the use of jigsaw technique in improving students' speaking

(1)

THE USE OF JIGSAW TECHNIQUE IN IMPROVING STUDENTS’ SPEAKING ABLITY AT SMK MUHAMMADIYAH 2 BONTOALA MAKASSAR

(Pre-Experimental Research)

A Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty of Teacher Training and Education Muhammadiyah University of Makassar in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree

of Education in English Department

TUTI 10535589914

ENGLISIH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF MAKASSAR

2019

(2)

(3)

(4)

MOTTO

All dreams can come true if we have enough courage to pursue that.

Man Saaro 'Alaa Darbi Washola

(5)

ACKNOWLEDMENT

Alhamdulillah Rabbil Alamiin, I would like to express my profound gratitude to the almighty God, Allah SWT who always gives her gracious mercy and tremendous blessing, the most compassionate and merciful, the cherisher of the world. Praise to him, shalawat and salam are addressed to the prophet Muhammad SAW peace upon be him.

Many problem and difficulties had been encountered in finishing this thesis. I do realize that in conducting the research and writing this thesis. I got invaluable contribution and assistance from great number of people. Therefore, I would like to express my deep appreciation and sincere thanks to all of the particularly:

1. My highest appreciation and deepest thankful to my beloved parents H.

Kamoddin and Hj. Lanti, for their love, support and prayers to the researcher.

2. Thankful to my biggest motivator brother and sisters for all the attention and always support the researcher in every situation.

3. Rector of Muhammadiyah University of Makassar, Dr. H. Abd. Rahman Rahim,SE.,MM. for his academic advisor to the researcher during the researcher’s study.

4. The Dean of Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Erwin Akib,M.Pd.,Ph.D.

5. The head of English Department Ummi Khaerati Syam, S.Pd.,M.Pd. for being guidance for supplying knowledge and lesson during my study.

(6)

6. My highest appreciation and great thankful are due to all may consultant. The firs consultant Dr. H. Arief Paturusi, S.Pd. and the second consultant Andi Asri Jumiaty, S.Pd.,M.Pd. for their time in guiding, giving correction and suggestion from the preliminary manuscript until the last page of this study.

7. The Headmaster of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Bontoala Makassar, the teachers and all of the students’ for helping me to accomplish this thesis.

8. Thankful to my beloved classmate Diamond Class for all of the motivation for me to finishing this thesis.

9. All of my family, especially for my uncle Burhanuddin thanks for always ask me about my thesis, the question was made me spirit.

10. Finally, for everyone that could not be mentioned one by one, may Allah SWT the almighty God bless us in every step that we take. Jazaakumullahu Khairan.

Researcher

TUTI

(7)

ABSTRACT

Tuti, 2019. The Use of Jigsaw Technique in Improving Students’ Speaking Ability at SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Bontoala Makassar. English Education Department Faculty of teacher Training and Education Muhammadiyah University of Makassar. Supervised by H. M. Arief Paturusi and Andi Asri Jumiaty.

This research is aimed to find out the improvement of the students’

speaking skill by using Jigsaw Technique that focused on fluency and accuracy especially in pronunciation and vocabulary by giving students activities related the technique in teaching the material. The researcher applied pre-experimental method with on group pre-test and post-test design, and collected the data by giving pre-test and post-test. The sample of the research was class X.AP1 of SMA Muhammadiyah 2 Bontoala Makassar which consisted of 36 students. The sample was taken by using purposive sampling technique. The research findings showed that ten grade students of SMA Muhammadiyah 2 Bontoala Makassar had fairly score in pre-test. After treatment, their speaking was significantly increased.

The findings of the research were the mean score of students speaking ability obtained by the students through pre-test was 57.337 and post-test was 70.515. It means that there was an improve of the students speaking skill after the students’ get treatment being taught through using jigsaw technique and also it could be seen the t-test value is greater than t-table (18.17>2.03011). It means that, the null hypothesis (H0) was rejected and alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted. The result of analysis indicated that the use of jigsaw technique was effective to improve students’ speaking skill achievement especially at tenth grade students’ of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Bontoala Makassar in academic year of 2018/2019.

Key words: Speaking Ability, Jigsaw Technique.

(8)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE ... i

APPROVAL SHEET ... ii

COUNSELLING SHEET ... iii

SURAT PERJANJIAN ... iv

SURAT PERNYATAAN ... v

ABSTRACT ... ……… vi

MOTTO……… . vii

ACKNOWLEDMENT……… ... viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS……….. x

LIST OF TABLES……….. xiii

LIST OF FIGURE………xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES………..xv

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. Background……….. .... 1

B. Problem Statement……….…. ... 3

C. Objective of the Research……… .... 3

D. Significant of the Research……….. .... 3

E. Scope of the Research……….. .... 4

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE A. Previous Related Research Finding………. .... 5

B. Some Pertinent Ideas………... ... 7

(9)

1. The Definition of Jigsaw………. .. 7

2. The Definition of Speaking ……… ... 11

C. Conceptual Framework…… ... 16

D. Hypotheses………. ... 17

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A. Research Design……….. …. 18

B. Research Variables……… ... 19

C. Population and Sample……… ... 19

D. Research Instrument………... 19

E. Procedure of Data Collection………... .... 20

F. Technique of Data Analysis………. .... 21

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS A. Findings………. ... . 25

1. The Students’ Improvement………... ... 26

1.1. The Improvement of the Students’ Accuracy………… ... 26

1.2. The Improvement of the Students’ Fluency…………. ... . 27

1.3. The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Ability... 28

2. The Frequency and Percentage of the Students’ Speaking………. . 30

2.1. The Frequency and Percentage of Accuracy……….. ... . 30

2.2. The Frequency and Percentage of Fluency………. ... 31

3. Hypothesis Testing……… 32

B. Discussion……… .... 33

(10)

CHAPTER V CONCLUSSION AND SUGGESTION

A. Conclusion……….. 36

B. Suggestion……….. 37

BIBLIOGRAPHY……… 38

APPENDICES……….. 40

CURRICULUM VITAE………. 85

(11)

LIST OF TABLE

Table 3.1. Research Design……….18

Table 3.2. Classification Score of Pronunciation………..21

Table 3.3. Classification Score of Vocabulary………...22

Table 3.4. Classification Score of Fluency……….22

Table 3.5. Classification of Students Achievement Score………..23

Table 4.1. Mean Score of Students’ Accuracy in Pre-Test and Post-Test……… ….26

Table 4.2. The Students’ Mean Score of Fluency in Pre-Test and Post-Test….. ….27

Table 4.3. The Students’ Mean Score of Speaking in Pre-Test and Post-Test…. ….28 Table 4.4. The Frequency and Percentage of the Students’ Accuracy……… ….30

