441
IMPROVING STUDENTS’ SPEAKING ABILITY THROUGH CHAIN DRILL AT MA ASH-SHALIHIN GOWA
Khamila1, Rita Roswita Duyo2, Adriani Jihad3
1STKIP YPUP Makassar, Email: [email protected] ²STKIP YPUP Makassar, Email : [email protected] ³STKIP YPUP Makassar, Email : [email protected]
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research was to find out whether or not the use of Chain Drill improve the students’
speaking ability at the tenth-grade of MA Ash-Shalihin Gowa. This research used pre-experimental method. The population of this research was the tenth-grade students of MA Ash-Shalihin Gowa in 2021/2022 academic year. The sample was class X that consisted of 20 students and used the total sampling technique. The instruments for this research were using speaking test and audio recorder The results showed that there was a significant difference of students’ mean score in pre-test and post-test, where the mean score in post-test was higher than pre-test (82.90 >41.90) and the T-Test value was greater than the T- Table value (31.110 > 2.093). Based on the result of the data analysis, it can be concluded that the use of Chain Drill improved students’ speaking ability.
KEYWORDS: Chain Drill, Speaking Ability
INTRODUCTION
Since language was used in every element of human existence, everyone always employs language in communication. According to Kreidler (1998), language is a system of symbols that individuals used to communicate. The symbol can be written, spoken, or handwritten. It implied that people used language to communicate with others, convey inner feelings and emotions, and make sense of complicated and abstract feelings.
English was a language that many people throughout the world use today. People are aware that information is essential for surviving life. The knowledge that was required came from other countries in addition to their own. Since English was one of the worldwide languages that played a significant role in international communication, individuals need to be able to communicate with them in order to establish relationships. Alonso (2011) claims that "on a global scale, career development in science, business, and industry has taken an increasingly essential position in English as a Second Language education." This indicates that many nations adopted English as a second language and that English served as the gateway for international communication. Based explanation, when English became a foreign language, certain nations used it as a language other than their own. It would be covered in a classroom setting. English is now taught to students in Indonesia from junior high school through university as a foreign language.
Four skills were taught when teaching English: speaking, reading, and writing. One of the four fundamental abilities in learning a foreign language was speaking. According to Bahadorfar (2014), speaking was the most crucial of any language's four abilities to master when learning a new one. This indicates that speaking was a crucial ability for students. Because in the world, speaking was one means to obtain knowledge via oral communication. Speaking was a means of communicating with others and passing messages from one person to another. And the effectiveness of communication is evident when
442 the speaker's and the listener's shared knowledge of the process of exchanging ideas results in the desired outcome. Students will become accustomed to utilizing oral English to convey their thoughts and feelings, communicate with their friends or teacher, etc. by creating an English-speaking environment in the classroom and using the teacher as an example. They could then communicate well in English on a daily basis.
Indeed, the ability of students to speak English was still very less. Because speaking skill was needed to articulate concepts in order to communicate with others, particularly foreigners, most students still struggle to be effective speakers. We can't communicate with one another if we aren't speaking.
According to Nazara (2011), student opinions can inspire students to enhance their English-speaking abilities in accordance with their degree of proficiency. This indicates that the majority of students who have a solid grasp of English can quickly increase their English speaking abilities provided they adhere to the learning procedure.
Based on the observations made by the researcher at MA Ash-shalihin Gowa on May 17, 2022, it was discovered that the students had poor speaking skills, were unsure of what they wanted to say, and lacked English speaking confidence. Students lacked confidence, making it very challenging for them to speak in English when the teacher called on them in front of the class. They can only speak after reading a passage or sentence in a book.
Based on the explanation above, the researcher hopes that Chain Drill technique would improve students’ speaking ability. So, the researcher would conducted research in title “Improving Students’
Speaking Ability trough Chain Drill at MA Ash-Shalihin Gowa”.
METHOD
The method used in this research is the pre-experimental method. It aims to determine whether the Chain Drill strategy can improve students' speaking ability. This research was conducted at MA Ash- Shalihin Gowa. The population in this study were tenth-grade consisting of one class and the number of students in this class was 20 students. In this study, researchers used a total sampling technique.
The instrument of this research is a speaking test which is used in the pre-test and post-test. The pre-test was used to check the students' initial ability in speaking before being given treatment. After giving the pre-test, students were treated to asking and giving opinon in the form chain drill. There are four meetings for treatment and each meeting is about 80 minutes (2x40 minutes). Post-test is used to determine the progress of students after being given treatment.
The researcher will use a pre-experimental design as the research method. It means the research tried to apply method by using one group pre-test and post-test designed. This design used for one group was pre-test (O₁), expose to a treatment (X), and post-test (O₂).
