English Education Study Program – STKIP PGRI West Sumatera (2016)
STUDENTS’ SPEAKING PERFORMANCE AT SMAN 12 SIJUNJUNG
YeriAstuti, S.Pd1) Belinda Analido, M.Pd2) LiliPerpisa, S.S., M.Pd3)
1 English Education Department, STKIP PGRI West Sumatera, Gunung Pangilun – Padang, Email: [email protected]
2 English Education Department, STKIP PGRI West Sumatera, GunungPangilun – Padang, Email: [email protected]
3 English Education Department, STKIP PGRI West Sumatera,GunungPangilun– Padang Email: [email protected]
Abstract
The background of this research is the students’ competence that difference in choosing vocabulary and structurewhile doing presentation. Besides, the students have different way when they explain their ideas and thought, such as use body language and eye contact with the audiences. Because the students use different language and different way in presentation, it make different level of students’
speaking performance while presentation. Thus, this research is aimed to find the students’ level speaking performance in English learning while presentation in front of class; below proficient, proficient, or beyond proficient. Then, the design of this research is qualitative research and use purposive sampling in selecting participant which the approach homogenous sampling. Thus, the data get from the students at eleventh grade that total students are 17 at SMAN 12 Sijunjung. In collecting the data, researcher does the observation which used field note, and video recording. Based on the data that researcher gets, most of the students at proficient level for indicator in speaking performance (delivery, content, language, and physicality). The researcher finds most of the students get proficient level for the result level of speaking performance; 1 student at below proficient level, 13 students at proficient level, and 3 students at beyond proficient level. Generally, students’ speaking performance at eleventh grade in SMAN 12 Sijunjung is proficient level.
Abstrak
Latarbelakangdaripenelitianiniadalahadanyaperbedaankemampuansiswadalammemilihkosa kata danpenggunaantatabahasasaatpresentasi.Selainitu, siswajugamempunyaicara yang
berbedaketikamenjelaskan ide maupungagasannya,
sepertidenganmenggunakanbahasatubuhdankontakmatadenganpendengar.Denganadanyaperbedaanpengg unaanbahasadancarapenyampaiantersebut,menyebabkanperbedaan level speaking performancesiswasaatpresentasi. Maka, penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui level speaking performance siswa dalam pembelajaran bahasa Inggris ketika presentasi di depan kelas; kurang cakap, cakap, atau sangat cakap. Lebih lanjut, penelitian ini adalah penelitian qualitatif dan metode pengambilan partisipan adalah purposif dengan pendekatan homogenous sample. Jadi, data diperoleh dari beberapa orang siswa kelas XI yang berjumlah 17 orang di SMAN 12 Sijunjung.Dalam mengumpulkan data, peneliti melakukanobservasidenganmenggunakanfield note, dan video recording. Berdasarkan data yang penelitidapatkan,padaumumnyasiswaberada di level cakapuntukindikatorspeaking performance (delivery, content, language, and physicality). Penelitimenemukanbanyaksiswa yang mendapatkan level cakapdaripenilaianakhirspeaking performancetersebut; yaitu1 siswa di level kurangcakap, 13 siswa di level cakap, dan 3 siswa di level sangatcakap. Secara umum, speaking performance siswa kelas XI di SMAN 12 Sijunjung berada di level cakap.
Key words : Speaking performance.
INTRODUCTION
Speaking performance is actions that students do in front of other students.In addition speaking performance is the students’ ability to develop their knowledge, then to product something and show it to the other students. In
speaking performance the students not only competence with grammar but also with the expression to make the other students understand about what is talked. Besides, they must careful in choosing the vocabulary that familiar with the other students.
In speaking performance, the students do some kinds of the task, such as storytelling, conversation, drama, speech or presentation. It is supported by Luoma (2004:11) states that especially relevant in tasks such as creative storytelling or certain kinds of role plays, where liveliness of expression is a central element in task performance. It means that, the students must express their idea by doing the activities of speaking to make the other students know what they thinking about.