Table 4.5. The Frequency and Percentage of the Students’ Fluency……… ….31

Table 4.6. The Value of T-Test Pre-Test and Post-Test……….. ….33

(12)

LIST OF FIGURE

Figure 4.1.The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Ability………...27 Figure 4.2.The Improvement of the Students’ Fluency…………...………28 Figure 4.3.The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Ability…………...29

(13)

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: List Name of Students’ in Class X.AP1……….. … 41

Appendix B: Classification of Students’ Score in Pre-Test and Post-Test…….. … 43

Appendix C: Mean Score of Speaking in Pre-test and Post-Test……… 50

Appendix D: The Result of Students’ Speaking in Pre-Test and Post-Test………. … 57

Appendix F:Mean Score and the Rate Percentage……… 63

Appendix G: T-Test Value………. 66

Appendix I: Distribution of T-Table……… .67

Appendix J:Pre-Test and Post-Test……….……… 70

Appendix : Lesson Plan……… 71

(14)

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. Background

Language is a tool of communication. It is used as an aspect of communication among the nations all over the world. In addition, language has an important role to reveal an intention to someone else because language can be applied in many situation of life. Through language, people will be able to express their feeling and ideas in speaking or written forms.

Speaking is one of the abilities to carry out the conversation, because it is an interactive process of constructing meaning that involve producing and also receiving some information. Speaking a language is especially difficultfor foreign language students becauseeffectiveoral communicationrequirestheabilit y tousethelanguage appropriatelyinsocialinteractions. Many people want to learn English speaking in order to be able to communicate well with people from other country. So we need to conduct the development of communication through speaking. As almost we know that speaking is the most important skills that must be practice.

In teaching speaking, there are some components of English speaking that should pay attention are fluency, accuracy, and comprehension astheaim tobuildstudents’ communicative competence to make them easier to communicate with others. Every school requires the goal of teaching speaking should improve students’ communicative skills because students should be able to use this skill in daily life. But in fact, the students are stillhavemany problems in speaking. It can

(15)

be from the mastery of speaking skill is still low. Many students are still finds the difficulties to express their ideas.

The cause of students difficulties in speaking are lack of pronunciation, grammar, and lack of vocabulary. It cause by lack of practice and lack of students’ confident.The students feel shy and reluctant to express opinions and ideas because they are afraid of making mistake in front of the class. So, the students became unconfidently to participate in classroom interaction. This problem also make the teacher cannot control to manage the class.

Theteachermostlyuse individualandpairwork.Usegroupworkwhichcanimprovethe

students’participationin thelesson.Because when

thestudentsworkindividually,they cannotpracticethelanguagefunction anditmeans thatthereis nocommunicationamongthestudents. During teaching learning process, the teacher should make the students conductive and interest with the materials in learning process.

In order to minimize the problems of teaching speaking, theresearchertry to use a teaching techniquewhichcanencouragethestudents to speakEnglish byusingJigsawtechnique. Jigsaw is a cooperative learning technique that reduce racial conflict among school children, promote better learning, improve students motivation, and increase enjoyment of the learning experience often using to describe the concept of peer tutoring, work partners and also this method can build the students ability to communicate and share their opinion to other friends in the same group if they are unconfident to speak in front of the class because this method is focus in group work to make the students more comfortable to speak out in smaller group.

(16)

Based on the explanation above, the author formulated the research under the title “The Use of Jigsaw Technique in Improving Students’ Speaking Ability at SMK Mhammadiyah 2 Bontoala Makassar”.

B. Problem Statement

Basedonthebackgroundofthestudyandidentificationoftheproblem, the researcher formulate the problem statement is “Does the use of jigsaw technique improve the students’ speaking ability at SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Bontoala Makassar?”

C. Objective of the Research

In the relation of the problem statement above, theobjectiveofthe researhis “To find out whether or not the use of jigsaw technique can improve the students’ speaking ability at SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Bontoala Makassar”.

D. Significance of the Research

This study is expected to give the benefit theoretically and practically as follows:

1. Theoretically

a. The result of this study is expected to be useful information to the teachers in using jigsaw technique to improve student’s speaking ability.

b. As a reference to the other research who want to study about jigsaw technique.

2. Practically

Using jigsaw technique in teaching speaking ability to make the students’ more enjoyable in speaking tasks.

(17)

E. Scope of the Research

The scope of the research limits to the use jigsaw technique in teaching speaking ability especially in accuracy (pronunciation and vocabulary) and fluency. It is implementation at tenth grade of students at SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Bontoala Makassar.

(18)

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE A. Previous Related Research Findings

There have been many studies that have investigated related to improving the students’ speaking skill by using Jigsaw technique.

The previous research was conducted by Muna Nur Azizah (2017) in her research “Improving Students’ Activeness in Speaking Using Jigsaw II of SMAN 1 Kendawangan” found that this research was to improve students activeness in speaking, especially in discussing and presenting the material using jigsaw. Based on the analysis of the observation and the result of students’ activeness in speaking, the use of jigsaw II could improve students’ activeness in speaking, especially in discussing and presenting the material.

The research was conducted by Evi Dyana WS (2013) in her research

“Using Jigsaw Technique to Improve Speaking Skill for the Science Students’ of Grade XI-1 at SMAN 2 Yogyakarta in the Academic Year of 2011/2012” she revealed that there is an improvement on students’ motivation to learn and practice English. The learners become more active in learning process than before. Some students who are previously reluctant and hesitate to speak in English showed more eagerness to practice speaking and jigsaw made students interact more with their friends in English. Not only that, the students’ interview showed that they become more confident in speaking English. It was a cooperative learning implemented in jigsaw that made them less anxious.

The next research comes from Tri Wahyudi (2014) in his research

“Improving Students’ Speaking Ability through Jigsaw Task”, found that the

(19)

students was interested in learning speaking through jigsaw task. However, the researchers need to prepare a good lesson plan and the material which were suitable and constructed to avoid monotonous activity in class. At the last activity, it would be better if the teachers could discuss the jigsaw task that have been made by students and gave reward for the interesting one.

The last previous research was conducted by Maileny Astriani (2013) in her research “The Influence of Jigsaw Technique toward Students’ Speaking Ability of the Second Year at Madrasah Aliyah Darul Ulum Tandun”. She revealed that using jigsaw technique show that there was significant influence between students who were taught conventional and who were taught by using jigsaw technique one. The result shows that the score of test is higher than table.