1. Classifying the students score E: O₁ X O₂
Where:
𝑂1: Pre-test 𝑂2: Post-test X: Treatment
(Gay, 2012)
443 2. Technique of scoring student of Accuracy in pre-test and post-test
Table 1. Scoring Student of Accuracy
Classification Score Criteria
Very good
9-10
Have to make an effort at times to search for word. Nevertheless, smoothes delivery on the whole and only a few unnatural pauses.
Good
7-8
Pronunciation seriously influence by mother tongue but no serious phonological errors. A few grammatical and lexical errors, but one or two major errors cause confusion.
Average
5-6
Pronunciation seriously influence by mother tongue but only a few serious phonological errors. Several grammatical and lexical errors, two or more errors cause confusing.
Poor
3-4
Pronunciation seriously influence by mother tongue with the errors. Causing a breakdown in communication, many basic grammatical and lexical errors.
Very poor
1-2
Serious pronunciation errors as well as many basic grammatical and lexical errors. No evidence of having mastered any of language skill and errors practice in the course.
(Heaton, 1988:100) 3. Technique of scoring student of Fluency in pre-test and post-test
Table 2. Scoring Student of Fluency
Classification Score Criteria
Very good 9-10 Have to make an effort at times to search for word. Nevertheless, smoothes delivery on the whole and only a few unnatural pauses.
Good 7-8 Although he has made an effort on search the word, there are not too many unnatural pauses, fairly smooth delivery mostly.
Occasionally fragmentally but succeeds in conveying the general meaning fair range of expression.
Average 5-6 The listener can understand a lot of what is said but he most constantly seeks clarification. Cannot understand many of speakers’ more complex or longer sentences.
Poor 3-4 Long pause while he search for the desired frequently fragmentary and halting delivery, almost gives up making the effort at times limited range of expression.
Very poor 1-2 Full of long and unnatural pause. Very halting and fragmentally delivery. At times gives up making the effort, very limited range of expression.
(Heaton, 1988:100)
444 4. Technique of scoring student of Comprehensibility in pre-test and post-test
Table 3. Scoring Student of Comprehensibility
(Heaton, 1988:100)
5. Computing the frequency and the rate percentage of the students score by using SPSS 23,0 version.
6. Calculating the mean score of students pre-test and post-test by using SPSS 23.0 version.
7. Finding the mean score of difference score by using SPSS 23.0 version.
8. Test of significance find out significance between the pre-test and post-test by using SPSS 23.0 version.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION Results
a. The Score Classification of Students’ Pre-test and Post-test 1. Pre-test of score accuracy
0 20
Verry Poor Poor Average Good Verry Good C H A R T 4 . 1 T H E R E S U L T O F S T U D E N T S ' A C C U R A C Y S C O R E I N P R E - T E S T
Pre-test Post-test
Classification score criteria
Very Good 9-10 The speakers’ intention and general meaning are fairly clear.
A few interruptions by the listener for shake classification are necessary.
Good 7-8 Most of what the speaker says is easy to follow. His intention is always clear but several interruptions are necessary to help him to convey message or to seek classification.
Average 5-6 The listener can understand a lot of what is said but he most constantly seeks clarification. Cannot understand many of speakers’ more complex or longer sentences.
Poor 3-4 Only small bits (usually short sentence and phrases) can be understood and then with considerable effort by someone who is listening to speakers.
Very Poor 1-2 Hardly anything of what is said can be understand. Even when the listener makes a great efforts of interruption, the speaker is unable to clarify anything seems to have said.
445 According to the chart 4.1 above, the accuracy score classification in the pre-test there was 1 students got average score , while 11 student obtained the poor score and 8 students got very poor socre. Meanwhile, none of the students obtained the good score and the very good score.
2. Pre-test of score fluency
According to the chart 4.2, the fluency score classification in the pre-test is in the poor , with the poor having the highest frequency while none of the students having the good score and the very good score, and there was 1 students obtained the very poor score, while there were 7 students got average and 12 students obtained the poor score.
3. Pre-test of score comprehensibility
We can see that the results of the students' pre-test comprehensibility scores are in the chart 4.3. There were 16 students obtained the average score, 3 students obtained the poor score, and 1 student obtained the Good score, while none of the students obtained the very good score.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Very Poor Poor Average Good Very Good
C H A R T 4 . 2 T H E R E S U L T O F S T U D E N T S ' F L U E N C Y S C O R E I N P R E - T E S T
Pre-test Post-test Total
0 10 20
Very Poor Poor Average Good Very Good C H A R T 4 . 3 T H E R E S U L T O F S T U D E N T S '
C O M P R E H E N S I B I L I T Y S C O R E I N P R E - T E S T
Pre-test Post-test Total
446 4. Post-test of score accuracy
According to the chart 4.4 above, the accuracy score classification in the post-test is in the good score, there were 19 students obtained it and there was 1 student obtained the average score. Meanwhile, none of the students obtained the poor score and the very poor score.
