1

IMPROVING STUDENTS ACHIEVEMENT IN SPEAKING THROUGH PAIRED STORYTELLING TECHNIQUE

A Proposal Submitted as the Assessment of Seminar on Language Teaching Subject

By: Bernard Richard Nainggolan Rini Susanti Crystian Juliana Sidauruk Reswinda Suryani Naibaho Noviandri Ananda Lubis Efriyanti Siregar 209121005 209121037 209121009 209121036 209421 209421

FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN 2011

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1 1.1 Background of Problem The National Education Department of Indonesia makes English as one of primary subjects from elementary up to the university level. According to the curriculum of Senior High School (SMA), the first year students are expected to speak English actively. But in fact, just few students are fulfilling the curriculum standards. In the process of learning speaking, students find that speaking is difficult to practice. When the teacher asks students to say something about their opinion, most of the students feel unconfident to express it. They are ashamed to make a mistake in speaking English language. This statement is mentioned by Picollo (2010) on his article Teaching Speaking to English Second Language Students that one speaking problems faced by the students occurred because they worried about making mistakes, receiving critic or losing face in front of the rest of the class. In addition, Mohamed (2011) also writes in his article Why are Students Facing Problems in Speaking English? that the main problems in speaking English are lack of confidence and afraid. Most of the students are not interested in learning speaking or even hate it which affects the teaching and learning smoothness. Kartini (2010) on her research report A Study on English Students Anxiety in Learning English in ESP Speaking Program at University of Muhammadiah Malang found that anxiousness about making mistakes when speaking in front of class is the problem faced by the students in speaking English. In addition, Tsiplakides (2009) on his journal Helping Students Overcome Foreign Language Speaking Anxiety in the English Classroom: Theoretical Issues and Practical Recommendations in International Education Studies state that students who exhibit communication apprehension do not feel comfortable communicating in the target language in front of others, due to their limited knowledge of the language, especially in relation to speaking and listening skills. Students who experience fear of negative evaluation do not consider language errors as a natural part of the learning process, but as a threat to their image, and a source for negative

evaluations either from the teacher or their peers. As a result, they are silent and withdrawn most of the time, and do not participate in language activities. Students who experience test anxiety consider the foreign language process, and especially oral production, as a test situation, rather than an opportunity for communication and skills improvement. The phenomenon above shows that there is a serious problem in learning speaking. The researcher found this condition when doing teaching practice (PPL) in SMK GBKP Kabanjahe. The students got direct material and forced to give correct respond to the question from the teacher without exploring it with their own knowledge. The situation above made most of the students bored and did not have big desire to learn and to speak English in the class. Only a few numbers of students are interested to be involved actively in learning the material and the rest passively involved without performing their best when the teacher ask them to speak about the material. The researcher also found these problems when doing pre-observation in the school that was become subject of research SMA swasta Katolik Sibolga. He dispensed questionnaire papers to 70 students from two classes and he found that there are 86% of students stated that speaking English is difficult. The writer also found that there are 52% students stated that English speaking material given by the teacher is not interesting and 91.5% students comprehended less speaking material. The questionnaire papers also showed that there were 84.3% students who did not master vocabulary well while speaking and there were only 51.4% students who got good mark in speaking test. The students felt unconfident to speak English because of their nervousness (25.7% questionnaires papers), lack of vocabulary (68.5% questionnaires papers), bad grammar (45.1% questionnaires papers), lack of fluency in pronouncing the words (30% questionnaires papers) and other reasons. In order to face these speaking problems, the teacher should hold the prior