In the other word, jigsaw technique can influence the second year at Madrasah Aliyah Darul Ulum Tandun.

Relating to the previous study findings above, the researcher conclude that the similarity between the previous studies and the present study is to find out the students’ different community interaction duringthe lesson through analysis data.

The differences between the previous study and the present study were the previous study analyzed to show the significant influence between students who were taught conventional and who were taught by using jigsaw technique one.

B. Some Pertinent Ideas 1. The Definition of Jigsaw

Jigsawis oneof

thecooperativelearningtechniquesthatareusefulforcaringouteffective ingroupwork.Itisanefficientteachingtechniquethatalsoencourages

(20)

listening,interaction,peerteaching,andcooperationby givingeach memberofthegroupanessentialparttoplayintheacademicactivity. According to Perkins (2001:12), stated that jigsaw is a cooperative learning strategy that enables each student of a home group to specialize in one aspect of a topic.

Students meet with member from the other groups who are assigned the same aspect, and after mastering the material return to the home group of teach the material to their group members.

1.1. Elements of Jigsaw Strategy

RogerandDavidJohnsonin Risadiah Utari

(2013:15)suggestthattherearefiveessentialelementsthatmust bepresent in jigsaw strategy.

a. PositiveInterdependence

Thestudentsmustfeel thattheyneedeachotherinordertocompletethe group taskthatis they“sinkor swimtogether”.Eachgroup member

dependsoneachotherto accomplish a

sharedgoalortask.Withoutthehelpofonememberthegroupisnotabletoreach thedesiredgoal.Foratruecooperativelearningcondition,studentsmustperceive thattheyarepositivelyinterdependentwithothermembers oftheirgroup.

b. Face-to-face interaction

Thestudentsmusthelpone toeachother:

assisting,supporting,encouraging,andpraisingeachotheras theefforts tolearn.

Thestudents alsomustbeallowedtoexplaintoeachotherhowtosolveproblems, howtodiscussthenatureof theconceptbeinglearned,andhowtoteachoneto another.Inaddition,theverbal andnonverbalresponsesof theirgroupmembers

(21)

wouldprovideimportantinformation.

c. IndividualAccountability

Thestudentsmustfeel that

theyareaccountabletocompleteataskandtomasterthematerials.Itisimportant forgroup memberstoknowwho may needmoreassistance,support and or encouragement.In theend,structuringindividual accountability through an assessmentprocess,whetherwrittenororal,willbenecessaryonthepartofthe teachingandlearningprocess.

d. Interpersonal Skill

Placingtogetherthestudentswhodonothaveadeveloped

levelorsocialskillinagroupand then askingthemtowork togetherdoesnot mean thatcooperation willoccur.Cooperativeskillsincludeleadership,decisio n making,trust-building,communication,andconflict-managementskills.

e. GroupProcessing

Thestudents have tocomebacktogetherin theirgroupsat the end,and discusshowwellthey achievedtheirgoalsandhow effective theirworking

was.Itisalsoallows individualsandgroups

tosynthesizeandtopossiblyevaluatetheinformation developedandthentodiscuss theachievementthataccomplished.Ifallofthefive thingsaredoneby thestudents,thecooperativelearningprocesswill work effectively.

1.2. Steps of Jigsaw Technique

Jigsawisusuallyusedinasmallgroupinstruction.Students of anormalsizeclassaredivideintocompetency groupsoffourtosix students,each of

(22)

whichisgivenalistof subtopicstoresearch.Individualmembersof eachgroup thenbreakofftoworkwiththe“experts”from othergroups,researchingapartof thematerialbeingstudied, afterwhichtheyreturntotheirstartingbodyintherole ofinstructorfortheirsubcategory.

AccordingtoAronson(2008)therearetenstepsconsideredimportantin theimplementationofthejigsawclassroom.

1) Divide studentsinto5or6personjigsawgroup(homegroup).

2) Appoint one student from each group as the leader.

3) Divide the days lesson into 5-6 segments.

4) Assign one students to learn one segments.

5) Give students time to read over their segments at least twice and become familiar with it.

6) From temporary expert groups, by having one students’ from each jigsaw group join other students assigned to the same segments.

7) Bring the students back into their jigsaw groups.

8) Ask each student to present her or his segment to the group.

9) Float from group to group, observing to the process.

10) At the end of the session, give the quiz on the material.

1.3. The Advantages of Jigsaw

As a teaching technique, Jigsaw has some advantages as follows:

a) Students are directly engaged with the material, instead of having material presented to them, which fosters depth of understanding.

b) Students gain practice in self-teaching, which is one of the most valuable skills we can help them learn.

(23)

c) Students gain practice in peer teaching, which requires them to understand the material at a deeper level than students typically do when simply asked to produce on an exam.

d) During a jigsaw, students speak the language of the discipline and become more fluent in the use of discipline-based terminology.

e) Each student develops an expertise and has something important to contribute to the group.

f) Each student also has a chance to contribute meaningfully to a discussion, something that is more difficult to achieve in large-group discussion.

g) The group task that follows individual peer teaching promotes discussion, problem-solving, and learning.

h) Jigsaw encourages cooperation and active learning and promotes valuing all students’ contributions.

i) Jigsaw can be an efficient cooperative learning strategy. Although the jigsaw assignment takes time in class, the instructor does not need to spend as much time lecturing about the topic. If planned well, the overall time commitment to using the jigsaw technique during class can be comparable to lecturing about a topic.

From the description above, the researcher concludes that jigsaw is a technique that should active in learning process, because the class is needed to all of students or individually comprehend the material well.

2. Definition of Speaking

Speaking is one of the abilities to carry out the conversation on the language, because it is an interactive process of constructing meaning that involve

(24)

producing and also receiving some information. Producing word by sound that including speaker and listener or to communicate with other. Speaking means the ability to express our idea, opinion and all things around us through our system fluently and a good understanding of the speaker and the listener.

Homby in Dina Awalia (2016:10) states that speaking is making the use of words in an ordinary voice, offering words, knowing and being able to use language expressing one-self in words, and making speech. Speaking skill is the ability to perform the linguistic language in actual communication. Speaking is not only to communicate with other people but by speaking we can get some information with another people to interact each other. The goal of communication can be done at least by two people, there are speaker and hearer.