In addition, while perform the students must know some components, like the pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar and the students ability to understand the information in material. It refers to Luoma (2004:124) says a good performance would reflect the examinees’
ability to express themselves comprehensibly in terms of intelligible pronunciation, relevant vocabulary andsufficiently accurate grammar, as well as in terms of information structuring and relevance of content. Based on the explanation of Luoma, by doing the tasks the teacher knows the students’ ability, strengths and weaknesses in speaking, like students’ accuracy in pronunciation, in using vocabulary, grammatical, intonation, students’ ability in expressing the students’ idea based on the context or situation given, and also the information that the students deliver about the material.
By speaking performance, the teacher know the students’ competence in deliver their thought, idea, opinion about the material that use the best languagewhen the students presentation in front of class. In addition, the student has different way and different language to explain the material. The students use the language that easy to understand for the other students, but the students must careful in using the language. It is very important to save the meaning of the information that they deliver to other students.
Students’ speaking performance can measure by scale and by scoring criteria. The examples of scales are The American of Council for the Teaching of Foreign Language (ACTFL) and Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR).
ACTFL scale is the form of verbal categories to describe the level of students’ speaking performance, like superior, advanced high, advanced mid, advanced low, intermediate high, intermediate mid, intermediate low, novice high, novice mid, and novice low. ILR scale use the number and categories such as speaking 2 (limited working proficiency), speaking 2+
(limited working proficiency, plus), and speaking 3 (general professional proficiency).
Then, the example of scoring criteria is guiding rubric by Wolf (2007). Guiding rubric provide the criteria of speaking performance for identify the students’ level in speaking performance.
Based on the explanation above, it can be concluded that there are different levels of students speaking performance. The researcher gets interest to analyze the students’ level of speaking performance at SMAN 12 Sijunjung.
The researcher chooses speaking performance of SMAN 12 Sijunjung because students often perform in front of class in English learning, such as present the material that they prepare before and they explain it to the other students.
Then, researcher determines level of students’
speaking performance by guiding rubric of Wolf.
RESEARCH METHOD
In this research, the researcher applied qualitative research. According to Gay and Airasian (2012:7) qualitative research is the collection, analysis, and interpretation of comprehensive narrative and visual (i.e., nonnumerical) data to gain insight into a particular phenomenon of interest. It was concerned on condition or relationship that exist, opinion that were held, processes that were going on, effects that was evident, trends that were developing, or the phenomenon and the problem that were happening and it was clear not about numeric analysis of data. Thus, the researcher described about the level of students speaking performance at eleventh grade SMAN 12 Sijunjung.
Participants were the people which researcher needs to get the data in doing research project. In this research the researcher used purposive sampling technique to choose the participants. Gay and Airasian (2012:142) says that because many potential participantsare unwilling to undergo the lengthy demands of participation, sampling in qualitative research is almost alwayspurposive. Besides, the type of approach that researcher used in purposive sampling was homogenous sampling. In others words, the participants was the students at same grade and had similar experience in learning.
Thus, the researcher chose the eleventh grade students in SMA N 12 Sijunjung as participants who provide the data. Therefore, the total numbers of the eleventh grade students in SMA N12Sijunjung were 110.Furthermore, researcher desired sample size was 15% from the total number of students. Thus, there were 17 participants who provided the data.
Instrument is used in a study of research to be a tool to get the data. In this research, the
researcher used observation as the instrument to collect the data. According to Gay and Airasian (2012:381) qualitative researchers obtain data by watching the participants, they are observing.
In addition, Yusuf (2007: 292) states that observasi adalah salah satu teknik yang dapat untuk mengetahui atau menyelediki tingkah laku verbal (verbal behavior) dan tingkah laku non verbal. It means that by observing the observer sees, listens and watches carefully all of the participants’ behavior (both verbal and non verbal behavior) to get the valid data.
