CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY OF THE RESEARCH
H. Testing hypothesis
t =
√( )( )
Where:
= Significant result experimental and control group
= Mean score of experimental group
= Mean score of control group
= The total square of experimental group = The total square of control group Nx = The total number of experimental group Ny = The total number of control group26
40
CHAPTER IV
FINDING AND DISCUSSING
A. Finding
4.1 The Result of Speaking Test
As mentioned before in the previous chapter, the researcher gave the tests (pre-test and post-test) to the students. The test focused on fluency and accuracy.
Pre-test aimed to measure the students’ speaking skill before getting treatment, while post test aimed to measure the students’ skill after the treatment.
4.1.1 The Result of Pre-test
To find out of student’ speaking skill by using Mingle technique, the researcher examined pre-test to the students before treatment. The pre-test in experimental group (VII A) was conducted on March 8th, 2021, and the pre-test in control group (VII B) was on March 8th, 2021. The result of pre-test was presented in the following table:
Table 4.1
The Result of Pre-test of Experimental Group No. Initials Component Obtained
Score
Maximum Score
Individual Score Fluency Accuracy
1 AS 40 40 80 200 40
2 AF 45 35 80 200 40
3 AR 60 50 110 200 55
4 AH 75 55 130 200 65
5 AU 80 75 155 200 77.5
6 AF 72 50 122 200 61
7 DK 35 35 70 200 35
8 FS 74 55 129 200 64.5
9 FY 35 55 90 200 45
10 HP 75 75 150 200 75
11 IR 73 53 126 200 63
12 JR 35 35 70 200 35
13 JS 70 50 120 200 60
14 LN 50 40 90 200 45
15 LY 68 50 118 200 59
16 MG 67 51 118 200 59
17 MAD 50 50 100 200 50
18 MAK 50 50 100 200 50
19 RV 40 30 70 200 35
20 RS 60 50 110 200 55
21 SR 72 51 123 200 61.5
22 SS 60 60 120 200 60
23 WMY 30 35 65 200 32.5
Total 2446 1223 Mean score Pre-test 53.17
By looking at the table above, referring to Heaton’s scoring system, most of the students scores for rating 2 (56-85) of fluency were dominated by 13 students and for rating 1 (≤55) of accuracy were dominated by 17 students.
Having noted the pre-test scores of experimental group, it can be seen that the highest individual scores of the pre-test was 77.5, the lowest individual scores was 32.5, and the total of individual scores was 1223. The data on the table 4.1 described the mean score of the students in the experimental class. The researcher analyzed the score by using formula below:
Table 4.2
The Result of Pre-test of Control Group No. Initials Component Obtained
Score
Maximum Score
Individual Score Fluency Accuracy
1 AN 50 40 90 200 45
2 AFDA 72 50 122 200 61
3 AS 45 42 87 200 43.5
4 ARL 68 50 118 200 59
5 AA 54 52 106 200 53
6 AZ 70 54 124 200 62
7 DN 60 50 110 200 55
8 FRA 76 76 152 200 76
9 HA 42 42 84 200 42
10 IH 45 35 80 200 40
11 JS 60 50 110 200 55
12 LA 80 76 156 200 78
13 ML 75 75 150 200 75
14 MI 51 67 118 200 59
15 MA 72 51 123 200 61.5
16 NL 50 70 120 200 60
17 RA 75 54 129 200 64.5
18 RF 50 40 90 200 45
19 SH 80 75 155 200 77.5
20 SP 73 55 128 200 64
21 WH 55 75 130 200 65
Total 2482 1241 Mean score Pre-test 59.09
By looking at the table above, referring to Heaton’s scoring system, most of the students’ scores of rating 2(56-85) for fluency were dominated by 13 students and for rating 1(≤55) of accuracy were dominated by 14 students.