2.1. Components of Speaking

Speaking is one of skills that use oral word to express the idea, so the speaker should fulfill the component of speaking so that the listener can understand the speaker meaning. There are some components of speaking that normally considered as the crucial aspect and should be mastered by the students who are learning English. According to Syakur Alvin Nadzirotunnuha (2017:12), there are some components of speaking:

a) Accuracy

Accuracy refers to producing correct sentence by putting correct vocabulary and grammar. Accuracy concerned about how shall a person prioritizes the two clearly important speaker goal of accurate. All of the components those are:

1. Vocabulary

(25)

Vocabulary is the first step to speak English. Without vocabulary, people cannot communicate effectively or express their idea both oral and written form if they do not have sufficient or less in vocabulary mastery. Nauli (2014) said that without having a sufficient vocabulary, one cannot communicate effectively or express their ideas in both oral and written form similarly. So, vocabulary is important function in speaking skill effectively. Therefore, vocabulary means the appropriate diction which is used in communication.

2. Grammar

Grammar is one of the important language components in learning language.The grammar need for students to arrange a correct sentence in conversation or speech in other aspect. According to Gautam (1988) states that the quality of students; speaking ability will be better if they have a good structure. Knowing grammar is the crucial in learning English.

3. Pronunciation

Pronunciation is the way for students to produce the language well. It deals with the phonological process that refers to the component of a grammar made up of the elements and principles that determine how sounds vary and pattern in a language.

b) Fluency

Fluency refers to communicate the ideas without thinking too much about the things to say or having to stop. Fluency is indicated by natural speed of speaking and only little number of pause. The speaker my often have to search for a way to say what the people want to say.

1. Smoothness

(26)

According to Brown (1980) Smoothness is the ability of speaking English through a good clustering and reduces forms. A good clustering is to speak English with phrasal fluently. It means that speak English not word and reduce form are to use English with contraction, elisions and reduce vowels.

2. Self Confidence

Speaking is the oral communication with other people. There are many students who have no self-confidence so they cannot communicate with others people. They sometimes feel uncertainly in speak English. According to Ellis and Brewster (2002:2) a learner might be fluent (make their meaning clear) but not accurate (make many mistake). In the classroom language, manipulation activities can help develop accuracy. These include controlled practice, drill, the study and application of pronunciation rules, and activities that help students to notice their own mistakes. By the explanation above, the teacher should more give attention in building student’s confidence when they speaking.

2.2. Problem in Speaking

Speaking is a crucial part of second language learning and teaching.

Teaching speaking is giving instruction to a person in order to communicate. In teaching speaking there many students still find the difficulties to express their ideas. Munjayanah in Nurkalbia (2016) states the learners have some difficulties in learning the language, especially in speaking. There are some problems in speaking:

a) Inhibition

(27)

Speaking requires some degree of real time exposure to an audience. Learners are often inhibition about trying to say thing in foreign language in the classroom. The students feel worried about making mistakes, fearful of criticism or losing face. They are shy of the attention that their speech attracts.

b) Nothing to Say

Learners often complain that they cannot think of anything to say and they have no motivation to express themselves. Rivers (1968) believes that the learners have nothing to express maybe because the teacher had chosen a topic which is not suitable for him or about which he knows very little. It is difficult for many students to respond when the teachers ask them to say something in a foreign language because they might have little ideas about what to say, which vocabulary to use, or how to use the grammar correctly.

c) Low or Uneven Participation

In a large group, each student will have very little talking time because only one participant can talk at a time so that the others can hear him/her. The students have not the same opportunity to speak English. There is a tendency of some learners to dominate while others speak very little or not at all.

d) Mother Tongue Use

The students feel that mother tongue is easier than the second language. The students often include mother tongue use when they speak in second language. This problem will make the students feel comfortable to do it.

Harmer (1991) suggests some reasons why students use mother tongue in class. Firstly, when the students are asked to have a discussion about a topic

(28)

that they are incapable of, if they want to say anything about the topic, they will use their own language. Another reason is that the use of mother- tongue is a natural thing to do. In addition, using the first language to explain something to another if there is no encouragement from the teachers.

2.3. Characteristic of Successful Speaking

According to Penny Ur in Nursyamsi (2010:13) speaking for the learner is not easily, at least four criteria should be covered by learner in speaking activity.

a. Learner talk a lot

Classroom activities must be designed in such ways that provide opportunities for learners to talk a lot.

b. All get a chance to speak

A minority of talkative students must be fairly distributed.

c. High motivation

Learners are eager to speak because they are interested in the topic.

d. Language is comprehensible

Learners express themselves in utterances that are relevance, easily in comprehensible to each other, and of an acceptable level of language accuracy. The teacher must also base the activity on easy language so that the students can use the language fluently without hesitation.

e. Students speak the target language

The teacher must keep students speaking the foreign language.

(29)

C. Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework underlying this research is presented in the following diagram:

Based on the conceptual framework above the researcher used an experimental research with one group pre-test and post-test design. In this conceptual framework shows the teaching and learning process is carried out and guided to achieve maximum results with design learning models based on the subject and to train students’ thinking with jigsaw technique. Use groupworkto improvethe students’speaking Ability.In learning speaking, it is divided into the accuracy and fluency to measure the students’

speaking ability.

Jigsaw Method

Students Speaking Accuracy Students Speaking

Fluency

Speaking Ability

Improving the Students’ Speaking Ability

(30)

D. Hypothesis

1. Null Hypothesis (H0)

There is no significant improvement on speaking ability before and after using jigsaw technique.

2. Alternative Hypothesis (H1)

There is a significant improvement on speaking ability before and after using jigsaw technique.

(31)

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A. Research Design

In this research, the researcher usedpre experimental design with one group pre-test and post-test to find outthesignificant difference of the students’

speaking before and after conducting the treatment.

The research design involve between pre-test and post-test as following formula:

Table 3.1 Research design Pre-test Treatment Post-test

𝑂₁ X ^𝑂2

Where:

O1= the result of the students’ pre-test X =treatment by using Jigsaw technique O2 = the result of the students’ post-test

( Gay, 1981) B. Research Variables

There were two variables, namely independent variable and dependent variable, they were:

(32)

a. The independent variable in this research was implementation of jigsaw technique. As the teacher strategy in teaching speaking.

b. The dependent variable in this research is students speaking ability.

C. Population and Sample 1. Population

The population of this research was tenth grade at SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Bontoala Makassar in the Academic Year of 2018/2019. There are six classes, namely X-AP1, X-AP2, X-CP1, X-CP2, X-OM1, X-OM2. It consist of 36 students of X-AP1, 38 students of X-AP2, 42 students of X-CP1, 40 students of X-CP2, 37 students of X-OM1, and 37 students of X-OM2. The total number of the population is 230 students.

