THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TONGUE TWISTERS STARTEGY TOWARD STUDENTS' SPEAKING ABILITY

(1)

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TONGUE TWISTERS STARTEGY TOWARD STUDENTS’ SPEAKING ABILITY

April 2023, Vol 6 No.1

53

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TONGUE TWISTERS STRATEGY TOWARD STUDENTS’ SPEAKING

ABILITY

1Fitri Palupi Kusumawati

1Universitas Muhamadiyah Metro [email protected]

2Bambang Eko S

3Intan Yayang Shafika

Abstract

The aim of this study is to identify the problems of students at MA Muhammadiyah Purbolinggo, especially with speaking. The subjects were 40 students in the 11th grade of MA Muhammadiyah Purbolinggo. This research employed a quasi- experimental research design. There were two variables: the independent variable is Tongue Twister Strategy and the dependent variable is Speaking Ability. The pre-test result of the mean score of the control group was lower than the experimental group (46.20 > 39.60). In post-test. the mean score of the control group was found to be also lower than the experimental group (72.20 > 58.40). From the data, the researcher concluded that there was effectiveness in using tongue twisters to improve students’

speaking ability at MA Muhammadiyah Purbolinggo. that the significance level of 0,05, observed (7.627) is higher than in table (2,024). Therefore, the Alternative Hypothesis or Ha is accepted which means there is a significant effect of Tongue Twister on the speaking skills of students, and it can be concluded that the research question has been answered.

Key Words: Speaking Ability, Tongue Twisters INTENSIVE JOURNAL

http://ojs.uniska-bjm.ac.id/index.php/EJB E-ISSN 2620-4746

(2)

54 Background

Speaking as a productive skill, seems intuitively the most important of all the four language skills because it can distinctly show the correctness and language errors that a language learner makes. In English, many words have the same pronunciation but are written differently and have different meanings. There are many problems that occur to students that put them in the middle and lower categories in speaking skills, such as the students having difficulty pronouncing some words whose pronunciation is almost the same as speaking ability and low motivation and interest in practicing speaking English.

Based on the explanation above one of the alternatives in teaching pronunciation is using Tongue Twister. As we already know that tongue twisters are a fun activity in any language classroom. Practicing tongue twisters helps English learners strengthen their speaking skills. The faster a person can say the tongue twisters without slipping, the stronger their language skills become. With the use of tongue twisters as a learning strategy then students would feel enjoy saying the words.

By using the tongue twister strategy, students are expected to absorb the lessons well.

Therefore, this study aims to solve the speaking skill of eleventh-grade students at MA Muhammadiyah Purbolinggo

Research Design

This research will use quantitative research and experimental design as research design. An experimental design used in this research is especially Quasi Experimental Design. In this research, the research conducted pre-test and post-test to find out the result of students’ speaking ability before and after being taught using tongue twister strategy.

Participants

The research has two variables examined in this experimental research, they are the dependent variable the and independent variable. The dependent variable is a variable that emerges in a function relationship influenced by the independent variable. Independent variables can appear and exist by themselves without other support. In this research Tongue Twister strategy was the independent variable (X) and Speaking Ability was the dependent variable (Y).

Data and Source of Data

In this study, the data was obtained through the tests on students. The test consists of a pre-test and a post-test. The pre-test will give to the students to measure students speaking ability before the treatment and the post-test will give to measure their speaking ability after giving the treatment.

(3)

55 Data Collecting Technique

To get the data, the researcher will use test. The technique of data collection explains as follows:

1. Pre-test The first is the pre-test, which is conducted in the first step of collecting the data. The pre-test will be given before the researcher give the treatment to the experimental and control group. First, the researcher comes to the class. Then the researcher explains to the students what they must do. After explaining how the form of the test, students were asked to come forward one by one to answer the questions given by the researcher orally. The questions given are in the form of giving opinions about “Don’t Litter”.

2. Post-test The students in both experimental and control groups will give a post- test. In this post-test students are given two minutes to observe and understand the pictures given by the researcher and then given five minutes to answer the test questions orally about the picture. The question given is in the form of giving opinions about “Bullying”.

Data Analysis Technique

The researcher analyzed the result of the data from the pre-test and post-test and related both through the formulas the of normality test, and homogeneity test. For the normality test using the formula Kolmogorov-Smirnov and the homogeneity test the researcher used ANOVA and then the researcher calculate the data with SPSS Version 25.

Findings and Discussion Findings

The Result of Pre-Test

The summary of the data distribution of the pre-test in the control and experimental class can be seen in Table 1.

Control Experimental

N Valid 20 20

Missing 0 0

Mean 39,60 46,20

Median 40,00 48,00

(4)

56 Table The Result of the Pre-Test in the Experimental and Control Group

From Table 1 the pre-test given to the experimental and control group, yielded a mean of 39,60 and 46,20, respectively. Following the median for both groups are 40,00 for control group and 48,00 for experimental group. Besides that, control group obtained 6,476 for Standard Deviation and experimental group obtained 6,014 for Standard Deviation. More precisely, in the control group, the minimum score is 24 and the maximum score is 52. The result from the experimental group is not quite different as the minimum score Is 32 and the maximums score is 56.