Having noted the pre-test scores of control group, it can be seen that the highest individual score of the pre-test was 78, the lowest individual score was 40, and the total of students individual scores were 1233. The data on the table 4.2 described the mean score of the students in the control class. The researcher analyzed the score by using formula below:
4.1.2 The Result of Post-test
To find out of student’ speaking skill by using Mingle technique, the researcher examined post-test to the students after treatment. The post-test in experimental group (VII A) and control group (VII B) was conducted on April 11th, 2021. The result of pre-test was presented in the following table:
Table 4.3
The Result of Post-test of Experimental Group No. Initials Component Obtained
Score
Maximum Score
Individual Score Fluency Accuracy
1 AS 70 70 140 200 70
2 AF 65 65 130 200 65
3 AR 70 88 158 200 79
4 AH 89 88 177 200 88.5
5 AU 90 89 179 200 89.5
6 AF 88 75 163 200 81.5
7 DK 60 50 110 200 55
8 FS 87 89 176 200 88
9 FY 65 60 125 200 62.5
10 HP 89 89 178 200 89
11 IR 86 85 171 200 85.5
12 JR 60 55 115 200 57.5
13 JS 80 86 166 200 83
14 LN 60 65 125 200 62.5
15 LY 70 60 130 200 65
16 MG 86 62 148 200 74
17 MAD 65 65 130 200 65
18 MAK 63 65 128 200 64
19 RV 60 55 115 200 57.5
20 RS 86 60 146 200 73
21 SR 89 65 154 200 77
22 SS 86 76 162 200 81
23 WMY 60 50 110 200 55
Total 3336 1668 Mean score Post-test 72.52
By looking at the table above, referring to Heaton’s scoring system, most of the students scores for rating 2 (56-85) of fluency were dominated by 13 students and for rating 2 (56-85) of accuracy were dominated by 13 students.
Having noted the post-test scores of experimental group, it can be seen that the highest individual scores of the post-test was 89.5, the lowest individual scores was 55, and the total of individual scores was 1668. The data on the table 4.3 described the mean score of the students in the experimental class. The researcher analyzed the score by using formula below:
Table 4.4
The Result of Post-test of Control Group No. Initials Component Obtained
Score
Maximum Score
Individual Score Fluency Accuracy
1 AN 55 60 115 200 57.5
2 AFDA 90 60 150 200 75
3 AS 60 50 110 200 55
4 ARL 87 70 157 200 78.5
5 AA 60 60 120 200 60
6 AZ 65 55 120 200 60
7 DN 60 55 115 200 57.5
8 FRA 85 85 170 200 85
9 HA 60 50 110 200 55
10 IH 58 55 113 200 56.5
11 JS 70 55 125 200 62.5
12 LA 92 88 180 200 90
13 ML 90 78 168 200 84
14 MI 60 60 120 200 60
15 MA 80 55 135 200 67.5
16 NL 80 85 165 200 82.5
17 RA 80 70 150 200 75
18 RF 55 50 105 200 52.5
19 SH 90 87 177 200 88.5
20 SP 83 85 168 200 84
21 WH 80 85 165 200 82.5
Total 2938 1469 Mean score Post-test 69.95
By looking at the table above, referring to Heaton’s scoring system, most of the students’ scores for rating 2(56-85) of fluency were dominated by 14 students and for rating 1(≤55) of accuracy were dominated by 11 students.
Having noted the post-test scores of control group, it can be seen that the highest individual score of the pre-test was 90, the lowest individual score was 52.5 , and the total of students individual scores were 1469. The data on the table 4.4 described the mean score of the students in the control class. The researcher analyzed the score by using formula below:
4.1.3 The Result of Deviation
The researcher counted the deviation score by analyzing student’s individual score in post-test minus student’s individual score in pre-test. Further, the researcher analyzed the deviation score of pre-test and post-test as shown on table 4.5
Table 4.5
Students’ Score Deviation of Experimental Group No. Initials Students Score Deviation
(X2-X1)
X2 Pre-test (X1) Post-test (X2)
1 AS 40 70 30 900
2 AF 40 65 25 625
3 AR 55 79 24 576
4 AH 65 88.5 23.5 552.25
5 AU 77.5 89.5 12 144
6 AF 61 81,5 20.5 420.25
7 DK 35 55 20 400
8 FS 64.5 88 23.5 552.25
9 FY 45 62.5 17.5 306.25
10 HP 75 89 14 196
11 IR 63 85.5 22.5 506.25
12 JR 35 57.5 22.5 506.25
13 JS 60 83 23 529
14 LN 45 62.5 17.5 306.25
15 LY 59 65 6 36
16 MG 59 74 15 225
17 MAD 50 65 15 225
18 MAK 50 64 14 196
19 RV 35 57.5 22.5 506.25
20 RS 55 73 18 324
21 SR 61.5 77 15.5 240.25
22 SS 60 81 21 441
23 WMY 32.5 55 22.5 506.25
Total 445 9219.5
By looking at the Table 4.5, the researcher wanted to find the differences score between pre-test and post-test in order to prove a significant result after applying Mingle technique.
Based on the Table above, it can be seen that the highest deviation (d) score was 30 and the lowest deviation was 6, while the highest square deviation (d2) was 900 and the lowest square deviation was 36.