2. Sample

The sample was chosen from population. The researchers used purposive sampling technique because the population of the research divided into six classes. Sample of this research wasX-AP1 class with 36 students.

D. Research Instrument

The research instrument in collecting the data was speaking test through pre-test and post-test. The pre-test would be given before applying jigsaw technique in the class, so that the researcher would be able to know the ability of the students in speaking. While post-test would be given after applying jigsaw technique as the teaching strategy. Used pre-test and post-test to find out the development of the students speaking ability after being treated by jigsaw technique.

(33)

E. Procedure of Data Collection

There researcher used some procedures in collecting the data, there were:

a. Pre-test

Pre-test was given before experimental treatment in order to know the students’ speaking ability. The test was given with the following procedures:

1. The researcher explained the procedure of the test that was given to the students.

2. The researcher gave speaking test to the students.

3. The researcher was correct the students answer and find the students error in speaking.

4. The researcher gave the students value appropriate the procedure.

b. Treatment

1. The researcher gave some explanation to the students about jigsaw technique.

2. The researcher divided the students into six groups.

3. Appoint one student from each group as the leader.

4. The researcher gave some teaching materials about recount text combines with jigsaw technique to improve the students’ speaking ability.

5. Discussion on every group based on the material.

c. Post-test

(34)

Post-test was given after the treatment had been given to the students. It was used to check the result of the treatment to get the data of students speaking progress after the treatment by jigsaw technique.

F. Technique of Data Analysis

The data from the English speaking test gave score based on the three English speaking skill scoring classification. In this case the researcher gave score based on the students’ pronunciation, vocabulary and fluency.To make it clear the researcher described all classification as follow:

a. Pronunciation

Table 3.2Classification Score of Pronunciation

Classification Score Criteria

Excellent 91-100 Pronunciation is only very slightly influenced by the mother tongue. A few grammatical and lexical errors but only cause confusing.

Good 75-90 Pronunciation is still moderately influenced by the mother tongue. No serious phonological errors. A few grammatical and lexical errors but only cause confusing.

Fair 61-74 Pronunciation is influenced by mother tongue only a few serious phonological errors. Several grammatical and lexical errors, event some of which cause confusing.

Less 51-60 Pronunciation seriously influenced by the mother tongue with errors causing breakdown in communication. May basic grammatical and lexical errors.

Poor X<50 Serious pronunciation errors as well as many basic grammatical and lexical errors. No evidence of having mastered any of the language skills practice

(35)

in the course.

Heaton (1989)

b. Vocabulary

Table 3.3 Classification Score of Vocabulary

Excellent 91-100 Using vocabulary and idioms like native speakers.

Good 75-90 Sometimes using the inappropriate vocabulary.

Fair 61-74 Often using the inappropriate vocabulary, the conversation becomes limited because the students vocabulary.

Less 51-60 Using the wrong vocabulary sot it is difficult to understand.

Poor X<50 The vocabulary is limited.

Hayati (2017) c. Fluency

Table 3.4 Classification Score of Fluency

Excellent 91-100 Has to make an effort at times to search for words.

Nevertheless, smooth delivery on the whole and only a few unnatural pauses.

Good 75-90 Although he has to make effort and search for words, there are not unnatural pauses. Fairly

(36)

smooth, delivery mostly, in conveying the general meaning. Fairly range expression.

Fair 61-74 Has to make effort for much of time. Often has to reach for the desired the effort at time limited range of expression.

Less 51-60 Long pauses while he researches for desire meaning. Frequently fragmentally and halting delivery. Almost give up making the effort at times. Limited range of expression.

Poor X<50 Full of long the natural pauses. Very halting and fragmentary delivery. At the time gives us making the effort, very limited range of expression.

Heaton (1989) There were some steps to find out the students’ achievement in speaking ability:

1. After collecting the data, the researcher classifies the score of the students.

Classifying the students’ score into five classification score:

Table 3.5 Classification of Students Achievement Score

No Score Classification

1 91-100 Excellent

2 75-90 Good

3 61-74 Fair

4 51-60 Less

5 X<50 Poor

Depdiknas (1985) 2. To find out the mean score of the pre-test and post-test, the researcher used the

following formula:

(37)

𝑋 = 𝑋 𝑁 Where:

𝑋 = Mean score 𝑋 = Total score

𝑁 = Total number of student

(Gay, 1981:298) 3. Calculating the improvement of the students’ percentage of pre-test and post-

test by using the formula:

P= ^{𝑋2−𝑋1}_𝑋1 x100 Where:

% = the percentage of improvement X1 = Mean score of pre-test

X2 = Mean score of post-test

(Gay, 1981) 4. To know the significant differences between score of the pre-test and post-test,

the writer calculate the value of the test by using the following formula:

t = ^𝐷

𝑛 𝐷2−( 𝐷)2 𝑛−1

𝐷 = ^𝐷_𝑁 Where:

t = Test of significant differences

D = The differences between two scores compared 𝐷 = The mean of different scores

𝐷= The sum of D scores

(38)

( 𝐷)2= The total number of students

(Gay, 1981:331)

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter deals with findings and discussions. The findings of the research consist of the description of the result from the data collected through speaking test (pre-test and post-test). Then the discussion was described further explanations and interpretation of the findings given the relation of the findings with the previous research.

A. Findings

To find out the answer of the research question in the previous chapter, the researcher used a speaking test. A pre-test was administrated before the treatment and post-test was administrated after doing the treatment to know the significant difference of students’ speaking ability before and after doing the treatment.

The result of research findings, found that teaching speaking through jigsaw technique can improve the students’ achievement in accuracy and fluency. The finding of this research described the improvement of students speaking in pre- test and post-test, the frequency and the percentage of students’ score, and hypothesis test.It could be seen the result data analysis as follows:

1. The Students’ Improvement

(39)

1.1. The Improvement of the Students’ Accuracy

The use of jigsaw technique was effective to improve the students’

speaking accuracy which focused on pronunciation and vocabulary. It could be seen from the table below based on the students’ score of accuracy:

Table 4.1

Mean Score of Students’ Accuracy in Pre-Test and Post-Test

Indicator

Score

Improvement Pre-test Post-test

Pronunciation 60.33 72.69 20.48%

Vocabulary 56.63 70.05 23.69%

𝑿 ^116.96 ^142.74

22.04%

𝑿 58.48 71.37

The table above shows the students’ improvement of speaking accuracy by using jigsaw technique. The table indicates that there is a significant improvement of the students’ speaking accuracy in terms of pronunciation and vocabulary from pre-test and post-test. The students’ mean score of pronunciation in pre-test was 60.33 and post-test was 72.69. The students’ mean score of the vocabulary in pre- test was 56.63 and pro-test was 70.05. The students’ main score of accuracy in pre-test was 58.48 and post-test was 71.37. The improvement of the students’

speaking accuracy in pre-test and post-test was 22.04%. Based on the findings above, we can say that the improvement of students’ speaking accuracy was

(40)

significantly different because the mean score of post-test was higher than pre- test.