role in changing the old strategy of learning and applying the suitable technique in teaching speaking skill. The teacher should apply a technique that emphasizes prior knowledge as the main point in teaching and learning process. For this purpose, paired storytelling becomes the technique will be applied in improving students speaking achievement and increasing conceptual learning in ways that maximize students participation. Paired Storytelling is the interactive approach between students, teacher, and materials (Lie, 2008:71). It is an integrated technique that combining four skills in English, i.e., reading, writing, listening, and speaking. The technique emphasizes students background knowledge as the main point to build a meaningful teaching and learning progress. The activities on the Paired Storytelling stimulate students ability in thinking and imagining. All ideas given by the students are appreciated so the students will not afraid in making mistake and students will be motivated to learn more and more. Moreover, students that working together has more chance to process information and improve their communication ability. Lie (1994) in her article Paired Storytelling: An Integrated Approach for Bilingual and English as a Second Language Students describes that the technique provides opportunities for one-to-one interaction among students around school tasks and gives them opportunity to use the target language communicatively. The cooperative work improves group relation and increase self-esteem, which particularly benefits non-native speakers of English who are rather inhabited about speaking in the target language. This oral use of the target language may in turn improve their reading performance as the development of reading and writing is closely related to the acquisition of the oral language.

This technique includes some procedures that were applied in the classroom. Firstly, the material or text is divided into two parts. After brainstorming, students are assigned to work in pair and each of the members on the group will get different part of the text. After reading the materials, students find and write the keywords based on the text they get and change over the keywords to their paired partner. Finally, students compose the complete material, read the result, and discuss it. By applying Paired Storytelling, students was encouraged to speak in front of the class and the nervous that they feel was decreased. Students were also motivated to work cooperatively and their communicating ability was increased. Paired Storytelling is one of the techniques that have used in English research. Veronika (2011) used this technique to improve students achievement in reading comprehension. Based on the discussion above, it is clearly that teaching through Paired Storytelling would improve students speaking achievement. Speaking is not a discrete skill. One of the central difficulties inherent in the study of speaking is that overlaps with a considerable number of other areas and activities (Hughes, 2002:5). There are some factors that affecting students speaking achievement in school like availability of teaching and learning instruments or facilities, students willing or motivation in learning and method or technique that used in the class. An interesting technique can attract students attention to learn and involve actively. An attractive technique should fulfill between teaching and learning aim and students predilection regarding to their personal characteristic and needs in the class. But in fact, what is happening in the real class is not the same with the

expectation. Most of the teachers still use conventional way in doing learning and teaching activity without involving students actively in the class. The students just listen to the teacher explanation and do the task without having a brainstorming first. The activity in the class also often finished without using instrument as learning media. Moreover, the conventional way forces students to finish the exercise correctly without concerning on their wrong response.

1.2 The Problem of the Study Based on the background of the problem above, the problem of the study was formulated as follows: Is the students achievement in speaking improved if they are taught through Paired Storytelling technique?

1.3 The Objective of the Study In relation to the problem, the objective of the study is to improve students achievement in speaking through paired storytelling.

1.4 The Scope of the Study There are some techniques of cooperative learning in teaching process such as jigsaw, two stay two stray, numbered head together, paired storytelling, etc. This study is focused on the application of paired storytelling to improve students achievement in speaking.

1.5 The Significance of the Study The research findings are expected to be useful for:

Students to overcome the problem in speaking and to improve their speaking achievement through paired storytelling technique. The teachers who need the information of this technique to improve speaking achievement. The reader to explore information in order to expand their knowledge and understanding in improving speaking skill and to be reference to them who interested to do related study.

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1 The Concept of Teaching Speaking Speaking is the verbal use of language to communicate with others. Speaking is the uniquely human act or process of sharing and exchanging information, ideas, and emotions using oral language (Fisher&Frey, 2007:16). In additional, speaking is an interactive and according to accomplish pragmatics goal through interactive discourse with other speaker of language. Speaking is a process in conveying one feeling or ideas to others with verbal language. The ability of speaking is an acquisition to express one self in life situations, of ability report acts or situation precise words, or ability to converse, or to express a sequence or ideas fluently. The goal of speaking is to achieve an interactive communication between the speaker and the listener. Teaching is an activity where ones try to help and to lead someone in getting, changing or developing skill, attitude, idea appreciation and knowledge. So, it can be concluded that teaching speaking is the activity where the teachers lead their students to improve their ability in expressing emotions, ideas or feelings orally. Teaching speaking divided into some perspectives (Brown, 2002:267): Conversation Discourse

