skill. New York: Publisher.
Thornbury, S. 2005. How to Teach Speaking. USA: Logman.
Huda, Miftahul. 2016. Model-model Pembelajaran. Yogyakarta: PustakaPelajar.
Ilahi, Mohammad Takdir. 2012. Pembalajaran Discovery Strategy and Mental Vocational Skill. Yogyakarta: Diva Press.
Jack, C. Richards. 2008. Teaching Listening and Speaking; from Theory to Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press. P.21.
Karmila, R.F. 2008. The Use of Picture Based Activites to Improve First Year Students’ Speaking Proficiency at MA MADANI Alauddin Pao-pao Makassar. Thesis. Makassar: UIN Alauddin Makassar.
Logman. 1995. Logman Dictionary of Contemporary English Vocabulary.
Mukharomah, Laelatul. 2015. The Use of Discovery Learning Model to Improve Students’ Descriptive Text Writing. Thesis. Semarang: Walisongo State Islamic University.
Mendikbud. 2013. Model Pembelajaran Penemuan (Discovery Learning).Journal Badan Pengembangan Sumber Daya Manusia Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan dan Penjaminan Mutu Pendidikan. Jakarta: Dokumen Kemendikbud.
Mulasari, Friska Carnia. 2015. The Effectiveness of Using Game in Teaching Speaking Skil. Thesis.Purwokerto: Muhammadiyah University of Purwokerto Mufida, Irmayanti. Dkk. 2015.The Implementation of Discovery Learning to Teach Speaking at the First Grade Students at SMP Institut Indonesia. Tell Journal 3(2): 109-110.
Murphy, Theresa, Malloy, John, &O‟brien, Sean. 2010. Discovery Learning.
Nirmawati, lia Amalia. 2015. Improving Students’ Speaking Skill trough Speaking Board Games. Thesis. Yogyakarta: Yogyakarta State University.
Palupi, Dianing. 2015. The Effect of Discovery Learning on the Students’
Speaking Ability of the Tent Grade at SMKN 2 Kediri. Thesis. Kediri:
Universitas Nusantara PGRI Kediri.
Permatasari, Rani Candrakirana. 2014. Improving Students’ Speaking Skill through Three Steps Interview Technique. Thesis. Semarang: Semarang State University.
Prawerti, Ringgi Candraning. 2014. The Effectiveness of Using Discovery Learning Method in Teaching Writing Skill Viewed from the Students’
Creativity. Thesis. Surakarta: Sebelas Maret University.
Ratnasari. 2016. Improving the Students’ Speaking Ability through Problem Based Learning Method at the Eight Grade Students of SMPN 7 Makassar. Thesis.
Makassar: Muhammadiyah University of Makassar.
Sani, Ridwan Abdulla.2014.InovasiPembelajaran. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
Sofeny, Daniar. 2017. The Effectiveness of Discovery Learning in Improving English Writing Skill of Extrovested and Introverted Students.
Thesis.Lamongan: Darul‟ Ulum Islamic University.
Subana, M., Sudrajat. 2015. Dasar-Dasar Penelitian Ilmiah. Bandung: Pustaka Setia.
Sugiyono. 2015. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Tarigan, Henry Guntur. 1981. Berbicara Sebagai Suatu Keterampilan Berbahasa.
Bandung: Angkasa, p.15.
Tarigan, H.G. 1990. English Foreign Language. Bandung: Angkasa.
Westwood, Peter. 2018. What Teachers Need to Know about Teaching Methods.
Australia: Camberwell.
Zyam, Yunita Oktariana. 2019. Improving Students’ Speaking Ability through Illustration Picture at SMA Muhammadiyah 9 Makassar. Thesis. Makassar:
Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar.
Type of the test : Speaking Performance (Monologue)
Skill : Speaking
Instruction :
Think of what you did last holiday.
1. What experience?
2. Who were involved?
3. When did it happen?
4. Where did it took place
5. What happened? What did the people do?
6. How was it?
Tell the class about your story.