Table 4.6
Students’ Score Deviation of Control Group No. Initials Students Score Deviation
(Y2-Y1)
Y2 Pre-test
(Y1)
Post-test (Y2)
1 AN 45 57.5 12.5 156.25
2 AFDA 61 75 14 196
3 AS 43.5 55 11.5 132.25
4 ARL 59 78.5 19.5 380.25
5 AA 53 60 7 49
6 AZ 62 65 3 9
7 DN 55 57.5 2.5 6.25
8 FRA 76 85 9 81
9 HA 42 55 13 169
10 IH 40 56.5 16.5 272.25
11 JS 55 62.5 7.5 56.25
12 LA 78 90 12 144
13 ML 75 84 9 81
14 MI 59 60 1 1
15 MA 61.5 67.5 6 36
16 NL 60 82.5 22.5 506.25
17 RA 64.5 75 10.5 110.25
18 RF 45 52.5 7.5 56.25
19 SH 77.5 88.5 11 121
20 SP 64 84 20 400
21 WH 65 82.5 17.5 306.25
Total 233 3269.5
By looking at the above, it can be seen that the highest deviation (d) score was 22.5 and the lowest deviation was 1; while the highest square deviation (d2) was 506.5 and the lowest square deviation was 1.
In relating to the table 4.5 and 4.6 above, the researcher computed the mean scores of the deviation of pre-test and post-test of both groups as follows:
After calculating the mean deviation of both groups, it shows that the mean deviation of experimental group was higher than control group. The mean deviation of experimental group on pre-test and post test was 19.34 while the mean deviation of control group was 11.09.
Before analyzing the data by using the t-counted formula, the researcher calculated the sum-squared deviation of the mean score in control and in experimental group as stated in the following ways:
5 𝟏𝟗 𝟑𝟒
𝟏𝟏 𝟎𝟗
The result of the sum-squared deviation of experimental group was 610.5 and the sum-squared of control group was 684.75.
After having the sum-squared deviation of the mean of control and experimental groups, the researcher computed t-counted to find out the significant difference of the two groups
t =
√( )( )
=
√(
)(
)
=
√(
)(
)
=
√( )( )
=
√
=
√
5 5
5 5 5 8609.78 610.5
5
5 5 5 5 5 684.5
=
= 4.96
To find out whether the hypothesis of this research is accepted or rejected, it should be proved through testing hypothesis. If the t-counted is higher than t-table, the hypothesis is accepted. It means that there is significant development of the students’ speaking skill by using Mingle technique. If the t-counted is lower than t-
table the hypothesis is rejected. It defines that there is no significant development of the students’ speaking skill by using Mingle technique. To get t-table value, the researcher will apply interpolation formula because the degree of freedom (df) 42 (Nx+Ny-2) with level of significant of 0.05 cannot be found in t-table list. The computation is as follows:
Degree of freedom = Nx + Ny – 2 = 23 + 21 – 2
= 42 (between 40 – 60) Level of significant = 0.05
40 = 2.021
60 = 2.000
T-table = Where:
a: the subtraction of the degree of freedom obtained from the students’ numbers in sampled and the degree of freedom whose figure precedes right before the degree of freedom obtained on the table of critical value of the students’ distribution.
b: the subtraction of the degree of freedom whose figure comes after and precedes the degree of freedom obtained on the table of critical value of the students’
distribution.
c: the subtraction of the value of the degree of freedom in b.
The computation of interpolation formula can be seen below:
a = 42 – 40 = 2 b = 60 – 40 = 20
c = 2.021 – 2.000 = 0.021 × c =
x 0.021 = 0.0021 df (42) = 2.021 – 0.0021 t-table = 2.018
B. Testing Hypothesis
Before testing the hypothesis, the researcher needed to restate the hypothesis of the research. The hypothesis of the research is the application of Mingle technique can develop the students’ speaking skill of the seventh grade students of Islamic Boarding School As-salman Sidrap.
In testing hypothesis in this research, the researcher used two criteria to determine whether or not the use of mingle technique was effective in developing the skill of the students at Islamic Boarding School As-salman Sidrap in speaking skill. Firstly, if the t-counted is higher than the t-table, the hypothesis of this research will be accepted or the use of mingle technique is effective in developing the students’ speaking skill. Otherwise, if the t-counted is lower than t-table, the hypothesis of this research will be rejected or the use of mingle technique is not effective in developing students’ speaking skill.
Further, the researcher fount that the result of data analysis shows that t-
counted is 4.96. By applying 0.05 level of significance with degree of freedom (df)
42 or 44-2, the researcher found that the t-counted (4.96) is higher than t-table (2.018).