From the data description, the researcher arranged the frequency distribution.

The frequency distribution was also to find out the percentage obtained achieved by the students. The result of the categorical distribution analysis for the control group can be completely seen in the following table 2.

Table Frequency Distribution of Pre-Test in Control Group No Category Score Frequency Percentage

1 Excellent 81- 100

0 0%

2 Good 61-

80

0 0%

3 Fair 41-

60

6 30%

4 Poor 21-

40

14 70%

5 Failed 0-20 0 0%

Total 20 100%

As observed from Table 2 above, the researcher obtained the result that the majority which of 14 of 20 participants shown in percentage of 70% in the control group were classified in poor category. However, the rest of the group which were 6 participants making 30% of the whole group into fair category.

Std.

Deviation 6,476 6,014 Variance 41,937 36,168

Minimum 24 32

Maximum 52 56

(5)

57 Furthermore, the researcher presented the frequency distribution of pre-test in the experiment class in each category. The frequency distribution showed the number of students in each category while the percentage indicates the number of students in percent. A detailed description can be seen in Table.

Table Frequency Distribution of Pre-Test in Experimental Group No Category Score Frequency Percentage

1 Excellent 81-100 0 0%

2 Good 61-80 0 0%

3 Fair 41-60 15 75%

4 Poor 21-40 5 25%

5 Failed 0-20 0 0%

Total 20 100%

As seen from Table 3 above, the researcher obtained quite different results from the experimental group on the pre-test compared to the control group. In this group, the fair category dominated the whole group with 15 participants which is shown in a percentage of 75%. On the other hand, only 5 participants were grouped into a poor category with a percentage of 25%.

The result of the Post-Test

The data description presented consists of the mean, median, standard deviation, variance, maximum score, and minimum score of each group. The summary of the data distribution of the pre-test in the control and experimental class can be seen in Table.

Control Experimental

N Valid 20 20

Missing 0 0

Mean 58,40 72,20

Median 58,00 72,00

Std. Deviation 4,570 6,678

(6)

58

Table The result of the Post-

Test in the Experimental and Control Group

As observed from Table 4, the researcher found that the mean of the post-test between the control and the experimental result is significantly different as the control group obtained 58,40 and the experimental group got 72,20. The researcher also found the same result happened on median which the control group got 58,00 while experimental group got 72,00. Besides that, standard deviation on both groups stated 4,570 and 6,678, respectively. On variance, the experimental group got 44,859 which doubled from variance of a control group that is 20,884. More precisely, on control group, the least score is 52 and the highest is 64. On the other side, on the experimental group, the researcher obtained 64 as the smallest and 88 as the highest.

From the data description, the researcher arranged the frequency distribution.

The frequency distribution was also to find out the percentage obtained achieved by the students. The result of the categorical distribution analysis of pre-rest for the control group can be completely seen in the following table.

Table Frequency Distribution of Post-Test in Control Group No Category Score Frequency Percentage

1 Excellent 81-100 0 0%

2 Good 61-80 6 30%

3 Fair 41-60 14 70%

4 Poor 21-40 0 0%

5 Failed 0-20 0 0%

Total 20 100%

As seen from Table 5, the researcher found that fair category with 14 participants dominated the whole group as shown with percentage of 70%.

Meanwhile, the rest of the participants were grouped into good category with only 6 participants at the percentage of 30%. Concluding from the previous result of pre-test in the control group, there is no longer participant in the poor category. Moreover,

Variance 20,884 44,859

Minimum 52 64

Maximum 64 88

(7)

59 more participants were classified into fair and 6 participants were added to good category.

Furthermore, the researcher presented the frequency distribution of pre-test in the experiment class in each category. The frequency distribution showed the number of students in each category while the percentage indicates the number of students in percent. A detailed description can be seen in the table.

Table Frequency Distribution of Post-Test in Experimental Group No Category Score Freque

ncy

Percent age

1 Excellent 81-100 2 10%

2 Good 61-80 18 90%

3 Fair 41-60 0 0%

4 Poor 21-40 0 0%

5 Failed 0-20 0 0%

Total 20 100%

Table 6 presents the result of the frequency distribution of post-test in the experimental group which shows fascinating data as 90% of participants obtained range score of 61-80 at the good category. However, only 2 participants were included into an excellent group with a range score of 81-100 making 10% of whole groups.

Thus, concluding from the data presented, the participants in the experimental class had a significant improvement after being given the treatment by the researcher on using tongue twisters in their speaking. This is shown by as previously, fair category dominated the experimental group and there were still 5 participants on the poor category then after the treatment, the fair category dominated the whole group and no more participants were grouped into the poor category.

Discussion

The aim of the study is to find out whether there is any effectiveness of the Tongue Twisters strategy toward students’ speaking ability at MA Muhammadiyah Purbolinggo. This research is one of the efforts to generate some improvement in teaching speaking to the eleventh-grade students.