POST-TEST INSTRUMENT
Type of the test : Speaking Performance (Monologue)
Skill : Speaking
Instruction :
Think of an unforgettable moment happened in your life.
1. What experience?
2. Who were involved?
3. When did it happen?
4. Where did it took place
5. What happened? What did the people do?
6. How was it?
Tell the class about your story.
(Adopted from Ginusti: 2014)
Lasmini is a student of Muhammadiyah University of Makassar. She was born on 21st December 1996 Sambali, Kepulauan Selayar. She is the second child of the marriage of Abd. Rahman and Rosdiana. She began her study at SD Inpres Sambali and graduated in 2008. Then, she continued her study in SMP Babussalam and graduated in 2011. Afterwards, she continued her study in MAN Bontoharu and graduated in 2014. During her study at university, she joined internal organization, namely UKM Bahasa. She was a member of UKM Bahasa. At the end of the study, she could finish her thesis under the title The Speaking Ability of the Eighth Grade Students of SMPN 28 Kepulauan Selayar by Using Discovery Learning.
No Respondents Pronunciation
Total Pre-test 5 4 3 2 1
1 SM 3 3 60
2 AR 3 3 60
3 MT 2 2 40
4 NI 3 3 60
5 CT 2 2 40
6 NR 2 2 40
7 DR 2 2 40
8 NS 2 2 40
9 RN 2 2 40
10 NRI 2 2 40
11 IS 2 2 40
12 SH 3 3 60
13 AW 2 2 40
14 DRS 2 2 40
15 MT 2 2 40
16 AB 2 2 40
17 MA 3 3 60
18 AS 2 2 40
19 SP 2 2 40
20 SL 2 2 40
Total ∑ =45 ∑ =1110
Mean Score (X) 2.25 55
No Respondents Pronunciation
Total Post-test 5 4 3 2 1
1 SM 5 5 100
2 AR 4 4 80
3 MT 4 4 80
4 NI 4 4 80
5 CT 4 4 80
6 NR 4 4 80
7 DR 3 3 60
8 NS 4 4 80
9 RN 3 3 60
10 NRI 4 4 80
11 IS 4 4 80
12 SH 3 3 60
13 AW 3 3 60
14 DRS 3 3 60
15 MT 3 3 60
16 AB 3 3 60
17 MA 3 3 60
18 AS 2 2 40
19 SP 2 2 40
20 SL 2 2 40
Total ∑ =67 ∑ =1340
Mean Score (X) 3.35 67
No Respondents Vocabulary
Total Pre-test 5 4 3 2 1
1 SM 3 3 60
2 AR 3 3 60
3 MT 3 3 60
4 NI 3 3 60
5 CT 3 3 60
6 NR 2 2 40
7 DR 2 2 40
8 NS 2 2 40
9 RN 2 2 40
10 NRI 2 2 40
11 IS 2 2 40
12 SH 3 3 60
13 AW 2 2 40
14 DRS 2 2 40
15 MT 2 2 40
16 AB 2 2 40
17 MA 3 3 60
18 AS 2 2 40
19 SP 2 2 40
20 SL 2 2 40
Total ∑ =45 ∑ =940
Mean Score (X) 2.25 47
No Respondents Vocabulary
Total Post-test 5 4 3 2 1
1 SM 4 4 80
2 AR 5 5 100
3 MT 4 4 80
4 NI 4 4 80
5 CT 4 4 80
6 NR 4 4 80
7 DR 4 4 80
8 NS 4 4 80
9 RN 4 4 80
10 NRI 4 4 80
11 IS 4 4 80
12 SH 4 4 80
13 AW 4 4 80
14 DRS 4 4 80
15 MT 4 4 80
16 AB 3 3 60
17 MA 3 3 60
18 AS 3 3 60
19 SP 3 3 60
20 SL 3 3 60
Total ∑ =76 ∑ =1520
Mean Score (X) 3.8 76