diyenti's skripsi - copy
TRANSCRIPT
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
One of the aims of teaching English is to enable the learners to communicate
information effectively in spoken English (Brown and Yule, 1983). So, teaching spoken English
is success if the students can speak fluently.
However, speaking skill is very complex. Many skills must be mastered. It requires not
only pronunciation, intonation, stressing, vocabulary, grammar, and/or structure but also the use
of gestures and some other body movement. In line with this, Widdowson (1985) further
explains that the act of speaking normally in the course of natural communicative interaction
involves not only the use of vocal organs to produce sounds, but also the use of gestures, the
movement of the muscles of the face, and indeed of the whole body.
From the states above, we can see that how hard students to speak English with a
grammatical sentence, good pronunciation, and good gesture if they just speak it in the classroom
to get a good score from the English teacher while in Indonesia, especially in Tolitoli, there are
many kinds of ethnics and mother-tongues that they use in their daily communicative acts.
Another factor that caused students laziness to speak English is their shyness. They do
not have self confidence to communicate in English. So, although they like to study English but
their ability in speaking performance is still bad.
Besides, as speaking is difficult, some effort is required from the teacher because the
teacher is the person who mostly responsible of the learners’ speaking ability in the foreign
2
language (Baso Jabu, 2008:96). The teacher must be creative in teaching speaking, if a speaking
activity loses steam, the teacher may need to jump into Role-Play, ask more discussion
questions, clarify the instructions, or stop an activity that is too difficult or boring.
The teacher must make the students understand that the aim of speaking is
communicating ideas and that does not always require perfect English. In the speaking class, the
teacher must break the silence and get students communicate with any English words they can
use, correct or not, and selectively address errors that block communication.
When the researcher observed the class setting of this study, it was found that many
times the teaching of speaking was only in such a way that require the students to practice
reading the dialogues provided in the textbook without giving the students autonomy to share out
their ideas based on real context as such the representative communicative context as they really
find in their daily life. Therefore this problem should be solved by implementing the more
effective strategy that may assists the students to speak out their ideas.
One of language teaching strategies that may assist the students’ to be able to express
their ideas in their own words is that by implementing Role-Play Strategy. This strategy offers
some strength, such as to increase students’ interest in learning activities, fosters increasing
students’ vocabulary mastery English, helps students developing their skills in oral
communication, enhance students’ satisfaction with their learning experience, increase students’
creativity in express their ideas in their own words, and engage the students to participate.
1.2 Problem Statement
Based on the background above, the researcher formulates one problem statement as
follows:
3
Can the use of Role-Play improve the second year students of SMP Negeri 2 Tolitoli speaking
ability?
1.3 Objective of the Research
This research aims at investigating whether the use of Role-Play can improve the second
year students of SMP Negery 2 Tolitoli speaking ability or not.
1.4 The Significance of the Research
The findings of this research are expected to be meaningful contributions for the English
teachers or readers and especially for the second year students of SMP 2 Tolitoli, in 2009/2010
academic year. It is also expected to be a meaningful contribution for the English teachers in
general.
1.5 Scope and Limitation of the Research
The scope of this research is restricted to the teaching of speaking by implementing Role-
Play strategy to the second year students of SMP Negeri 2 Tolitoli, in 2009/2010 academic year.
Considering the teaching of speaking should take eight meetings for one semester, in this study
the treatment was only done in four meetings.
4
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This part of comprises five main subparts that is considered important in relation to the
focus of the study: motivation, speaking learning theories, cooperative learning, Role-Play
strategy.
2.1 Motivation
According to Houghton Mifflin (1997), motivation is typically defined as the forces that
account for the arousal, selection, direction, and continuation of behavior. In relation to this,
Slavin (1994) also adds that motivation is mentioned as one of the most important components in
learning. It is needed to make the students actively involved in the activity of learning.
Based on the statement above, motivation has important role in learning process. So, a
good teacher should give motivation to his/her students by creating an interesting class
atmosphere.
According to Skinner, supplying the correct answer and being informed by the program
in the correct answer may motivate the students go on the next frame of learning; and as the
students works through the program, the desired terminal behavior is progressively shaped.
Skinner adds that many behavioral learning theorist devised techniques of behavior modification
on the assumption that students are motivated to complete a task by being promised a reward of
some kind.
5
Glasser (1986) argues in control theory in the classroom and The Quality School (1990)
that for people to succeed at life in general, they must first experiences success in one important
aspect of their lives. For the most children, that one important part should be school. However,
the traditional approach to evaluating learning, which emphasizes comparative grading
(commonly called “grading on the curve”), allows only a minority of students to achieve A’s and
B’s and feel successful. The self-worth of the remaining students (who may be quite capable)
suffers, which depresses their motivation to achieve on subsequent classroom tasks (Convington,
1985).
Cooperative goal structures are characterized by students working together to
accomplish shared goals. As it is beneficial for the individual and vice versa, students in
cooperative groups can obtain a desired reward (such as a high grade or a feeling of satisfaction
for a job well done) only if the other students in the other group also obtain the same reward,
cooperative goal structures are characterized by positive interdependence. Also, all groups may
receive the same rewards, provided they meet the teacher criteria for mastery (Johnson et al,
1994; Johnson et al, 1995; Slavin, 1995).
2.2 Speaking Learning Theories
The term “speaking” itself according to Oxford (2000) is being willing to be friendly
towards somebody, especially after an argument. The term of speaking itself, according to Brown
(2001), is an interactive process of constructing meaning that involves producing and receiving
and processing information. Its form and meaning are dependent on the context in which it
occurs, including the participants themselves, their collective experiences, the physical
environment and the purposes for speaking. It is often spontaneous, open-ended, and evolving.
6
Speaking is used for many different purposes, and each purpose involves different skills.