5. Post-test of score fluency
As we can see in the chart 4.5 the good category and the very good category indicate in the chart, that the good score has 13 students obtained it and there was 7 students obtained the very good score. Meanwhile, none of the students obtained the average score, the poor score, and the very poor score.
0 5 10 15 20
Very Poor Poor Average Good Very Good C H A R T 4 . 4 T H E R E S U L T O F S T U D E N T S ' A C C U R A C Y S C O R E I N P O S T - T E S T
Pre-test Post-test Total
0 5 10 15
Very Poor Poor Average Good Very Good C H A R T 4 . 5 T H E R E S U L T O F
S T U D E N T S ' F L U E N C Y S C O R E I N P O S T - T E S T
Pre-test Post-test Normal
447 6. Post-test of score comprehensibility
According to the result of students' comprehensibility score in post-test, none of the students in the average score, the poor score, and the very poor score. While, there was 8 students obtained the very good score and 12 students obtained the good score in the comprehensibility post-test.
b. The Comparison Between Students’ Pre-test and Post-test
To collect data, the researcher used a speaking test. The speaking test has a pre-test and a post-test. Before using Chain Drill strategy, a pre-test was given to determine the students' prior knowledge, and a post-test was given to determine the students' improvement after being given treatment.
Table 4 The simulation’ scores of students’ fluency, comprehensibility, and accuracy in pre-test and post-test.
No Name Pre-test (X1) Post-test (X2) Gain (D) 𝚺𝑿2- 𝚺𝑿1
Square of gain (𝑫𝟐)
1 AK 39 76 37 1.369
2 RY 32 76 44 1.936
3 ZHY 52 89 37 1.369
4 MA 39 82 43 1.849
5 RW 36 82 46 2.116
6 FH 49 83 34 1.156
7 MN 39 82 43 1.849
8 AF 39 83 40 1.600
9 SI 36 83 47 2.209
10 SANI 29 76 47 2.209
11 NH 32 82 50 2.500
12 SW 36 83 47 2.209
13 AI 39 83 44 1.936
14 DI 63 96 33 1.089
15 SIS 43 82 39 1.521
16 AI 49 83 34 1.156
17 MZ 59 89 33 1.089
18 NH 39 76 40 1.600
19 SH 49 83 34 1.156
20 AR 52 89 37 1.369
N = 20 𝚺𝑿1 = 838 𝚺𝑿2 = 1.658 𝚺𝐃 = 759 𝚺𝑫𝟐= 𝟑𝟎. 𝟓𝟑𝟓
0 5 10 15
Very Poor Poor Average Good Very Good C H A R T 4 . 6 T H E R E S U L T O F S T U D E N T S ' C O M P R E H E N S I B I L I T Y S C O R E I N P O S T - T E S T
Pre-test Post-test Normal
448 c. The Frequency and the Rate Percentage of the Students’ Pre-test and Post-test
1. Frequency and rate percentage of the student’ pre-test
Table 5 Frequency and rate percentage of students’ result of pre-test
According to table 4.2, one student received point 29 (5,0), one student obtained point 32 (5,0), two students received point 36 (10,0%), ten students acquired point 39 (50,0%), one student gained point 43 (5,0%), two students received point 49 (10,0%), one student acquired point 52 (5,0%), one student earned point 59 (5,0), and one student received point 63 (5,0).Frequency and rate percentage of the post- test
Table 6 Frequency and rate percentage of students result of post-test
The table 6 following showed that in the post-test, there were four students got point 76 (20,0%), five students got point 82 (25,0%), seven students got point 83 (35,0%), three students got point 89 (15,0%) and one student got point 96 (5,0%).
Pretest
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid 29 1 5.0 5.0 5.0
32 1 5.0 5.0 10.0
36 2 10.0 10.0 20.0
39 10 50.0 50.0 70.0
43 1 5.0 5.0 75.0
49 2 10.0 10.0 85.0
52 1 5.0 5.0 90.0
59 1 5.0 5.0 95.0
63 1 5.0 5.0 100.0
Total 20 100.0 100.0
Posttest
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid 76 4 20.0 20.0 20.0
82 5 25.0 25.0 45.0
83 7 35.0 35.0 80.0
89 3 15.0 15.0 95.0
96 1 5.0 5.0 100.0
Total 20 100.0 100.0
449 d. The Mean Score and Standard Deviation of Pre-test and Post-test
1. The mean score of pre-test and post-test
The difference between the mean score on the pre-test and post-test paired-test could be seen in the following table:
Table 7 The mean score of the students’ and deviations in pre-test and post-test report
Pre-test Post-test
Mean 41.90 82.90
N 20 20
Std. Deviation 8.460 5.015
Table 4.4 shows that the mean score of students’ pre-test was 41.90 while the mean score of students’ post-test was 82.90. Based on explanation above, it could be concluded that the students’ skill in post-test was higher than the students’ skill in pre-test.