The conversation class is an enigma in language teaching. The goals and the techniques for teaching conversation are extremely diverse, depending on the student, teacher and 8 overall context. Teaching Pronunciation There has been some controversy over the role of pronunciation work in a communicative, interactive course of study because the overwhelming majority of adult learner will never acquire an accent-free command of a foreign language. Accuracy and Fluently Class room must not become linguistic courses but rather than that the locus of meaningful language involvement, or so the argument went. Fluently is an initial goal in language teaching. Yet accuracy is achieved to some extent by allowing student to focus on the elements of phonology, grammar and discourse in their spoke output. Affective Factors One of the major obstacles learners have to overcome in learning to speak is the anxiety generated over the risk of blurting things out that are wrong stupid or incomprehensible. The Interaction Effect Conversations are collaborative as participants engage in a process of negotiation of meaning. So for the learner, the matter of what to say a tremendous task, to be sure is often eclipsed by conventions of how to say things, when to speak and other discourse constraints. The emphasis in language teaching has become meaning than form and the ability to use rather than knowledge about language. The characteristic of language teaching is also an affair with the world beyond the classroom, i.e. the linguistic

preparation of learners for real time target language use with other language speakers. In this study, teaching speaking includes teaching pronunciation, accuracy and fluently.

2.2 Students Improvement in Speaking Based on the concept of teaching speaking, students are called well in speaking if they can express their feeling, idea or emotion through verbal sense effectively. Teacher as the guidance have a responsibility to help students in improving their speaking skill by making some corrections regarding to the problem in the teaching learning progress. If the problem comes from the students for example speaking anxiety the teacher has to find the way to solve it. Applying a suitable teaching technique can be one solution. The improvement of speaking skill can be seen from the way students performing an oral speech or presentation. There are three levels of language performance that can be used as the indicator of speaking improvement (doe.sd.gov/contentstandards/documents/LV_6-8.pdf): basic level, proficient level and advanced level. In basic level, the students include verbal techniques in oral presentation. They can tell the class about narrative story based on its generic structures by using verbal techniques. When the students speaking ability improved to proficient level, they are able to integrate verbal and nonverbal techniques to deliver and clarify an oral presentation for a specific audience and purpose. Then the students are able to incorporate precise verbal and nonverbal techniques to deliver and clarify an oral presentation for a specific audience and purpose. These levels can be an indicator of

11

students speaking improvement. After an improvement, students should gain good speaking achievement. Good speaking achievement can be identified by the students fulfilling microskills of oral communication. The microskills of oral communication as listed below (Brown, 2002:272): Produce chunks of language of different lengths Orally produce differences among the English phonemes and allophonic variants Produce English stress patterns, words in stressed and unstressed positions, rhythmic structure and intonational contour Produce reduced forms of words and phrases Use an adequate number of lexical units (words) in order to accomplish pragmatic purposes Produce fluent speech at different rates of delivery Monitoring own oral production and using various devicepauses,filters, self-correction, strategic

backtrackingto

enhance the clarity of the message Use the grammatical word classes (noun, verbs, etc.), systems (e.g. tense, agreement, pluralization), word order, patterns, rules and elliptical forms Produce speech in natural constituentsin appropriate

phrases, pause groups, breath groups and sentences Express a particular meaning in different grammatical forms Use cohesive device in spoken discourse Accomplish appropriately communicative functions according to situations,

participants and goals Use appropriate registers, implicature, pragmatic conventions and other sociolinguistic features in face-to-face conversations Convey links and connections between events and communicate such relations as main idea, supporting idea, new information, given information, generalization and exemplification Use facial features, kinesic, body language and other nonverbal cues along with verbal language to convey meanings Develop and use a battery of speaking strategies, such as emphasizing key words, rephrasing, providing a context for interpreting meaning of words, appealing for help and accurately assessing how well the interlocutor is understanding the speaker. Students improvement in speaking will be identified from the fulfillment of these microskills. In this study, FSI scale was chosen to measure them that encompassed accent, grammar, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension.