Each of these different purposes for speaking implies knowledge of the rules that account for
how spoken language reflects the context or situation in which speech occurs. The participants
involved and their specific roles and relationships, and the kind of activity the speakers are
involved in.
Kang discusses a number of factors that needed to be considered in planning a speaking
course. She refers to the influence of age, listening ability, sociocultural knowledge, and
affective factors on the ability to speak a second or foreign language, and introduces the useful
model developed by Canale and Swam to account for the components of speaking.
2.2.1 The Purpose of Speaking
The basic assumption in any oral interaction is that the speakers want to communicate
ideas, feelings, attitudes, and information to the listener. Rivers (1981) explicitly states that
through speaking one expresses emotions, communicates intentions, reacts to other persons and
situations, or influences other human being. Stating opinion clearly in speaking supported by
sufficient reasons will enable the speaker to reach the goal of his/her speech to satisfy others.
The functions of spoken language are interactional and transactional. The primary
intention of the former is to maintain social relationship, whereas that of the latter is to convey
information and ideas. In fact, much of our daily communication remains interactional. Being
able to interact in a language is essential. Therefore, language instruction should provide learners
with opportunities for meaningful communicative behavior about relevant topics by using
learner-learner interaction as the key to teaching language for communication because
“communication derives essentially from interaction” (Rivers, 1987).
7
2.2.2 Students’ Problems in Speaking Participation
Speaking a language is especially difficult for foreign language learners because
effective oral communication requires the ability to use the language appropriately in social
interactions. Diversity in interaction involves not only oral communication, but also
paralinguistic elements of speech such as pitch, stress, and intonation. In addition, nonlinguistic
elements such as gestures and body language/facial expression, and so on may accompany
speech or convey message directly without accompanying speech. In addition, “there is
tremendous variation cross-culturally and cross-linguistically in the specific interpretation of
gestures and body language (Brown, 1994).
The difficulties of speaking, as Brown (2001) stated, are caused by what he calls with
affective factors and interaction effect. Affective factors refer to the learner’s anxiety over the
risk of blurting things out that are wrong, stupid and incomprehensible. The language ego that
informs people “you are what you speak” makes the learners reluctant to be judged by the
listeners.
Furthermore, Ur (1996: 121) cites four problems that comprise: (1) inhibition: worried
about making mistakes, fearful of criticism or losing face, or simply shy of the attention that their
speech attracts, (2) nothing to say: can not think of anything to say, (3) low or uneven
participation: because of the tendency of some learners to dominate, others speak very little or
not at all, and (4) mother tongue use: learner prefers to use mother language than target language
in class.
Of the various problems that could be the cause of the learner’s difficulties in speaking
activities as cited above, it is obvious that the problems come from different factors. Burns and
Joyce (1997), then, try to generalize the factors into three groups, namely: cultural factors,
8
linguistic factors, and psychological or affective factors. They conclude that by reviewing factors
that can affect language learning and by attempting to identify the underlying reasons for
students’ reluctance to speak in class will help teachers to create the most positive environment
for these learners.
To get foreign English language learners to participate or speak is not easy. It needs
creativity of the teacher to create an activity and materials that can provide and motivate them to
speak. In relation to this, Curran in Bowen (1985) suggests to apply a waiting time until the spirit
moves someone to utter a word or phrase or sentence. However, Bowen (1985) argues that
classroom time is too valuable to spend very much of it quietly waiting. Probably, the easiest
way is to ask students to speak, and if necessary tell him what to say. It is so much better than
waiting for an uncertainty.
2.2.3 The Teaching of Speaking Skill
The most important feature of a classroom speaking activity is to provide an authentic
opportunity for the students to get individual meanings across and utilize every area of
knowledge they have in the second or foreign language. They should have the opportunity and be
encouraged to become flexible users of their knowledge, always keeping the communicate goal
in mind (Marianne Celce and Murcia Elite Olshtain, 1984).
To the grade VIII students of Junior High, the teaching of speaking aims to enable the
students to express ideas by using transactional-interpersonal expression, expressing ideas as
responses based on descriptive, recount, and narrative text to interact with their environment.
Allen (1977) claims that students are truly speaking only when they are
generating their own sentences. This implies that the ability to speak is measured by the ability
of the learners to interact with others, expressing themselves orally. Then, if learners are to learn
9
about the form of spoken language as well as to gain practice in using spoken language, teachers
need to provide activities for teaching speaking which focus on both these aspects.
The followings are a few of some possible techniques to teach speaking adopted from
Klippel’s (1984) practical resource book. They are interviews, games, jigsaw tasks, think-pair
and share activities, ranking exercises, discussions, values clarification, problem solving
activities, what if, role-play, and simulations. These techniques enable the learners to learn the
form of the spoken language as well to have a direct classroom practice in communicative
interaction.
The following are other possible techniques to teach speaking adopted from Marianne
Celce and Murcia Elite Olshtain. They are Role-Play, Group Disscussion, Using the Target
Language outside the classroom, Using the learners’ input, Feedback, and Looking at authentic
Speech in the form of Written Transcripts.
Finally, the teaching of spoken language in the classroom is often perceived as a very
difficult task for both the teacher and the students. Most of the teaching materials based on the
communicative approach claim to present “real communication in authentic situation” but are in
fact still heavily based on description of written English (Yule, 1995).
2.2.4 Assessing Speaking Skill
Shohamy (1983) found significance differences in the scores on oral tests that represented
different discourse styles and genres (e.g. an interview versus a reporting task). In another study,
Shohamy, Reves, and Bejarano (1986) found that a test taker’s performance on the interview,
which represent a specific oral discourse style, could not be used to make a valid prediction of
test taker performance on other oral discourse styles such as discussions and oral reports, or of
variety of speech act, as exemplified in Role-Play situation.