(8)

60 From the result of pre-test and post-test in the experimental group and control group, it can be concluded that there are significances. It is caused because the experimental group get the treatment by using tongue twisters in teaching and learning process. While, the control group did not get the treatment by using tongue twister, this class only was given the conventional media in teaching and learning process.

From the explanation above, it can be concluded that the use of tongue twister is effective in teaching vocabulary mastery class with significance influence. In addition, based on the explanation above, the researcher concluded that there was significant difference between pre-test and post-test. In hypothesis testing, based on the result of the paired sample t-test analysis on SPSS version 25 from experimental class, t-obtained was higher than t-table. So, it can realize that Tongue Twister was effective to apply in improving students’ speaking ability.

Conclusion

The researcher got the pre-test result of mean score of control group which was lower than experimental group (46.20 > 39.60). In post-test. the mean score of control group was found to be also lower than experimental group (72.20 > 58.40). From the data, the researcher concluded that there was an effectiveness in using tongue twister to improve students’ speaking ability at MA Muhammadiyah Purbolinggo. The researcher concludes that tongue twister game is efficient in students' pronunciation skills based on the research findings and discussion. From the t-test calculation, the significance level 0,05, observed (7.627) is higher than table (2,024). Therefore, the Alternative Hypothesis or Ha is accepted which means there is significant effect of Tongue Twister on speaking skill of students.

The researcher would like to give suggestion for other researchers who are interested in the same area, they may try to apply tongue twister game across different genres to different levels of learners to prove the impact of tongue twister game on students’ pronunciation skills.

References

Arikunto, S. (2010). Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik. Jakarta: Bhineka Cipta.

Arikunto S. (2016). Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktis. Jakarta: Bhineka Cipta.

Cahyani, R. D. (2020). Rizki Dwi Cahyani 1 , Efrini. 12(2), 108–116.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Research design: Pendekatan Kualitatif, kuantitatif.". Dan Mixed. Terjemah Achmmad Fawadi. (2012). Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

(9)

61 Danijela. (2009). The Use of Tongue Twister in EFL Teaching.

Harianto. (2018). THE EFFECT OF USING PROBLEM BASED LEARNING (PBL) METHOD TOWARD STUDENTS’ SPEAKING SKILL (An Experimental Research at the Eleventh Grade Students’ of SMA Somba Opu Kabupaten Gowa). https://digilibadmin.unismuh.ac.id/upload/1324-Full_Text.pdf

Harmer, J. (2001). How to Teach Enlish. New York : Longman.

Hughes. (2004). Assesing Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Laksana, A. J. (2016). The Effectiveness of Using Chain Story Game in Teaching Speaking (an Experimental Research at The Eighth Grade Students of SMP Negeri 1 Jatilawang in The Academic Year 2015/2016). 5–17.

Luoma, S. (2004). Assesing Speaking. Cambridge: Cambri-Dge University Press.

Lutfiani, D. (2017). Using Tongue Twister to Improve Students’ Pronunciation.

ELLITE: Journal of English Language, Literature, and Teaching, 2(2), 110–115.

https://doi.org/10.32528/ellite.v2i2.1511

Mary, L. M. (2012). Interrater Reliability: The Kappa Statistic. Biochemia Medica.U.S. Croatian Society for Medical Biochemistry and Laborator Medicine.

Mitha, W. D., Amri, Z., & Narius, D. (2018). An Analysis of Students’ Speaking Anxiety Faced by the Fourth Semester Students of English Education Study Program of English Department of Universitas Negeri Padang. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 7(3), 465–479.

Nuraini, K. (2016). The Barriers of Teaching Speaking English for EFL Learners.

ELLITE: Journal of English Language, Literature, and Teaching, 1(1).

https://doi.org/10.32528/ellite.v1i1.159

Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicativve Language Teaching Today. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Rohaman, M. (2016). The Use of Tongue Twister Technique to Improve EFL Students’ Pronunciation. Semarang: UIN Walisongo.

Sitoresmi, U. (2016). Tongue Twister in Pronunciation. E-Journal FKIP-UNS.

Sudjana, N. (2014). Penelitian Hasil Proses Belajar Mengajar. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.

Sugiyono. (2010). Metode Penelitian Pendidikan Pendekatan Kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Sugiyono. (2013). Statistika Untuk Penelitian. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Sugiyono. (2016). Metode Penelitian Pendidikan Pendekatan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif dan R&D. Alfabeta. Bandung.

Sugiyono, P. (2013). Metode Penelitian Kualitatif, Kuantitatif dan R&D. Bandung:

Alfabeta.

Yusnilita, N., & Afifah, N. (2020). TONGUE TWISTER AS AN ICE BREAKER IN BOOSTING STUDENTS’ SPEAKING ABILITY. ETERNAL (English

(10)

62 Teaching Journal), 11(2). https://doi.org/10.26877/eternal.v11i2.7566

Zainal, A. (2016). Evaluasi Pembelajaran (Prinsip, Teknik dan Prosedur). Cetakan Kedelapan, Jakarta : Rosda Karya.