2.3 Cooperative Learning If a teacher wants to successfully teach the students, the medium must match the message: the way the teacher should be consistent with what he/she teach. Many human rights friendly teaching methods exist and one of them is Cooperative Learning. George Jacobs (2003) in his article Cooperative Learning to Promote Human Rights states that in Cooperative Learning activities, small groups of two or more students collaborate to reach group goals. Jim Knight (2001) also in his article Cooperative Learning: Instructional

13

Coaching state that cooperative learning is learning mediated by students rather than the instruction. This kind of learning is an instructional strategy that allows students to take over the role of instructor. This method is a pedagogical practice that promotes socialization and learning across different curriculum areas and classroom settings (Gillies and Ashman, 2003:50). Jacobs also says that cooperative learning however is more than just asking students to work together. It embodies principles and techniques to help students work together more efficiently and involves a conscious and persistent effort to create a sense of community within a class of students and beyond. In addition, Pamela G. George (1994) in his journal The Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning Strategies in Multicultural University Classroom as he quoted from Slavin (1994) say that working in dyads or small groups, usually with some incentive or reward for the group's accomplishments, students are motivated in cooperative learning to help one another master skills or learn the material. Cooperative learning was designed and implemented to develop social strategies and acceptable social attitudes in students, and to improve social relations within and between groups (Gillies and Ashman, A. F, 2003:54). Jacobs (2003) also in his article Cooperative Learning to Promote Human Right divide theory support the use of cooperative learning: The study of social psychology and group dynamics helps people understand why some groups succeed while others fail (Allport 1954; Aronson, http://www.jigsaw.org/index.html; Johnson and Johnson 1999). A key concept is interdependence among people. When people feel positively interdependent with others, it will be believed that a positive correlation

exists between what happens to peoples and what happens to others. In developmental psychology, Piaget (1967) illustrates how intellectual development takes place via interactions with others. A key concept is disequilibrium: when someone presents a view different from our own, we may rethink people view and develop a better understanding of the world. Cognitive psychology also values interaction as a means to promote deep thought and encourage students to examine their own thinking processes. For instance, Webb and Farivar (1994) explore how giving explanations, rather than just answers, to peers and receiving explanations from them promotes learning. Behaviorists see value in peer interaction, because peers can be an important source of motivation: students may want to study harder, for example, to live up to their obligations as group members (Slavin 1995). Group mates offer another potential source of positive reinforcement. Vygotsky (1978) is perhaps the most cited scholar to support the idea of learning as a social process. Vygotskys theory is one of the foundations of constructivism that support student to be active and work together. It asserts three major themes (http://www.learning-theories.com/vygotskys-social-learning-theory.html 21 Feb 2011): Social interaction plays a fundamental role in the process of cognitive development. In contrast to Jean Piagets understanding of child development (in which development necessarily precedes learning), Vygotsky felt social learning precedes development. He states: Every

15

function in the childs cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological). (Vygotsky, 1978). The More Knowledgeable Other (MKO). The MKO refers to anyone who has a better understanding or a higher ability level than the learner, with respect to a particular task, process, or concept. The MKO is normally thought of as being a teacher, coach, or older adult, but the MKO could also be peers, a younger person, or even computers. The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The ZPD is the distance between a students ability to perform a task under adult guidance and/or with peer collaboration and the students ability solving the problem independently. According to Vygotsky, learning occurred in this zone. Vygotsky focused on the connections between people and the socio-cultural context in which they act and interact in shared experiences (Crawford, 1996). Many schools have traditionally held a transmissionist or instructionist model in which a teacher or lecturer transmits information to students. In contrast, Vygotskys theory promotes learning contexts in which students play an active role in learning. In cooperative learning, each student is required not only to complete their part of the work but to ensure that others do likewise. The technical term for this dual responsibility is positive interdependence, and it is the most important element of cooperative learning. The second essential element that affects cooperative learning is promotive interaction. Promotive interaction involves

individuals encouraging and facilitating each others efforts as they work together on the group task (Gillies and Ashman, 2003:37).