10
2.3 Cooperative Learning
Cooperative learning is a group learning strategy that involves students to work
collaboratively to achieve their aim (Eggen and Kauchak, 1986). The cooperative learning is
arranged in an effort to increase students’ participation, facilitate students to be a leader and
making a decision in group, and giving a chance to the students to interact and study together in
various backgrounds of them.
Cooperative Learning comes from John Dewey and Herbert Thelan (in Ibrahim,2000)
views that state education in the democratic society must be teach the democratic process
directly. Cooperative act seem as a basic of the democracy, and the school seem as the laboratory
to develop democracy act.
2.3.1 Advantages of Cooperative Learning
There are three aims of cooperative learning; they are academic result of study, the
acceptance in the various backgrounds, and developing of social skill (Ibrahim, et al, 2000).
In second or foreign language, theorist purpose several advantages for Cooperative
Learning: increased students talk, more varied talk, a more relaxed atmosphere, greater
motivation, more negotiation of meaning, and increased amounts of comprehensible input
(Liang, Mohan, & Early, 1998; Olsen & Kagan, 1992).
2.4 Role- Play Strategy
According to Gillian Porte (Oxfordn, 1987) Role-Play is any speaking activity when You
either put Yourself into somebody else’s shoes, or when You stay in Your own shoes but put
Yourself into an imaginary situation.
11
2.4.1 Advantages of Role-Play
Jeremy Harmer advocates the use of Role-Play for the following reasons : (1) It is fun
and motivating quitter students get the chance to express themselves in a more forthright way;
(2) The world of classroom is broadened to include the outside world-thus offering a much wider
range of language opportunities. In addition to these reason, students who will at some point
travel to an English-speaking country are given a chance to rehearse their English in a safe
environment. Real situations can be created and students can benefit from the practice.
Next, Gillian Porter Laddouse (1987) also states that if the teacher believes that the
activity will work and the necessary support is provided, it can very successful. However, if the
teacher is not convinced about the validity of Using Role-Play the activity will fall flat on its face
just as you expected it to. He also add that the joy of Role-Play is that students can become
anyone they like for a short time.
Jeremy Harmer (Longman 1989) says that Role-Play can be a lot of fun if you still feel
reluctant to use it in the class. He suggests us begin to integrate it slowly. He says why not
extends an appropriate reading or listening from a course book and turn it into a Role-Play? You
may be pleasantly surprised by the result!
12
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Method and Design
Method and design are the two inseperated parts in a research, however to be more
clear they probably better to be explained separatedly.
3.1.1 Method
This is an experimental research. It aims to find out whether or not the use of Role-Play
can improve student’s speaking performance.
3.1.2 Design
This research involved one group of students with pre-test and post-test design. The
design of this research can be described as follow:
E= T1 X T2
Where :
E = Experiment
T1 = Pre-test
X = Treatment
T2 = Post-test
13
3.2 Variables and Operational Definition
3.2.1 Variable
This research consists of two variables, namely:
- Independent variable is teaching speaking through Role-Play
- Intervening variable is the classroom activities. It refers to the treatments
- Dependent variable is the students speaking
3.2.2 Operational Definition
- Teaching is a process of transferring the knowledge
- Speaking is more than just a way of making conversation; we use spoken language for a
variety of reasons in daily life
- Role-play is an activity when students try to act a dialog and make it like in real situation
3.3 Population and Sample
3.3.1 Population
The population of this research was the second year students of SMP 2 Tolitoli, in
2009/2010 academic year. The population consists of 4 classes, and each class consists of 40
students. Therefore, the total number of population was about 160 students.
3.3.2 Sample
This research applied cluster sampling technique. The researcher took one class as a
sample of this research. Therefore the total number of sample was 40 students.
14
3.4 Instrument of the Research
In this research, the writer used observation, speaking tests, and questionnaire as the
instruments of collecting data. In the observation, the researcher used the materials taken from
the SMP English curriculum.
In the pre-test, the researcher used a script of dialog for assess the students ability in
speaking and the researcher used speaking test assessment by Heaton (1988:100) that consisted
in three aspect, namely : Accuracy, fluency, and comprehensibility.
In the treatment, the researcher used a script of dialog that written by the researcher but
for assess the students ability, the researcher still used the speaking assessment rubric by
Heaton (1988:100).
In the post-test, the researcher used the same dialog as in the pre-test and still used the
speaking assessment rubric proposed by Heaton.
The questionnaire was used to find out the students feeling toward the implementation of
Role-Play strategy in their class.
3.5 Procedure of Data Collection
The procedure in collecting data can be described as follows:
3.5.1 Pre-test
The pre-test intended to know the previous mastery of students in speaking before giving
the treatment. To do the test, a meeting with 80 minutes was allocated.
3.5.2 Treatment
The treatments were given to the students after they had done pre-test. The procedure of
treatment can be described as follows:
15
First, The dialog were distributed to the students; then the students were assigned to ask
the meaning of sentences that they did not understand in the dialog; next, the students were
divided in some pairs, then the students were asked to practice the dialog based on their role.
After that, the researcher made some corrections on each student’s mispronunciation and mis-
stress in speaking activity. Finally, the researcher gave chance to the students to ask some
questions which were not clear for them. The treatments took place for six meetings (6 x 80
minutes).
3.5.3 Post-Test
This test was administered to the students after the treatments. Based on the test result
it is intended to know whether the students have different achievement or not in speaking, after
giving them some treatments, they were tested for about 80 minutes.
6. Technique of Data Analysis
In this research, the data obtained from the instruments result based on three components
of speaking. They are accuracy, fluency, and comprehensibility. Then the researcher tabulated
the data based on the rating score in the scoring of compositions as follows:
Accuracy
5-6 Excellent to very good
3-4 Good to average
1-2 Fair to poor
Fluency
5-6 Excellent to very poor
3-4 Good to average
1-2 Fair to poor
16
Comprehensibility
5-6 Excellent to very poor
3-4 Good to average
1-2 Fair to poor
(Adopted from Heaton, 1988:100)
Before analyzing the data, it is necessary to describe the statistical procedure used to
find out the students’ speaking ability. In the speaking test, the researcher used one type of
speaking test. The students played the dialog provided.