To see clearly the improvement of the students’ speaking pronunciation, look at the following chart:

Chart 4.1

Improvement of the Students Accuracy

1.2. The Improvement of the Students’ Fluency

speaking fluency. It could be seen from the table below based on the students’

score of fluency:

Table 4.2

Mean Score of Students’ Fluency in Pre-Test and Post-Test Score

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Pre-Test Post-Test Improvement 58.48

71.37

22.04

(41)

Indicator Pre-test Post-test Improvement

Fluency 56.19 69.66 23.97%

The table above shows that, the students’ mean score of fluency in pre-test was 56.19 and post-test was 69.66. The improvement of the students’ speaking fluency in pre-test and post-test was 23.97%. In the other words we can say that, the improvement of speaking fluency was significantly different because the mean score of post-test was higher than pre-test.

To see clearly the improvement of the students’ speaking fluency, look at the following chart:

Chart 4.2

The Improvement of the Students Fluency

1.3. The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Ability both of Accuracy and Fluency

speaking ability. It could be seen from the table below based on the students’

score of speaking ability.

Table 4.3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Pre-Test Post-Test Improvement 56.19

69.66

23.97

(42)

The Students’ Mean Score of Speaking Abilityboth of Accuracy and Fluency in Pre-Test and Post-Test

Indicator

Score

Improvement Pre-test Post-test

Accuracy 58.48 71.37 22.04%

Fluency 56.19 69.66 23.97%

𝑋 114.67 141.03

22.98%

𝑋 57.337 70.515

The table above shows that, the students’ mean score of accuracy in pre- test was 58.48 and post was 71.37. The students’ mean score of fluency in pre-test was 56.19 and post-test was 69.66. The students’ mean score of speaking ability in pre-test was 57.337 and post-test was 70.515. The improvement of the students’

speaking ability in pre-test and post-test was 22.98%. Based on the findings above, we can say that the improvement of students’ speaking ability was significantly different because the mean score of post-test was higher than pre- test.

To see clearly the improvement of the students’ speaking ability, look at the following chart:

Figure 4.3

The Improvement of the Students’ Speaking Ability both of Accuracy and Fluency

(43)

2. The Frequency and Percentage of the Students’ Speaking 2.1. The Frequency and Percentage of Accuracy

The data of speaking test of the students’ were obtained by speaking in term of accuracy. In order to knew the students’ speaking, the score of speaking accuracy observed as follow:

Table 4.4

Frequency and the Rate Percentage of Pre-Test and post-Test in Accuracy

No

Pronunciation

Classification Pre-Test Post-Test

F % F %

1 Excellent 0 0 0 0

2 Good 0 0 19 52.72

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Pre-Test Post-Test Improvement

57.337

70.515

22.98

(44)

3 Fair 12 33.3 17 47.28

4 Less 18 50 0 0

5 Poor 6 16.7 0 0

Total 36 100% 36 100%

The table classification above, shows that the classification students’ score of accuracy was divided in fifth classification, namely excellent, good, fair, less, and poor. The table shows the frequency of speaking accuracy in pre-test and post-test from 36 students.

In pre-test, there were 0 students (0%) who categorized to “Excellent”, 0 students (0%) who categorized “Good”, 12 students (33.3%) who categorized to

“Fair”, 18 students (50%) who categorized to “Less”, and 6 students (16.7%) who categorized to “Poor”. While in post-test there were 0 students (0%) who categorized to “Excellent”, 19 students (52.72%) who categorized to “Good”, 17 students (47.28%) who categorized to “Fair”, 0 students (0%) who categorized to

“Less”, and 0 students (0%) who categorized “Poor”.

Based on the result above, indicated that the students’ speaking accuracy in pre-test was dominant classification in “Fair” and “Less”. While students’

speaking accuracy in post-test was dominant classification in “Good” and “Fair”

nobody students’ got bad score. Based on the result on accuracy above, there were an improvement students’ score of accuracy in pre-test to post-test.

2.2. The Frequency and Percentage of Fluency

(45)

The data of speaking test of the students’ were obtained by speaking in term of fluency. In order to knew the students’ speaking, the score of speaking fluency observed as follow:

Table 4.5

Frequency and the Rate Percentage of Pre-Test and post-Test in Fluency

No

Fluency

Classification Pre-Test Post-Test

F % F %

1 Excellent 0 0 0 0

2 Good 0 0 15 41.7

3 Fair 8 22.2 17 47.2

4 Less 12 33.3 4 11.1

5 Poor 16 44.5 0 0

Total 36 100% 36 100%

The table above shows that the classification students’ score had was divides in fifth classification in fluency, namely excellent, good, fair, less, and poor. The table shows that score of fluency in pre-test and post-test from 36 students.

In pre-test, there were 0 students (0%) who categorized to “Excellent”, 0 students (0%) who categorized “Good”, 8 students (22.2%) who categorized to

“Fair”, 12 students (33.3%) who categorized to “Less”, and 16 students (44.5%) who categorized to “Poor”.While in post-test there were 0 students (0%) who categorized to “Excellent”, 15 students (41.7%) who categorized to “Good”, 17

(46)

students (47.2%) who categorized to “Fair”, 4 students (11.1%) who categorized to “Less”, and 0 students (0%) who categorized “Poor”.

Based on the result above, indicated that the students’ speaking fluency in pre-test was dominant classification in “Less” and “Poor”. While in post-test was dominant classification in “Good” and “Fair” nobody students’ got bad score. It means that, there were an improvement students’ score of fluency in pre-test to post-test.

3. Hypothesis Testing

Based on the result of speaking, the students’ score in pre-test and post- test determined the value of t-test knew the improvement of the students’ after conducting treatment by using jigsaw technique is successful. The value of t-test can be seen from the table below about speaking ability.