2.3.1 Paired Storytelling The paired storytelling is one of techniques in cooperative learning method. Paired storytelling developed as an interactive among students, teacher and the learning material (Lie, 2008:71). It encourages foreign students in high school and college to use prior knowledge to improve comprehension of reading assignments. Beside, this technique improves group relations, increases self-esteem, and increases vocabulary acquisitions. Both reading and writing skills are integrated with group activities in the paired storytelling strategy. Lie (1994) states that the paired storytelling technique includes five characteristics important in teaching students to read in second language. They are: a) that the students cultural background plays an important role; b) that L2 (second language) readers should use the same sorts of skills as effective L1 (first language) readers do; c) the reading should be integrated with writing; d) that students should be engaged in nonthreatening cooperative contexts; and e) they should have

opportunities to process information effectively and communicate in target language.

2.3.1.1 The Instructional Activity of Paired Storytelling in Speaking Class

17

Lie (1994) states that the paired storytelling strategy requires guidance by a facilitator. Directions for using the paired storytelling strategy are outlined below. The teacher pairs two students. Before handing out the material text, the teacher provides a general introduction to the topic. The teacher can also write the topic on the board and ask the students what they know about the topic and how it relates to their experiences. If necessary, the teacher may give this introduction in the students first language and the students may be allowed to use their first language. This brainstorming activity is intended to active the students prior knowledge, helping them builds an anticipatory model that will be confirmed or modified as they encounter the actual text. The teacher should emphasize that making the right guess is not the point. Instead, what is important is to get ready for the story. In the brainstorming activity, the teacher will learn whether the students have the appropriate cultural background knowledge or not. The text/story is divided into two sections. The first half of the story is given to one student in each pair and the second half to the other one. As each student is reading his/her own section, he/she is to jot down the key concepts. The teacher should probably limit the number of key words or phrases depending on the length or complexity of the text. Each student is to list the key words/phrases in the order in which they appear in the text. Then both students in the pair exchange their lists. The teacher gives them a few moments to reflect on the list of clues and relate them to the story part they have read. Occasionally, one or a few students may not understand a certain

word. Either the teacher or the students who wrote the word may explain its meaning in English either by giving its definition or by using it in the sentence. By recalling the part, he/she has read and using the clues that the other student has recorded, each student then develops and writes his/her own version of the storys missing part. The student who has read the first half tries to predict what will happen next and continuous to develop the story. On the other hand, the one who has read the latter part guesses what has happened before. When the students have finished, the teacher give them an oral test to tell the class about their own complete versions to each other in front of the class. Next, the teacher distributes the missing part of the story to everybody in class and asks them to compare it with their own stories.

2.3.1.2 The Benefits of Paired Storytelling As an interactive teaching technique, the paired storytelling has some benefits (Lie, 2008:71). Firstly, teaching material will more meaningful because in this technique, teacher must pay intention in activating schemata or students background experience. It also builds students ability in thinking and imagining. Students also have more opportunity to process information and improving their communication ability. The paired storytelling strategy has several advantages as accessed on http://www.muskingum.edu/~cal/database/general/reading.html#FixUp. First, it

gives ESL students the opportunity to converse in the target language in an informal