To know the score of each respondent on one type of test, the writer classified them
into fair to poor to very good score based on the rating score above. Then, the students’ score of
each component was found by calculating their total score of every item then divided by the total
number of items.
To analyze the data, the researcher used scale 1-6, scoring rate for each component. The
lower score was 1 and the highest score was 6. This score was found by calculating the three
scores of the speaking components.
To compute the mean score of the students’ ability, the researcher applied the following
formula :
x=∑ xN
Where :
X = Mean score
∑𝒙 = total score of respondent
N = The number of respondent
(L.R. Gay, 1986:298)
17
Then the result of the computation is classified into three classifications as follows:
5-6 classified as excellent to very good
3-4 classified as good to average
1-2 classified as fair to poor
Furthermore, to find out the mean of the differences score of students, the researcher applied the
following formula :
D=∑ DN
Notation :
D = the mean of the difference score
∑ = the sum of differences score
N = the total number of sample
(Gay, 1981:332)
18
While to find out the significance differences between pre-test and post-test, the writer
applied the formula below :
t= X 1−X 2
√ S12
n1+ S 22
n 2−2(r ) S 12
√ n 1+ S 22
√ n 2+¿
❑ ¿
Where:
X1 = The average value of pre-test
X2 = The average value of post-test
n1 = The number of sample of pre-test
n2 = The number of sample of post-test
S1 = Standard of deviation of pre-test
S2 = Standard of deviation of post-test
S12 = Varian of pre-test
S22 = Varian of post-test
r = Correlation with pre-test and post-test
x = (x1-x)
y = (y1-y)
(Sugiyono, 2010: 122)
19
Finally to know the standard deviation between pre-test and post-test, the researcher applied the
following formula:
S2=n ∑ X 2−¿¿
S2 : Standard deviation
X : The sum of convert score
N : The total number of sample
20
CHATER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter consists of two main parts. The first part is the presentation of the findings
of the research and the other part is the discussion of the findings.
4.1 Findings
4.1.1 The Students’ score based on the three Components of Speaking
In this activity, the scores of the students were observed based on three components of
speaking. The data were tabulated by referring to the scoring system adopted from Heaton
(1988:100).
a. Score 5-6 is classified as excellent to very good
b. Score 3-4 is classified as good to average
c. Score 1-2 is classified as fair to poor
Table 1 Frequency and Rate Percentage of the Students’ Speaking on the Accuracy Components
No. Classification RangeFrequency Percentage
Pre-Test Post-Test Pre-Test Post-Test
1. Excellent to very good 5-6 1 16 3,04% 48,48%
2. Good to Average 3-4 30 16 90,90% 48,48%
3. Fair to Poor 1-2 2 1 6,06% 3,04%
Total 33 33 100% 100%
The table above shows that in the pre-test, there was 1 (3,04%) students get excellent to
very good, 30 (90,90%) students get good to average, and 2 (6,06%) students get fair to poor.
21
Therefore the mean score of the students ability in speaking accuracy component is 3,39. It is
classified as good to average.
The result of post-test indicates that there are 16 (48,48%) students get excellent to very
good, 16 (48,48%) students get good to average, and 1 (3,04%) students get fair to poor.
Therefore, the mean score of the students after giving treatment become 4,24. It is classified as
excellent to very good. It is found that there is a significant difference between the results of pre-
test and post-test.
Table 2 Frequency and Rate Percentage of the Students’ Speaking on Fluency Components
No. Classification RangeFrequency Percentage
Pre-Test Post-Test Pre-TestPost-Test
1. Excellent to very good 5-6 1 14 3,04% 42,42%
2. Good to Average 3-4 29 18 87,87% 54,54%
3. Fair to Poor 1-2 3 1 9,09% 3,04%
Total 33 33 100% 100%
Table 2 above shows that in the pre-test, there are 1 (3,04%) students get excellent
to very good scores, 29 (87,87%) students get good to average score, and 3 (9,09%) students get
fair to poor score. Therefore, the mean score of the students ability in speaking fluency
component in pre-test is 3,30. It is classified as good to average.
The post-test indicates that there are 14 (42,42%) students get excellent to very
good scores, 18 (54,54%) students get good to average scores, and 1 (3,04%) students get fair to
poor score. Therefore, the mean score of the students after giving treatment becomes 4,27. It is
22
classified as excellent to very good. It means that there is a significant difference between the
result of pre-test and post-test.
Table 3 Frequency and Rate Percentage of the Students’ Speaking on Comprehensibility Components
No. Classification RangeFrequency Percentage
Pre-Test Post-Test Pre-Test Post-Test
1. Excellent to very good 5-6 5 9 15,15% 27,27%
2. Good to Average 3-4 25 23 75,75% 69,69%
3. Fair to Poor 1-2 3 1 9,10% 3,04%
Total 33 33 100% 100%
The table 3 above shows that in the pre-test , there are 5 (15,15%) students get excellent
to very good score, 25 (75,75%) students get good to average score, and 3 (9,10) students get fair
to poor scores. Therefore, the mean score of the students’ ability in speaking comprehensibility
component on pre-test is 3,69. It is classified as good to average.
The post-test indicates that there are 9 (27,27%) students get excellent to very good ,
23 (69,69%) students get good to average score, and 1 (3,04%) student gets fair to poor score.
Therefore, the mean score of the students after giving treatment becomes 4,15. It is classified as
good to average. It means that there is a significant difference between the result of pre-test and
post-test.