In addition, researcher used field notes and video recording to get detail information.Thus, the researcher observed the students competence in presentation,wrote the important information, and recorded the students’ action during presentation. Besides, researcher used rubric from Wolf as indicator,it could be seen in the table 3.2 below:
Table 3.2 Indicator of Speaking Performance
No. Indicator Components
1. Delivery
1. Volume
2. Pacing
3. Rapport 2.
Content
1. Accuracy 2. Relevance 3. Organization 3.
Language
1. Vocabulary 2. Enunciation 3. Grammar 4.
Physicality
1. Body movement 2. Eye contact 3. Facial (Taken from Wolf 2007)
Based on the table above, in this rubric there are four indicator; delivery, content, language, and physicality. Each indicator has three components. First, in delivery indicator there are volume, pacing and rapport. Second, in content indicator there are accuracy, relevance, and organization. Next, in language indicator there are vocabulary, enunciation, and grammar.
The last, in physicality there are body movement, eye contact, and facial expression.
The researcher would analyze the students’ level for each indicator based on their presentation, there were at below proficient, proficient or beyond proficient level.
After the researcher got all of the data, the researcher analyzed the data and interpretation the data. Researcher analyzed the data by analyzing steps from Gay and Airasian (2012: 467) who say that steps for analyzing the data are: reading/memoing, describing, and classifying, and the last data interpretation.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Researcher did two times observation for each class (XI IPA, XI IPS 1, XI IPS 2). The data of this research were analyzed through the theory stated by gay and Airasian (2012:467) with four steps. Those steps are reading/memoing, describing, classifying and interpretation. Furthermore, researcher describes the level of students’ speaking performance for each component (delivery, content, language, and physicality). More clearly, it can be seen in the following table:
Overall Level of Student’s Speaking Performance
No. Participant Level Delivery Content Language Physicality ResultLevel
V P R A R O V E G B E F
1. Participant 1
Bl P
P √
By P √ √ √ √
2. Participant 2
Bl P
P √
By P √ √ √ √
3.
Participant 3
Bl P
P √ √ √ √ √
By P
4. Participant 4 Bl P
P √ √ √ √
By P √
5.
Participant 5
Bl P
P √
By P √ √ √ √
6.
Participant 6
Bl P √
P √ √ √ √
By P
7.
Participant 7
Bl P √
P √ √ √ √
By P
8. Participant 8
Bl P √
P √ √ √ √
By P
9. Participant 9
Bl P √
P √ √ √ √
By P
10. Participant 10
Bl P √
P √ √ √ √
By P
11. Participant 11
Bl P
P √ √ √ √ √
By P
12. Participant 12
Bl P √
P √ √ √ √
By P
13. Participant 13
Bl P √
P √ √ √ √
By P
14. Participant 14
Bl P √
P √ √ √ √
By P
15. Participant 15
Bl P √ √ √ √
P √
By P
16. Participant 16
Bl P √
P √ √ √ √
By P
17. Participant 17
Bl P √
P √ √ √ √
By P
Note:
1. Bl P = Below Proficient 2. P = Proficient
3. By P = Beyond Proficient 4. Delivery
a. V = Volume b. P = Pacing c. R = Rapport 5. Content
a. A = Accuracy b. R = Relevance c. O = Organization 6. Language
a. V = Vocabulary b. E = Enunciation c. G = Grammar 7. Physicality
a. B = Body Movement b. E = Eye Contact c. F = Facial Expression
Referring data on observation checklist and field not that the researcher got, the researcher had described the level of students speaking performance at eleventh grade students of SMAN 12 Sijunjung generally they are at proficient level. It could know from their final result level of speaking performance, most of them got proficient level. More clearly, it could be seen at graphic4. 18 below:
Figure 4.18 Graphic of the Students’ Result Level in Speaking performance.
Based on the table 4.1 above, it could be seen total of participant for each level in speaking performance. Total participants were 17 students; there were 1 participant at below proficient level, 13 participants at proficient level, and 3 parrticipants at beyond proficient level. It means that most of the students had good performance in presentation. Besides, the students got proficient level for some indicators.
Thus, the level of students’ speaking performance at eleventh grade in SMAN 12 Sijunjung is proficient level.