19

setting on a one-on-one basis. Because it is a group endeavor, paired storytelling encourages cooperation, motivation, and confidence. Self-esteem often is impacted positively. Second, verbal use of the target language improves the students' skills in reading and writing the language. A third advantage of the strategy is the contextualized practice with vocabulary that it provides. New words are used in meaningful ways by both partners in each pair. According to Lie, paired storytelling technique provides opportunities for one-to-one interaction among students around school tasks and gives them opportunity to use the target language communicatively. The cooperative work improves group relations and increases self-esteem, which particularly benefits nonnative speakers of English who are rather inhibited about speaking in the target language in larger group. The cooperative atmosphere of working in the pair may greatly motivate students and give them confidence to use the target language. This oral use of the target language may in turn improve their speaking performance as the development of reading and writing is closely related to the acquisition of the oral language. Lie also states that another important benefit is vocabulary work. Virtually all texts in ESL deal with vocabulary items, but often the rationale for choosing the words to be glossed seems arbitrary. It is hard to know whether the words are selected because they are useful. There is no doubt that vocabulary is best learned when the target words are learned in context, as there is a link between vocabulary and schemata. Paired storytelling provides the opportunity to work on vocabulary in the meaningful context of the whole text. Everybody will have chance to use the key vocabulary actively in sentences, again with the help of the context (of the other

half of the story). In the study, the steps to follow in applying paired storytelling are: Pair two students Provide general introduction about the text/ story Divide the text/ story into two sections. The first half of the story is given to one student in each pair and the second half to the other one As each student is reading his/her own section, they are to jot down the key concepts Students in the pair exchange their key concept lists Each student composes their own version of the storys missing part and tells it in front of the class orally. The indicator of achievement would be taken from FSI scaling that score aspects in speaking (accent, grammar, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension). The standard score of speaking was 70, taken from Standard English score (KKM) in SMA Katolik Sibolga. The stories that would be used were taken from worldwide-web. They were Lake Toba, Sangkuriang and Monkey and Crocodile.

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD 3.1 Research Design This study applied Classroom Action Research (CAR). Since the practice was the most important in classroom action research, this research was focused on the teaching and learning in the classroom. This research was conducted to make an

21

improvement on students achievement consider to the process. In the Classroom Action Research, there were four phases that should be conducted namely: 21 planning, action, observation and evaluation. The four phases was done in two cycles. Each cycle consisted of planning, action and observation and reflection phases (Burns, 2010).

3.2 The Subject of the Research The subject of this research was the students of Yayasan Santa Maria SMA Katolik Sibolga. It is located at Jalan Mgr. Albertus Sugyopranoto S.J. No. 6, Sibolga. The subject of the research was the student of XI IA-1 which consisted of 42 students. The reason for choosing this class was because the researcher found problems on students speaking ability.

3.3 The Technique for Collecting Data The qualitative and quantitative data analyses were used in this research. In collecting quantitative data, the writer gave an oral test to the students as the instrument. On the test, the students asked to perform a speech about a narrative story one by one in front of the class. The quantitative data were collected during and after the process where the researcher used observation sheet, diary notes and interview. The observation sheet that was taken by the collaborator provides the information of the condition and what happened during the teaching and learning process in the classroom. While the diary notes was the record of the events in chronology which reflects the general impression of the classroom and its climate and the teachers personal evaluation about the class. The interview was used to get the general information from the students about the difficulties in learning speaking and their responses on the class activity during paired storytelling. 3.4 The Procedure of the Research The procedure of research was conducted by applying six meetings in two cycles. The first cycle consists of four steps which were planning, action, observation and reflection. There was an oral test in the end of every meeting. In the oral test, the students told the class their own complete story by recalling the half part of story he/she has read using the key concepts that the other student has

recorded. The oral test was recorded by using video recorder and the result of recording was assessed by using FSI scale. 3.4.1 The First Cycle 3.4.1.1 Planning Planning should be based on the problem identified. Below were the things should be prepared: The lesson plan The materials for teaching speaking The instrument for collecting data such as diary notes, observation sheet and interview sheet.