Table 4 Frequency and Rate Percentage of the Students’ Speaking on Three Components Observed
No. Classification Range Frequency Percentage
Pre-Test Post-Test Pre-Test Post-Test
23
1. Excellent to Very Good 13-18 4 21 12,12% 63,63%
2. Good to Average 7-12 27 11 81,81% 33,33%
3. Fair to Poor 1-6 2 1 6,07% 3,04%
Total 31 100% 100% 100%
From the table above, pre-test shows that there are 4 (12,12%) students got
excellent to very good, 27 (81,81%) students got good to average, and 2 (6,07%) got fair to
poorscore.
The mean score of the students’ speaking ability for three components observed:
Accuracy, fluency, and comprehensibility. The students’ score on pre-test was 10,39 classified as
good to average. The score can be shown below:
X=∑ xN
X=34333
= 10,39
On the table above the post-test shows that there are 21 (63,63%) students get excellent to
very good score, 11 (33,33%) students get good to average, and 1 (3,04%) students gets fair to
poor score.
The mean score of the students’ ability in speaking for three components Accuracy,
Fluency, and Comprehensibility is 12,6. The calculation can be described as follows:
24
X=∑ xN
X=41833
X=12,6
Based on the data above, the writer can conclude that before being given treatments, the
students’ speaking ability is 10,39 classified as good to average score and after they are given the
treatments the students’ speaking ability improved becomes 12,6. It is classified as excellent to
very good score. It means that there is significant difference between the result of pre-test and
post-test.
a. Mean Score and Standard Deviation
Having calculated the result of the students’ pre-test and post-test, the mean score and
standard deviation of the students’ speaking ability are presented in following table:
Table 5 Mean Score and Standard Deviation of the Students’ Pre-test and post-test
Mean Score Standard Deviation
Pretest (X1)
Posttest (X2)
10,39
12,6
2,164
2,33
Table 5 above shows the statistical summary of the students’ mean score and standard
deviation both in pre-test and post-test.
25
The mean score of the students’ pre-test is 10,39 which is classified as good to average
with standard deviation 2,164 and the mean score of the students’ post-test is 12,6 which is
classified as excellent to very good.
b. Test of Significance
To know the level of significance between the pre-test and post-test, the writer used t-
test analysis on the level of significance 0,05 with degree with freedom (df)= n-1, where n=
number of subject (33). The t-test statistical analysis for non independent sample is applied. The
following table shows the result of the t-test calculation:
Variable T-test value T-table value
X1-X2 6,332 1,691
Based on the calculation above, the value of t-test (6,332) was greater than the
value of t-table (1,691).
c. Hypothesis Testing
To find out the degree of freedom (df), the researcher used the following formula:
Df = N-1
Df = 33-1
Df =32
For the level of significance (P) 0,05 and df 33, then the value of t-table is 6,332.
Whereas the value of the t-test was greater than t-table 1,691 (6,332≥ 1,691). It means that the
hypothesis (Ho) is rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H1) is accepted.
26
4.2 Discussion
Based on the presentation of findings, the researcher presents some interpretations of
findings in order to explain in detail as follows:
a. The Students’ Speaking Ability by Implementing Role-Play
The description of the data collected by implementing Role-Play as explained in the
previous section showed that the students’ ability in speaking is improved. It is supported by the
means score of students on pre-test is 10,39 classified as good to average, and the mean score of
students on post-test is 12,6 classified as excellent to very good classification.
b. The Students’ Speaking Ability Based on the Three Components
The result of the students’ pre-test and post-test based on the three components of
speaking can be described as follows:
One the component of accuracy in the pre-test, there is 1 (3,04%) student gets excellent
to very good score, and most of them 30 (90,90%) get good to average, while the component of
accuracy in the post-test, the data shows that there are 16 (48,48%) students get excellent to very
good score. Therefore, there is a significant difference between the result of pre-test and post-
test. It is proved greater than the mean score on pre-test, namely 12,6.
The component of fluency, 1 (3,04%) student get excellent to very good and most of
them get 29 (87,87%) students get good to average. While the component of fluency in the post-
test, the data show 14 (42,42%) students get excellent to very good and most of them 18
(54,54%) also get good to average score. Therefore, there ias a significant difference between the
result of pre-test, namely 3,30 (good to average classification) improve on post-test 4,15
(excellent to very good classification).
27
The component of comprehensibility, there are 3 (9,10%) students get fair to poor
scores in pre-test. However in the post-test, there is 1 (3,04%) student gets fair to poor score.
Therefore, there is a significant difference between the result of pre-test, namely 3,69 (good to
average classification) improved on post-test 4,15 (excellent to very good).
Seeing the comparison of the students’ pre-test and post-test in each component of
speaking, the researcher can conclude that there was improvement of the students’ ability in
speaking from each component of speaking after presenting materials by implementing Role-
Play.
Therefore, the mean score of the students on pre-test is 10,39 classified as good to
average score and post-test is 12,6 classified into excellent to very good score. It indicates that
the mean score of the students on post-test get higher after presenting treatment material. In other
words, the mean score of the students on pre-test less than post-test.
The standard deviation of the students’ pre-test is 2,164 and post-test ias 2,33. Both of
the standard deviations describe that the distance of each score of the students near one another.
It indicates that their ability in speaking is almost very closed together.
The value of the t-test is greater than t-table (6,332≥1,691). Based on the t-test, the
researcher found that there was significant difference between the result of pre-test and post-test.
In other words, the students’ ability in speaking develop or improve after giving them treatment
materials by implementing Role-Play.
28
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
Based on the result of the data analysis in the previous chapter, the researcher
would like to conclude that the students’ speaking ability at second year students of SMP Negeri
2 Tolitoli is improved after giving them some treatments by implementing Role-Play. There is a
significant difference between the result of pre-test and post-test, where the mean score of post-
test is 12,6. It is higher than the mean of pre-test, namely 10,39. From the data above, the writer
can draw a conclusion that the second year students of SMP Negeri 2 Tolitoli in academic year
of 2009-2010 have a good ability in speaking by implementing Role-Play.