Based on the data, the researcher concluded that the research hypothesis is accepted. It means that the use mingle technique can develop the speaking skill of seventh grade of Islamic Boarding School As-salman Sidrap.
C. Discussion
The objective of this research is to explain that the use of Mingle Technique can develop students’ speaking skill at the seventh grade at Islamic Boarding School As-salman Sidrap. In conducting the research, the researcher focused on fluency and accuracy. To collect the data, the researcher used test as the instrument. The test was given in pre-test and post-test. The pre-test is used in order to find out the basic skill of the students in speaking. The test was given to measure the students’ fluency and accuracy in speaking. The result pre-test of the experimental and the control group was that they found difficulties and they are not fluent to speak. The students of experimental group got only 65 to 155 in pre- test, while the maximum score was 200. Referring to the obtained score, it could be seen that most of the students got low scores in their speaking skill.
To develop the students’ speaking skill, the researcher gave treatment to the experimental group for eight meetings. Each meeting took 2 × 45 minutes.
The researcher taught speaking by using mingles technique. The researcher usually used song as a medium to support the technique. At the first meeting, the students are taught about “Things in the classroom”. She explained about how to describe each thing in the classroom orally. Mingle technique could help to encourage the students to be active in learning process. The student’s response
was good. The researcher arouses students’ interest by involving their emotions in order that the students more interested to start lesson.
After the treatment, the researcher gave post-test, it show that the use of Mingle technique can develop students’ skill experimental group in speaking skill.
It was proved by the value of t-counted (4.96) which was higher that the value of t-
table (2.018). The aim of the post-test is to find out the development of the students’
speaking skill after the treatment. The result of the post-test shows significance.
By seeing the result of post-test especially for experimental group, the process of teaching speaking skill through Mingle technique facilitates the students’ development. The students’ speaking skill increases as the researcher apply the mingle technique. Since the students were formed into pairs, it is much easier for students to share their ideas, thoughts, or opinion towards the topic.
Learning process is also more effective because students are involved in the speaking skill, so that if they keep practicing to speak, they will be confident to speak in front of the class and be a good speaker. Afterwards, the researcher asked the students about their feeling about the use of mingle technique in teaching and learning process, and they said that it was interesting. It is how mingle technique can solve the students’ problem in speaking.
57 CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion
After analyzing the data statistically in the previous chapters, the researcher concludes that mingle technique can develop students’ speaking skill at the seventh grade of Islamic Boarding School As-salman Sidrap. It proves by the result of the students in pre-test and post-test. Before the treatment, the mean score of pre-test of experimental group is (53.17), after the treatment, the mean score of post-test of experimental group is (72.52), while the mean score of pre- test of control group is (59.09) and the post-test of control group is (69.95). There is significance of mean score between pre-test and post-test of experimental group and control group. The result indicates that the mean score of post-test of experimental group after the treatment using Mingle technique is better than the mean score of pre-test. The result of data analysis shows that t-counted (4.96) is higher than t-table (2.018), it means that the hypothesis is accepted. The use of mingle technique can significantly develop the students’ speaking skill at the seventh grade of Islamic Boarding School As-salman Sidrap.
B. Suggestions
Based on conclusion above, the researcher would like to give some suggestions. First, the teachers should be applying this technique in teaching speaking. Mingle technique can be used as one of the techniques to teach speaking because the students will be motivated and enjoy to speak, for they speak to their friends, get many ideas and increase their stock of vocabulary. The creativeness
and motivation from the English teacher are needed to make students interested to learn English especially in speaking.
Next, for the students, the researcher suggests the students should be more active in the classroom, to give motivation for students to learn English, and to express their idea when they speak to others.
Last, for the other researcher who interested in conducting the similar research, the researcher hopes that the result of this research could be give some important contributions and they could be use the output of this study as reference of their researches.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arikunto, S. (2010). Prosedur penelitian: suatu pendekatan praktik. (edisi revisi).
Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Avansa.N.H. (2014). Using English Mingling Games To Improve The Speaking Skills Of The Seventh Grade Students At SMP Muhammadiyah 2 Mlati In The Academic Year Of 2013/2014. Unpublished Skripsi. Yogyakarta:
Yogyakarta State University
Borzova, E. (2014). Mingles in foreign language classroom. English Teaching Forum, (2).
Brown, H.D. (2001). Teaching by Principles; an Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy (second ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
Case, A. (2008). 15 variations on find someone who and mingling games, (online). Retrieved on 22 November 2017 from https://www.tefl.net/elt/ideas/games/find-someone-who-mingling-
games/
Darmayenti. (2013). Development mingle model for integrated teaching English for College students of state institute for islamic studies Imam Bonjol Padang. DIPA 2013 IAIN Imam Bonjol Padang.