3.4.1.2 Action Action was the step of implementing all of the things which had made in the planning phase. In this phase, the teacher applied the lesson plan in teaching process. The steps done by the teacher in the teaching process should be based on the lesson plan. In teaching process the teacher applied paired storytelling technique. The steps were: No 1 Teachers Activities Opening Greet the students Check the attendant list Explain the goal of the lesson today Introduce 2 the topic to be Greet the teacher Listen to the teacher Students Activities

discussed Main Activities Explain about narrative and its Listen to the teachers

23

generic structure Give an example of narrative story orally and shows the part of its structures Ask the students to give

explanation Listen to the teachers

explanation

questions about something unclear Ask some students to give an example of narrative story they like orally Pair two students Provide the general introduction about the text/story Divide the text/story into two sections. The first half of the story is given to one students in pair and the second half to the other one Monitoring the students activity

Give question to the teacher about something unclear

about the explanation Give an example of narrative story they like

Involve in a group of pair Listen to the general introduction about the text/story Receive the half section of the text/story from the teacher

Reading their own section

Jot down the key concepts from Instruct the students to exchange their key concept list to their own partner the text/story Exchange their own key concept list to their own partner

Ask the student to develop and write their own version by reflect on the list of clues and relate them to the story part they have read Give an oral test to the students to tell the class about their own complete version of the story in front of the class 3 Closing Ask the students some questions about the lesson today Make the conclusion about the lesson

Develop and write their own version by reflect on the list of clues and relate them to the story part they have read

Perform an oral test by telling the class about their own

complete story in front of the class

Respond

to

the

teachers

questions

Listen to the teacher conclusion

The collaborator was involved to help the researcher reflect and evaluate the events in the classroom.

3.4.1.3 Observation Observation was done to find out the information of the action, such as the students attitudes even the obstacles that appeared in during teaching and learning process. The collaborator observed the situation in teaching process from the beginning up to the end. The situation that should be observed were the students attitude during the teaching process, the way of teacher in the teaching process and all the condition occurred during the action. This observation was made in order to

25

know weather the planned teaching-learning design implemented as a whole or not. The collaborator recorded all situations in action phase in observation sheet and diary notes. The data that was provided in both observation sheet and diary notes were used for the reflection phase. The writer developed observation sheet in appendix to display the teaching progress during the action.

3.4.1.4 Reflection Reflection was the last phase of the cycle. This was a feedback process from the action. The teacher and the collaborator discussed about the teaching process from the data that was taken from observation sheet and diary notes. Both teacher and collaborator reflected and evaluated the action in order to know how effective the teaching process that was done. After giving evaluation, the teacher and the collaborator revised the planning in the first cycle in order to improve students speaking achievement. The result of the discussion was used to the next second cycle.

The Second Cycle The writer conducted the second cycle when there was something to be revised in the first cycle in order to reach the better improvement of the students in speaking achievement. In this case, the writer used the same steps as in the first cycle.

3.5 Technique of Data Analysis This study applied quantitative and qualitative data. The qualitative data was taken from observation sheet, diary notes and the interview to describe the improvement of students speaking achievement. The quantitative data was collected and analyzed by computing the score of speaking test. The mean of students score for each cycle was obtained using the application of the following formula:

= the mean of the students X = the total score Then, to categorize the number the number of students who are competent in speaking, the following formula was applied: Where: P = the percentage of those who get the point up to 65 R = the number of who get the point up to 65 T = the total number of the students

Where:

3.6 Scoring of the Test There are several aspects that influence speaking score. According to FSI (Foreign Service Institute) the component which needs to be scored are: accent, grammar, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension (Fulcher and Davidson, 2007:94). Table FSI (Foreign Service Institute) Weighting Table Proficiency Description Accent Grammar 1 0 6 2 1 12 3 2 18 4 2 24 5 3 30 4 36 6