5.2 Suggestion
The researcher would like to give some suggestions concerning the teaching of speaking
by implementing Role-Play as follows:
a. To improve the students’ speaking ability, the English teacher should give speaking practice
as frequently as possible to enhance students’ competence in speaking.
b. The English teacher should consider the effectiveness of using Role-Play in teaching
speaking.
c. The researcher also suggests to the English teacher to be more creative in teaching speaking.
They can use many different methods and techniques and one of those methods is Role-Play.
29
d. Finally the researcher realizes that this skripsi is still imperfect. However, she really hopes
that this skripsi can give meaningful contribution for the teaching of English as well as
others.
30
REFFERRENCES
Celce Marianne & Olshtain Elite Murcia. 1989. Discourse and Context in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gay, L.R.1990. Educational Research. Singapore: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Gillian Porte Ladouse. 1987. Role-Play. (http://www.contentheadright.com.). Downloaded on February 5, 2010.
Goh, C.M.,Christine. 2007. Teaching Speaking in the Classroom. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Harrison Andrew. 1986. A Language Testing Handbook. Hongkong: Macmillan Publisher Ltd.
Jabu Baso. 2008. English Language Testing. Makassar : State University of Makassar.
Jeremy Harmer (Longman 1989). The Practice of English Language Teaching. (http://www.contentheadright.com). Downloaded on February 5,2010.
Luoma Sari. 2005. Assessing Speaking Volume 9, Number 3. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 2010. Motivation. (en. Wikipedia.org./wiki/motivation). Downloaded on February 8, 2010.
31
Appendix 1 Model of Role-Play Sheet
In the Kitchen
Mum : Nigel, close the fridge, please.
Nigel : Yes, mum.
Mum : Tea’s ready. Give me your cups. Are you hungry?
Nigel : Yes, I am. I want some cereal.
Mum : Cereal? Karen, is there any cereal left in the cupboard?
Karen : Yes, there are some cornflakes. Here you are.
Nigel : Thanks. Pass me the milk, please.
Mum : Here’s your milk. Don’t forget the toast. It’s burning.
Karen : Just in time. Butter, mum?
Mum : No, thanks. Pass me the marmalade.
Karen : Jeremy’s hungry too
Nigel : Let’s give him some toast and butter
Mum : Butter? No, let’s give him some milk
32
Appendix 2
TREATMENT
Mum : Vony, close the door, please.
Vony : Yes, mum.
Mum : Are you hungry?
Vony : Yes, I am. I want some bread. Is there any breads in the kitchen Mum?
Mum : Yes, there is some. Let’s go in the kitchen and make some toasts.
Vony : Where’s the bread, mum?
Mum : in the table
Vony : Pass me the butter mum
Mum : Here it is
Vony : Lia’s hungry too
Mum : Let’s give Him some toast
33
Appendix 3
Post-Test
Lia : Open the fridge, please.
Neni : Yes, Lia
Lia : Is there any cheese in the fridge, Lia?
Neni :No, You must buy it in the market.
Lia : How about oranges and egg?
Neni : Oh, there is not oranges and egg here. You also must buy it. Don’t forget some
tomatoes and fish, please.
Lia : Ok! I’ll go to supermarket now. Bye…
Neni : Bye…
34
Appendix 4 Questionaire Tentang Respon Siswa pada Pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris dengan strategi Role-Play
Petunjuk
1. Tidak perlu menulis nama atau identitas anda pada lembaran ini!2. Isilah angket ini secara terbuka dan apa adanya. Jawaban anda tidak ada kaitannya
dengan penilaian terhadap mata pelajaran Bahasa Inggris. Apapun jawaban anda tidak menambah atau mengurangi nilai!
3. Berilah tanda √ pada kolom yang teersedia sesuai pilihan anda tanpa pengaruh teman!Keterangan :SS : Sangat SetujuS : SetujuTS : Tidak SetujuSTS : Sangat Tidak Setuju
No. PERNYATAAN SS S TS STS1 2 3 4 5 61 Saya merasa senang belajar dengan strategi Role-Play
2 Saya merasa lebih mudah memahami materi bacaan dengan strategi Role-Play
3
Saya merasa lebih rileks, santai, dan bermain tapi tetap serius dan penuh perhatian mengikuti pembelajaran bahasa Inggris dengan strategi Role-Play
4Saya berpendapat bahwa kemampuan berbahasa Inggris saya akan meningkat dengan strategi Role-Play
5Penerapan strategi Role-Play dapat membantu peningkatan kemampuan seluruh siswa dikelas saya
Persentase jawaban siswa
35
Appendix 5 Rubric for Speaking Performance Assessment
Score Accuracy Fluency Comprehensibility6 Pronunciation is only;
slightly influenced by the mother-tongue. Two or three minor grammatical and lexical errors
Speaks without too great an effort with a fairly wide range of expression. Searches for words occasionally but only one or two unnatural pauses
Easy for listener to understand the speaker’s intention meaning. Very few interruption or clarification required
5 Pronunciation is slightly influenced by the mother-tongue. A few minor grammatical and lexical errors but most utterances are correct
Has to make an effort at times to search for words. Nevertheless, smooth delivery on the whole and only a few unnatural pauses
The speaker’s intention and general meaning are fairly clear. A few interruptions by the listener for the sake of clarification are necessary
4 Pronunciation is still moderately influenced by the mother tongue but no serious phonological errors. A few grammatical and lexical errors but only one or two major errors causing confusion
Although he has make an effort and search for words, there are not too many unnatural pauses. Fairly smooth delivery mostly. Occasionally fragmentary but succeeds in conveying the general meaning. Fair range of expression
Most of what the speaker says is easy to follow. His intention is always clear but several interruptions are necessary to help him to convey the message or to seek clarification
3 Pronunciation is influenced by the mother-tongue but no serious phonological errors. Several grammatical errors, some which cause confusion
Has to make an effort for much of the time. Often has to search for the desired meaning. Rather halting delivery and fragmentary. Range of expression often limited
The listener can understand a lot of what is said, but he must constantly seek clarification. Cannot understand many of the speaker’s more complex or longer sentences
2 Pronunciation seriously influenced by the mother-tongue with errors causing a breakdown in communication. Many “basic” grammatical and lexical errors.