Francisca, S. (2010). Interactive Classroom Strategies & Structures for Success:
Focus on English Learners. Associate Superintendent, Academics &
Professional Development San Francisco Unified School District.
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching, New Edition.
Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Heaton, J.B. (1988). Speaking English Language Test. London: Longman
Houston, H. (2012). Mastering the Mingle by Hall Houston. International House Journal of Education and Development, (33). Retrieved from http://ihjournal.com/mastering-the-mingle-by-hall-houston
Maley. A, Peachey. (2010). Creativity in the English language classroom. British Council
Muhsin & Latief.A.M. (2016). Sukses Meneliti dengan Eksperimen: Pengantar Metode Penelitian Eksperimen Pembelajaran Bahasa. Palu: CV. Mars Persada Abadi
Muslim, A.K. (2013). The Effectiveness Of Using Mingling Activity To Improve The Students’ Speaking Ability At Islamic Junior High School Maarif Nu Miftahul Huda Mangunranan Grade Vii In Academic Year 2012/2013.
Purworejo: Muhammadiyah University
Nofel. N & Darmayenti. (2015). Mingle Model for Teaching English Speaking Skill for College Student. Padang: State Institute for Islamic Studies Imam Bonjol
Polard, L & Hess, N . (1997). Zero Prep: Ready to go Activities for Teachers.
Hertfordshire. Prentice Hall.
Susan, R.U (2017). The Use of Mingling Games to Improve Second Grade Students’ Speaking Achievement at SMAN 1 Bandar Lampung.
Unpublished Skripsi. Bandar Lampung: Lampung University.
APPENDICES
Pre Test Questions
Please answer the question orally!
1) Please introduce yourself!
Hello, I want to introduce myself. My name is …. My nickname is …. I live at …. My father’s name is …. and my mother’s name is …. I have ….
Brother and …. Sister. I study in As-Salman Allakuang at seventh grade.
My favorite food is ….. And my favorite drink is…… I like …….and
…….. , every day I usually play …..
Pre Test Questions
Please answer the question orally!
2) Please introduce yourself!
Hello, I want to introduce myself. My name is …. My nickname is …. I live at …. My father’s name is …. and my mother’s name is …. I have ….
Brother and …. Sister. I study in As-Salman Allakuang at seventh grade.
My favorite food is ….. And my favorite drink is…… I like …….and
…….. , every day I usually play …..
LESSON PLAN 1
School : Islamic Boarding School As-Salman Allakuang Subject/skill : English/Speaking
Topic : VIIA classroom Class/Semester : VII/2
Meeting : I
Time Allocation : 2 X 40 Minutes
A. Standard Competence
1. Menghargai dan menghayati ajaran agama yang di anutnya
2. Menghargai dan menghayati perilaku jujur, disiplin, tanggungjawab, peduli(toleransi, gotong royong), santun, percaya diri, dalam berinteraksi secara efektif dengan lingkungan sosial dan alam dalam jangkauan pergaulan dan keberadaan.
3. Memahami pengetahuan (faktual, konseptual dan prosedural) berdasarkan rasa ingin tahunya tentang ilmu pengetahuan, teknologi, seni, budaya terkait fenomena dan kejadian tampak mata.
4. Mencoba, mengolah, dan menyaji dalam ranah konkret (menggunakan, mengurai, merangkai, memodifikasi, dan membuat) dan ranah abstrak (menulis, membaca, menghitung, menggambar, dan mengarang) sesuai dengan yang dipelajaridi sekolah dan sumber lainyang sama dalam sudut pandang/ teori.
B. Basic Competence
3.4 Mengidentifikasi fungsi sosial, struktur teks, dan unsur kebahasaan teks interaksi transaksional lisan dan tulis yang melibatkan tindakan memberi dan meminta informasi terkait nama dan jumlah benda, binatang,
dan bangunan publik yang dekat dengan kehidupan peserta didik sehari- hari, sesuai dengan konteks penggunaannya. (perhatikan unsur kebahasaan dan kosa kata terkait article a dan the plural and singular).
C. Indicators
The students are able to:
Telling the things around their classroom D. Instructional Objective
At the end of teaching and learning process, the students are expected to be able to:
Telling the things around their classroom orally.
E. Teaching Material
Social function
Menyebutkan/menanyakan waktu dari keadaan/peristiwa/kegiatan
Struktur teks
a flag a chair
a window a clock
a book a door
an eraser a board marker a whiteboard a broom
a picture a table
It is a book. It’s blue!
I have a book in my classroom