27

Vocabulary Fluency Comprehension Total =

2 2 4

8 4 8

12 6 12

16 8 15

20 10 19

24 12 23

FSI Component Scales (Hughes, 2003:131-133) Accent Pronunciation frequently unintelligible. (0) Frequent gross errors and a very heavy accent make understanding difficult, requires repetition. (1) Foreign accent requires concentrated listening and mispronunciations lead to occasional understanding and apparent errors in grammar vocabulary. (2) Marked foreign accent and occasional mispronunciation which do not interfere with understanding. (2) No conspicuous mispronunciation, but would not be taken for a native speaker. (3) Native pronunciation, which no trace of foreign. (4) Grammar Grammar almost entirely inaccurate expect in stock phrase. (6) Constant errors showing control of very few major patterns and frequently preventing communication. (12) Frequent errors showing some major pattern uncontrolled and causing occasional irritation and misunderstanding. (18) Occasional errors showing imperfect control of some patterns but not weakness that cause misunderstanding. (24)

Few errors, with no patterns of failure. (30) No more than two errors during the interview. (36) Vocabulary Vocabulary inadequate for the simplest conversation. (2) Vocabulary limited to the basic personal and survives areas (time, food, transportation, family, etc). (8) Choice of words sometimes inaccurate, limitations of vocabulary prevent discussion of some common professional and social topics. (12) Professional vocabulary adequate to discuss special interest; general vocabulary permits discussion of any non-technical subject with some circumlocutions. (16) Professional vocabulary broad and precise; general vocabulary adequate to cope with complex practical problems and varied social situations. (20) Vocabulary apparently as accurate and extensive as that of educated native speaker. (24) Fluency Speech is halting and fragmentary that conversation is virtually impossible. (2) Speech is very slow and uneven expect for short or routine sentences. (4) Speech is frequently hesitant and jerky; sentences may be left uncompleted. (6) Speech is occasionally hesitant, with some unevenness caused by rephrasing and grouping words. (8) Speech is effortless and smooth, but perceptibly non-native in speed and evenness. (10) Speech in all professional and general topics is as effortless and as smooth as a

29

native speakers. (12) Comprehension Understands too little for the simplest type of conversation. (4) Understands only show very simple speech on common social and touristic topics: requires constant repetition and rephrasing. (8) Understands careful, somewhat simplified speech directed to him, with considerable repetition and rephrasing. (12) Understands careful quite well normal educated speech directed to him, but requires occasional repetition and rephrasing. (15) Understand everything in normal educated conversation expect for every colloquial or low-frequency items or exceptionally rapid of slurred speech. (19) Understand everything in both formal and colloquial speech to be expected of an educated native speaker. (23)

REFERENCES Brown, H.D. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy, Second Edition. New York: Longman Burns, Anne. 2010. Doing Action Research in English Language Teaching: A Guide for Practitioners. New York: Routledge Fisher, D and Frey, N. 2007. Checking for Understanding: Formative Assessment Techniques for Your Classroom. USA: ASCD Fulcher, G and Davidson, F. 2007. Language Testing and Assessment: An Advanced Resource Book. USA: Routledge George, P. G. 1994. The Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning Strategies in Multicultural University Classrooms. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 5(l), 21 Gillies, R. M. and Ashman, A. F. 2003. Co-operative Learning: The Social and Intellectual Outcomes of Learning in Groups. London: Routledge Falmer Hughes, A. 2003. Testing for Language Teachers: Second Edition. United Kingdom:Cambridge University Press Jacobs, G. 2003. Cooperative Learning to Promote Human Rights. Human Rights Education in Asian School, 119-127 Lie, A. 2008. Cooperative Learning: Mempraktikkan Cooperative Learning di Ruangan Kelas. Jakarta: PT Gramedia

31

Lie, Anita. 1994. Paired Storytelling: An Integrated Approach for Bilingual and English as a Second Language Students. Texas Reading report; v16 n4 p4 Luoma, S. 2004. Assessing Speaking. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press OSullivan, B. 2008. Notes in Assessing Speaking. Assessing Speaking, 22 Thornbury, S. 2005. How to Teach Speaking. New York: Pearson Education Ltd, Longman