Long pauses while he searches for the desired meaning. Frequently fragmentary and halting delivery. Almost gives up making the effort at times. Limited range of
Only small bits (Even usually short sentences and phrases) can be understood and then with considerable effort by someone who is used listening to the speaker
36
expression 1 Serious pronunciation
errors as well as many “basic” grammatical and lexical errors. No evidence of having mastered any of the language skills and areas practiced in the course
Full of long and unnatural pauses. Very halting and fragmentary delivery. At times gives up making the effort. Very limited range of expression
Hardly anything of what is said can be understood. Even when the listener makes a great effort or interrupts, the speaker is unable to clarify anything he seems to have said
(Adopted by Heaton, 1988:100)
37
Appendix 6
TREATMENT MATERIALS
1st Meeting
- The students are given about Role-Play strategy
- Grouping the students
- Distributing the dialog
- Giving instruction and student’s task
- Giving the students opportunity to ask some questions that are not clear for them
- Ask the students to act the dialog
- Leading students when they find problems
- Doing assessment
2nd Meeting
- Giving explanation to the students about a good acting based on Role-Play strategy
- Ask the students to act the dialog again based on Role-Play strategy
- Leading the students when they found problems
- Doing assessment
3rd Meeting
- Ask the students to make a dialog by their group
- Help the students when they find problems in making the dialog
38
- Ask students to act the dialog by a good intonation, pronunciation, and expression
-Doing assessment
4th Meeting
- Ask the students to memorize their dialog
- Ask the students to act the dialog
- Leading the students when they found problems
- Doing assessment
5th Meeting
- Distribute a dialog to the students
- Giving them an opportunity to ask about the dialog
- Ask them to act the dialog with their group
- Doing assessment
6th Meeting
- Giving the students opportunity to ask some questions that are not clear for them,
especially the process of Role-Play strategy
- Distribute the questionnaire about their response when they learning speaking by using
Role-Play strategy
39
Appendix 7. Data of Pre-Test
No. Name Accuracy Fluency Comprehensibility Score1 A J 4 4 4 122 A L Y 4 4 4 123 A P L 3 3 3 94 C F 4 4 4 125 D S 5 4 5 146 F S L 3 2 2 77 F I 3 4 4 118 F R S 3 3 4 109 H S D 4 3 5 1210 H S I 4 4 4 1211 I S K 1 1 2 412 M G F 3 3 3 913 M L D 4 3 4 1114 M S 4 4 4 1215 M I 2 2 2 616 M A 3 3 4 1017 N A 4 3 4 1118 N E 3 3 4 1019 N H 3 3 3 920 N L 3 4 4 1121 P R S 3 3 3 922 R R 3 4 4 1123 R A 3 3 3 924 R F D 4 3 4 1125 R F K 3 3 3 926 R S K 4 4 5 1327 S K R 3 3 3 928 S K M 4 4 5 1329 T C S 4 5 5 1430 W H Y 3 3 3 931 Y N 4 4 4 1232 Y L 3 3 3 933 Y L N 4 3 4 11
SUM 112 109 122 343
40
Appendix 8 The step of finding the mean score and standard of deviation of Pre-Test
1. Finding the mean score
X=∑ xiN
X=34333
X=10,39
2. Finding the standard deviation
S2 = n ∑ X 2−¿¿
=33.3648−¿¿
= 122595−11764933.32
= 49461056
= √4,6837
S = 2,164
41
Appendix 9 The step finding the interval class of pre-test
1. The first step is finding the highest score and the lowest score to set up the interval, it is:
The highest score was 14
The lowest score was 4
The range of the interval of class (R)
R= the highest score – the lowest score
= 14 – 4
= 10
2. The second step is to set amount the interval of class
K = 1 + 3,3 log N
K = 1 + 3,3 log 33
K = 1 + 3,3 (1,5)
K = 5,95
K = 6
3. The third score is finding the wide of the interval of class (P)
P = R/K
= 10/6
= 1,6. So, P was 2
42
Appendix 10 The data of Post-Test
No. Name Accuracy Fluency Comprehensibility Score1 A J 4 5 4 132 A L Y 5 5 5 153 A P L 4 5 4 134 C F 5 5 5 155 D S 5 5 5 156 F S L 5 4 4 137 F I 4 4 4 128 F R S 3 3 4 109 H S D 4 5 4 1310 H S I 5 4 4 1311 I S K 2 2 2 612 M G F 3 4 4 1113 M L D 5 4 4 1314 M S 4 5 4 1315 M I 3 3 3 916 M A 4 4 3 1117 N A 5 5 5 1518 N E 6 5 6 1719 N H 5 4 5 1420 N L 5 5 5 1521 P R S 5 5 4 1422 R R 5 4 4 1323 R A 3 3 3 924 R F D 3 3 4 1025 R F K 3 4 4 1126 R S K 5 4 4 1327 S K R 3 4 4 1128 S K M 4 4 4 1229 T C S 5 6 6 1730 W H Y 5 5 5 1531 Y N 4 5 4 1332 Y L 4 4 3 11