2. Standard deviation
The standard deviation in pre-test and post-test given to the students at the tenth-grade students of MA Ash-Shalihin Gowa could be seen from the table below:
Table 8 Test of Significant
df Level of Significant T-test value T-table value
19 0.05 31.110 2.093
For the level of significance (P) was 0.05, the degree of freedom (df) was 19, and the t- table was 31.110. When compared to the t-test value, it can be concluded that the t-test value (31.110) was greater than the t-table value (2.093). In other words, it can be said that 31.110>2.093. It indicates that the null hypothesis (H0) of this research was rejected, but the alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted, because there was a significant difference between pre-test and post-test by using Chain Drill strategy.
DISCUSSION
This part deals with the discussion of the findings that has been described previously in the research objective to determine wheter the Chain Drill in ask and giving opinion in tenth grade students of MA Ash-Shalihin Gowa was successful. And the description of the data obtained from students before and after being gave the treatment increased speaking mastery in this study, the researcher used video record as material and the pre-test and post-test tests. After the researcherhs done the pre-test, the value of students’ speaking ability was still fairly poor. To improve the students’ speaking ability, the researcher used some strategies to motivate them to learn speaking.
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings and discussion in the previous chapter, the researcher formulated the following conclussion: There was an improvement in the students’ speaking ability, especially about Ask and Giving opimiom in tenth grade students of MA Ash-Shalihin Gowaafter using the Chain Drill, this can be seen from the results of the pre-test and post-test. Speaking ability on students significantly before and after the using Chain Drill. The presentation of data analysis from the pre-test and post-test shows that before the treatment was given to students, the results of students speaking were qiute poor.
450 Meanwhile, the goal of post-test, students can achieve a higher score, which shows a significant improvement after the treatment.
This could be seen after being given treatment four times. The mean score of pre-test was 41.90 with the classsification was faily poor, and the standard deviation score was 8.460, while the post-test mean score was 82.90 with the category was good, and the score of standard deviation was 5.015 . Based on the data, it showed that the post-test score was higher than the pre-test score.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The researcher's thesis was titled Improving Students' Speaking Ability Through Chain Drill at MA. Praise and thanks to Allah SWT for His abundance of mercy and grace. MA Ash-Shalihin Gowa In order to fulfill one of the requirements for graduating from the English Education Study Program and earning a Bachelor of Education degree, this was necessary.
The researcher deepest appreciation goes to Ir. H. Asrul Rahim M.Si. as the head of foundation STKIP-YPUP Makassar, Dr. Rina Asrini Bakri S.Pd., M.Pd. as the head of STKIP-YPUP Makassar and Rita Roswita Duyo S.S., M.Pd. as the head of English department of STKIP-YPUP who have provided agreement and signature for everything the researcher needs have their sincere gratitude.
The researcher would like to expressed her sincere gratitude to all of the English Department lecturers who shared and transmitted their expertise, ideas, and counsel with the researcher up until the completion of her study. The MA Ash-Shalihin Gowa's headmistress, Nur Insan, SE, is well appreciated for her hospitality and assistance. The tenth grade of MA Ash-Shalihin Gowa welcomed the researcher and actively engaged in this research. The researcher would like to extend her profound gratitude to them.
The researcher wished to express her sincere gratitude to her beloved parents, Muh Yusuf and Murni, who always provide her with material and physical assistance. In addition, a special thanks to her sister, who has consistently provided a variety of support and prayed for the success of this study.
The researcher shares experiences and knowledge with her bestfriends, particularly the Primadona group, Sebelas group, and the entire BI 2018, while she was studying and writing. The researcher was aware that this thesis still needs some work and could use some criticism and recommendations. The researcher hopes that the readers and others would find this thesis helpful and insightful.
REFERENCES
Alonso, David J. 2011. English as a Second Language. New York Gay, L. 2012. Educational Research. United States: Pearson.
Heaton, J. 1988. Writing English Language Test. New York: Longman Kreidler, Charles W. 1998. Introducing English Semantic. London: Routled.
Nazara, S. “Students’ perception on EFL Speaking Skill Development.” Journal of English Teaching 01, (2013): 28-43.