Table 4.6

The Value of T-test Pre-Test and Post-Post

Variable T-Test T-Table Comparison Classification

Speaking

18.17 2.03011 T-Test> T-Table (18.17>2.03011)

Significant

The table above shows that the t-test value of the students is higher than the value of t-table. After calculating the t-test value got score (18.17) and t-table was (2.03011). The result of statistical analysis at the level significance with degree of freedom (df)=n-1, where df=36-1 and df=35 indicate that there were a

(47)

significant difference between the mean score of post-test and pre-test. The mean score of pre-test was (86.63) and post-test was (102.88). In addition, the t-test value was bigger than t-table value (18.17>2.03011). It means that, the null hypothesis (H0) was rejected and alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted. It is said that there was a significant difference between the students’ speaking before and after using Jigsaw Technique.

From the explanation above, the hypothesis (H1) is accepted and the Null Hypothesis (H0) is rejected. In other words, jigsaw technique can be used to improve the students’ speaking English.

B. Discussion

The research finding indicates that the students’ speaking ability using jigsaw technique shows the improvement of the students speaking ability in term of accuracy has focused on pronunciation and vocabulary, and fluency. From the improvement shows the process in pre-test and post-test.

The improvement of students’ speaking skill is caused applying jigsaw technique to students’ in post-test. In pre-test the researcher gave the students’

instruction to speak in front of the class before applying jigsaw technique. After the researcher given the treatment to the students’, the students’ become active and more enjoyable to speak in learning process through working group in the classroom. The description of data collection through speaking test was explained in previous findings section show that the students’ after the application of jigsaw technique is significant.

In applying of jigsaw technique in teaching speaking, the researcher finds that the mean score of students’ speaking ability in post-test was greater than

(48)

score of pre-test. The use of jigsaw technique improved students’ accuracy. It was proved by the improvement from pre-test to post-test. The mean score of accuracy in post-test was 71.37 greater than the mean score of pre-test 54.48. The improvement of students’ accuracy was 22.04%. The mean score of fluency in post-test was 69.66 greater than the mean score in pre-test 56.19. Thus, the improvement of students’ fluency was 23.97%. The mean score of speaking ability both of accuracy and fluency in post-test was 70.515 greater than the mean score in pre-test was 57.337. Thus, the improvement of students’ speaking ability was 22.98%.In other side, the researcher found that the result between t-test and t- table showed that the t-test was greater than t-table. The t-test was 18.17 while t- table was 2.03011. It means that, there was significance difference between pre- test and post-test.

Based on the result of speaking test, the students’ speaking ability was improved. It was proved by the result of post-test in terms of accuracy and fluency. The category score of accuracy which the score of pre-test was fair 33.3 and post-test was good 52.72. The category of fluency which the score of post-test was poor 38.9 and post-test was good 36.08.

After applying jigsaw technique on speaking, the students’ speaking was improve because they were used some new vocabulary that the students find during the learning process. The students were familiar with the vocabulary they knew so that the students actively speaking and more enjoyable to appear in teachinglearningactivities, so the students were fluent in speaking. Based on the result of data analysis the researchers conclude that the use of jigsaw technique is effective to improve the students’ speaking ability in teaching process.

(49)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESSTION A. Conclusion

Based on the research findings and discussions in the previous chapter, the researchers conclude that the implementation of jigsaw technique improve the students speaking ability especiallyinclassX.AP 1 at SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Bontoala.

After applying jigsaw technique, thestudents weremore active and enjoyableinteaching andlearningactivitiesand also theywere

morefamiliarwiththewordsthey learntsothattheir

(50)

speakingabilityimproved.Theimplementationof Jigsawtechniquegivespositive effectson thestudents’speakingabilitybecause after applying jigsaw technique, the students more active and increasethestudents’ enthusiasm in speaking to appear in front of their friends. The improvement of students’ speaking skill is canbeseenfromthe students’speakingachievement.

In applying of jigsaw technique in teaching speaking, the researcher finds that the mean score of students’ speaking ability in post-test was greater than score of pre-test. The mean score of speaking ability both of accuracy and fluency in post-test was 70.515 greater than the mean score in pre-test was 57.337. Thus, the improvement of students’ speaking ability was 22.98%.In other side, the researcher found that the result between t-test and t-table showed that the t-test was greater than t-table. The t-test was 18.17 while t-table was 2.03011.It means that the null hypothesis (H0) was rejected and alternative hypothesis (H1) was accepted.

Based on the explanation above, we can see that jigsaw technique is effective to improve the students’ speaking ability which focused on accuracy and fluency in teaching speaking. Jigsaw technique is one way in improving students to speak up and to be active in front of the class with positive attitude.

B. Suggestion

Based on the result of the data analysis, the researcher would like to give some suggestions as follow:

1. The researcher suggest to the English teacher to use jigsaw technique as an alternative ways in teaching and learning English to improve the students’

speaking ability.

(51)

2. The researcher suggests to the English teacher to make students interest in English learning, because it is very important before applied jigsaw technique as a teaching technique in group learning.

3. The researcher suggests to the teacher should be creative in teaching English especially speaking because in teaching speaking need more method or technique in improving it.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alamsyah. 2017. The Use of Ice Breaker to Improve Students’ Speaking Ability at the Junior High School (SMP Negeri 3 Ma’rang) Pangkep. Makassar:

Muhammadiyah University of Makassar.

Ardawati. 2010. Developing Students’ Speaking Skill through Motivate, Activate, and Parcipate (MAP) Formula. Makassar: Muhammadiyah University of Makassar.

Asrul, Asri. 2010. Improving Students’ Speaking Ability through the Use of Sugestopedia Method. Makassar: Muhammadiyah University of Makassar.

Astriani, Maileny. 2013. The Influence jigsaw Technique Toward Students’

Speaking Ability of the Second Year at Madrasah Aliyah Darul Ulum Tandun. Darul Ulum Tandun: Madrasah Aliyah Darul Ulum Tandaun.

Awalia, Dina. 2016. The Correlation Between the Students’ Sociolinguistis

(52)

Competence and Their Speaking Ability. Makassar: Muhammadiyah University of Makassar.

Azizah, Muna Nur. 2017. Improving Students’ Activeness in Speaking Using Jigsaw II of SMAN 1 Kandawangan. Pontianak: Tanjungpura University Pontianak.

Brown, Douglas H. 2004. Language Assessment Principles and Classroom practices. San Fransisco: Longman.

Brown,H.D.2000.PrinciplesofEnglishLanguageandTeaching,Fourth Edition. NewYork.Longman.

Burn,Anne.1999.CollaborativeActionResearchforEnglish Language Teacher.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Desiana, Eka Ayu. 2013. The Implementation of Jigsaw Technique in Improving Students’ Oral Production of Recount Text.Vol 2 Nomor 8. Available at http://jurnal.fkip.unila.ac.id/index.php/123/article/view/1964/1331(accesse d on January 15,2019)

Diyah, Dheni. 2010. The Use of Jigsaw to Improve Speaking English Ability.Thesis S-1. Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta.