CONCLUSION
Speaking performance is the students’
ability to produce the best language and apply it to deliver their ideas, thoughts, and opinions about the material that they learn to the other students. There are three levels in speaking performance; below proficient, proficient, and beyond proficient. The criteria are delivery, content, language, and physicality. Each indicator has three components, in delivery there are volume, pacing and rapport. In content, there are accuracy, relevance, and organization.
Language indicator has vocabulary, enunciation and grammar as component. The last indicator is physicality, and its components are body movement, eye contact, and facial expression.
In this research, the researcher wants to describe the level of students’ speaking performance at eleventh grade SMA N 12 Sijunjung.
Moreover, the researcher used purposive sampling in selecting sample and the type of approach was homogenous sampling.
The total of participant was 17. In getting the data the researcher used two instruments. The first instrument was observation checklist. The second instrument was field notes that give detail information for every participant. In addition, the researcher used video recording to record all of the students action while presentation.
From the data, the researcher concluded that from three levels of students 0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Below ProficientProficientBeyond Proficient
speaking performance; below proficient, and beyond proficient, the level of students’
speaking performance at SMAN 12 Sijunjung is proficient level. It was because the most of students got the proficient for the result level in speaking performance.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Alhamdulillahirobbil’alamin. First of all, the researcher would like to express her deepest gratitude to Allah SWT who has given her mercy, chance and health in completing this thesis. In addition, thanks to Prophet Muhammad SAW as her inspiration to keep fighting to finish this thesis entitles “Students’
Speaking Performance at SMAN 12 Sijunjung“.
Then, the researcher also delivers a great thank and appreciation to her advisors Belinda Analido, M.Pd as the first advisor and Lili Perpisa, S.S., M.Pd as the second advisor who have given the much advice, guidance, and suggestion in accomplishing this thesis.
Furthermore, the researcher extends sincere gratitude to her beloved mother (Ermayanti), her beloved father (Martunus),who have loved her, given the support, prayed in every opportunity they have, even everything they have.
The researcher realizes that this research might be imperfect; the researcher will happily accept constructive criticism from the readers that make the research better. This research is expected to be able to provide useful information to the readers.
REFERENCES
Airasian, Peter, L. R. Gay & Geoffrey E. Mills.
2000. Educational Research Competencies for Analysis and Application (sixth edition). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Airasian, Peter, L. R. Gay & Geoffrey E. Mills.
2012. Educational Research Competencies for Analysis and Application (tenth edition). Amerika:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Brown, H. Douglas. 2000. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (fourth edition). New York: Pearson education.
Brown, H. Douglas. 2004. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. San Fransisco: Longman.
Hemerka, Václav. 2009. Low Speaking Performance in Learners of English.
Brno: Masaryk University Brno.
Hughes, Arthur. 2003. Testing for Language Teachers (second edition). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Koizumi, Rie. 2005. Speaking Performance Measures of Fluency, Accuracy, Syntactic Complexity, and Lexical Complexity.
http://www7b.biglobe.ne.jp/~koizumi/J ABAET_Speaking_Performance_Meas ures_Koizumi.pdf
Luoma, Sari. 2004. Assessing Speaking.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mai, Tran Ngoc. 2015. Factors Affecting Students’ Speaking Performance at Le ThanhHien High School. Asian Journal of Educational Research.Vol. 3 Number 2.
Nunan, David. 2005. Practical English Language Teaching: Young Learners.
New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Sheirer, John. 2002. Shut Up & Speak!. Lincoln:
iUniverse, Inc.
Steinberg, Danny D. and Sciarini, Natalia V.
2006.An Introduction to Psycholinguistics (second edition).
London: Pearson education, Ltd.
Tuan, L. Trong. 2012. Teaching and Assessing Speaking Performance through Analytic Scoring Approach. Journal of ISSN.Volume 2 Number 4.
Wolf, Kenneth and Stevens, Ellen. 2007. The role of Rubrics in Advancing and Assessing Student Learning.The Journal of Effective Teaching.Volume 7 number1.
Yusuf, A. Muri. 2007. MetodologiPenelitian.
Padang. UniversitasNegeri Padang Press.