Harmer, Jeremy. 1991. The Practice of English Language Teaching. London:

Longman.

Harris. 1984. Language Testing Handbook. Second edition. London. Mucmilan Publisher.

Hersulastuti. 2010. Implementing Jigsaw Technique in Speaking Class of Describing Someone: A Reflection. Journal MagistraNo. 73. [Online]

Availableat: http://journal.unwidha.ac.id/index.php/magistra/issue/view/11 . [Accessed onJuny 21, 2019]

Hornby, A.S.1995. OxfordAdvancedLearner’sDictionaryof Current English(5thEd).NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Hosni, Samira Al. 2014. Speaking Difficulties Encountered by Young EFL Learners. Volume 2.

Iwashita. 2010. Assessed Levels of Second Language Speaking Proficiency.

Britana.Oxfor University Press 2008.

Pollard, L. 2008.Teaching English: A Book to Help You Through Your First Two Years in Teaching.

(53)

Richard, J,C. 2001. Curriculum Development in Language Teaching.Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Rosalinda, Eka Lisya. 2017. Using Cue Cards Media in improving Students’

Speaking Ability. Thesis.Makassar.Muhammadiyah University of Makassar.

Syukur, Helmi. 2013. Building Up Students’ Speaking Achievement though Jigsaw Technique. Jurnal Adabiyah. Vol. 16 Nomor 2/2016. Available at http://journal.uinalauddin.ac.id/index.php/adabiyah/article/view/1699/pdf(

accessed on November 19,2018)

Utari, Risadiah. 2013. Using Jigsaw Technique to Improvethe Speaking Ability of theGradeVII Studentsof SMPN3DepokintheAcademicYearof 2010/2011.

Thesis. Yogyakarta: YogyakartaState University.

Wahyudi, Tri. 2014. Improving Students’ Speaking Ability through Jigsaw Task”

Thesis. Lampung: Lampung University.

Willis, G. B. (2004). Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zahrah, Annisa Fatimatus. 2018. The Use of Story Sequence As An Alternative Medium to Enhance Students’ Speaking Skill. Thesis. Makassar:

Muhammadiyah University of Makassar.

(54)

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

List Name of Students in Class X.AP1 SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Bontoala

CODE STUDENTS

S-1 Adrian

S-2 Andi Risma Ayu Andini S-3 Anugrah

S-4 Aprilya Eka Maharani S-5 Diana Bambang S-6 Dwi Agustianty S-7 Hafsuarni Sahir S-8 Ina Purnama Sari S-9 Isabella Saharuddin S-10 Muh Aswar

S-11 Muh Luthfi

S-12 Muhammad Al Hanafiah

(55)

S-13 Musdalifah Saleh S-14 Musdalifah Syam S-15 Nabila Isti Aisyah Bakri S-16 Nalda Unnasyah N S-17 Nur Rahma

S-18 Nurcaya Handayani S-19 Nursan

S-20 Nurul Hikmah S-21 Putri Sri Rahayu S-22 Rahmawati S-23 Reksa al Faraby S-24 Renaldi Rahman Iteng S-25 Rifky Saputra

S-26 Rifska Amalia chairuisa RS S-27 Rusnaini

S-28 Seba

S-29 Silvani Nurul Fadhila S-30 Sitti Nurul madinah S-31 Sri Wulandari

S-32 St. Aisyah Anugerahwati S-33 St. Nur Halifah

S-34 Sulham A

S-35 Tasya Olivia Thalib S-36 Widyawati Junaedi

(56)

APPENDIX B

Appendix B.1

Classification of Students’ Score in Pronunciation in Pre-Test and Post-Test

Code

Pre-Test (X1) Post-Test (X2) Pronunciation Classifying Pronunciation Classifying

S-1 60 Less 75 Good

S-2 68 Fair 75 Good

S-3 58 Less 65 Fair

S-4 60 Less 78 Good

(57)

S-5 50 Poor 69 Fair

S-6 61 Fair 70 Fair

S-7 50 Poor 75 Good

S-8 60 Less 79 Good

S-9 60 Less 75 Good

S-10

72 Fair 80 Good

S-11

49 Poor 65 Fair

S-12

58 Less 75 Good

S-13

70 Fair 75 Good

S-14

50 Poor 65 Fair

S-15

54 Less 65 Fair

S-16

65 Fair 80 Good

S-17

70 Fair 75 Good

S-18

60 Less 75 Good

S-19

73 Fair 80 Good

S-20

60 Less 67 Fair

S-21

73 Fair 77 Good

S-22

60 Less 75 Good

S-23

50 Poor 65 Fair

S-24

57 Less 70 Fair

S-25

60 Less 70 Fair

(58)

S-26

55 Less 72 Fair

S-27

55 Less 70 Fair

S-28

70 Fair 75 Good

S-29

53 Less 65 Fair

S-30

49 Poor 75 Good

S-31

65 Fair 70 Fair

S-32

70 Fair 73 Fair

S-33

60 Less 75 Good

S-34

72 Fair 80 Good

S-35

60 Less 72 Fair

S-36

55 Less 70 Fair

Appendix B.2

Classification of Students’ Score in Vocabulary in Pre-Test and Post-Test

Code

Pre-Test (X1) Post-Test (X2) Vocabulary Classifying Vocabulary Classifying

S-1 60 Less 75 Good

S-2 50 Poor 65 Fair

S-3 65 Fair 70 Fair

S-4 50 Poor 60 Less

(59)

S-5 65 Fair 75 Good

S-6 55 Less 65 Fair

S-7 49 Poor 65 Fair

S-8 50 Poor 70 Fair

S-9 55 Less 65 Fair

S-10 70 Fair 72 Fair

S-11 59 Less 65 Fair

S-12 45 Poor 65 Fair

S-13 65 Fair 75 Good

S-15 55 Less 75 Good

S-25 45 Poor 75 Good

(60)

Appendix B.3

Classification of Students’ Score in Fluency in Pre-Test and Post-Test Pre-Test (X1) Post-Test (X2) Code Fluency Classifying Fluency Classifying

S-1 50 Poor 75 Good

S-2 65 Fair 70 Fair

S-3 70 Fair 75 Good

S-4 55 Less 80 Good

(61)

S-5 45 Poor 50 Poor

S-6 60 Less 70 Fair

S-7 45 Poor 78 Good

S-8 61 Fair 65 Fair

S-9 50 Poor 65 Fair

S-12 50 Poor 60 Less