43
33 Y L N 5 4 4 13SUM 140 141 137 418
Appendix 11 The step of finding the mean score and standard of deviation of post-test
1. Finding the mean score
X=∑ xiN
X=41833
X=12,6
2. Finding the standard deviation
S2 = n ∑ X 2−¿¿
S2 = 33.5470−¿¿
S2= 180510−174724
33.32
S2 = 57861066
S2 = √5,427
S = 2,33
44
Appendix 12. The step finding the interval class of post-test
1. The first step is finding the highest score and the lowest score to set up the interval, it is:
The highest score was 17
The lowest score was 6
The range of the interval of class (R)
R = the highest score – the lowest score
= 17 – 6
= 11
2. The second step is to set up amount the interval of class
K = 1 + 3,3 log N
K = 1 + 3,3 log 33
K = 1 + 3,3 (1,5)
K = 1 + 4,95
K = 5,95
K = 6
3. The third step is finding the wide of the interval of class (P)
P = R/K
= 11/6
= 1,83. So, P was 2
45
Appendix 13. The Normality Analysis Pre-Test
Interval Fo Fh (fo-fh) (fo-fh)2 ¿¿
4-5 1 0,891 0,109 0,01 0,01
6-7 2 4,4649 -2,4649 6,075 1,3606
8-9 9 11,2629 -2,2629 5,120 0,4545
10-11 10 11,2629 -1,2629 1,5949 0,14
12-13 9 4,4649 4,5351 20,567 4,606
14-15 2 0,891 1,109 1,229 1,3793
SUM 33 7,9504
Appendix 14 The Normality Analysis Post-Test
Interval Fo Fh (fo-fh) (fo-fh)2 ¿¿
6-7 1 0,891 0,109 0,01 0,01
8-9 2 4,4649 -2,4649 6,075 1,3606
10-11 7 11,2629 -4,2629 18,1723 1,6
12-13 13 11,2629 1,7371 3,0175 0,26
14-15 8 4,4649 3,5351 12,4969 2,79
16-17 2 0,891 1,109 1,22988 1,380
46
SUM 33 7,4
Appendix 15. Table of correlation with pre-test and post-test
SampleScore
Pre-Test (x)
Score Post-
Test (y)x-x y-y X2 Y2 Xy
1 12 13 1,61 0,4 2,59 0,16 0,6442 12 15 1,61 2,4 2,59 5,76 3,8643 9 13 -1,39 0,4 1,9 0,16 -0,5564 12 15 1,61 2,4 2,59 5,76 3,8645 14 15 3,61 2,4 13,03 5,76 8,6646 7 13 -3,39 0,4 11,49 0,16 -1,3567 11 12 0,61 -0,6 0,37 0,36 -0,3668 10 10 -0,39 -2,6 0,15 6,76 1,0149 12 13 1,61 0,4 2,59 0,16 0,64410 12 13 1,61 0,4 2,59 0,16 0,64411 4 6 -6,39 -6,6 40,83 43,56 42,17412 9 11 -1,39 -1,6 1,93 2,56 2,22413 11 13 0,61 0,4 0,37 0,16 0,24414 12 13 1,61 0,4 2,59 0,16 0,64415 6 9 -4,39 -3,6 19,27 12,96 15,80416 10 11 -0,39 -1,6 0,15 2,56 0,62417 11 15 0,61 2,4 0,37 5,76 1,46418 10 17 -0,39 4,4 0,15 19,36 -1,719 9 14 -1,39 1,4 1,93 1,96 -1,94620 11 15 0,61 2,4 0,37 5,76 1,46421 9 14 -1,39 1,4 1,93 1,96 -1,94622 11 13 0,61 0,4 0,37 0,16 0,24423 9 9 -1,39 -3,6 1,93 12,96 5,00424 11 10 0,61 -2,6 0,37 6,76 -1,58625 9 11 -1,39 -1,6 1,93 2,56 2,22426 13 13 2,61 0,4 6,8 0,16 1,04427 9 11 -1,39 -1,6 1,93 2,56 2,22428 13 12 2,61 -0,6 6,8 0,36 -1,56629 14 17 3,61 4,4 13,03 19,36 15,88430 9 15 -1,39 2,4 1,93 5,76 -3,33631 12 13 1,61 0,4 2,59 0,16 0,644
47
32 9 11 -1,39 -1,6 1,93 2,56 2,22433 11 13 0,61 0,4 0,37 0,16 0,244
SUM 10,39 12,6 149,76 175,48 99,358
Appendix 16. The step to finding the correlation with pre-test (x) and post-test
Rxy= ∑ xy
√ ∑ x2 y2
Rxy= 99,358√ 149,76.175,48
Rxy= 99,358√ 26279,8848
Rxy=99,358162,11
r=0,6
48
The applying of t-test
t= X 1−X 2
√ S12
n1+ S 22
n 2−2(r ) S 12
√ n 1+ S 22
√ n 2+¿
❑ ¿
t= 10,39−12,6
√ 2,1642
33+ 2,3402
33−2(0,6) 2,164❑
√ 33+2,340
√ 33+¿
❑ ¿
t= −2,21
√ 4,6833
+3,4733
−(1,2) 2,1645,74
+ 2,3405,74
❑
t= −2,21
√0,14+0,16− (1,2 ) (0,37 )(0,40)❑
t= −2,21
√0,3−(1,2 )(0,148)❑
t= −2,21
√0,3−0,1776❑
t= −2,21
√0,1224❑
49
t = −2,210,349
= -6,332
TABLE OF CONTENT
HALAMAN JUDUL i
MOTTO ii
PENGESAHAN UJIAN SKRIPSI iii
PENGESAHAN PEMBIMBING iv
ABSTRACT v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
LIST OF CONTENT
LIST OF TABLE
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Problem Statement 2
1.3 Objective of the Research 3
1.4 Scope of the Research 3
50
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Motivation 4
2.2 Speaking Learning Theorist 5
2.2.1The Purpose of Speaking 6
2.2.2 Students’ Problems in Speaking Participation 6
2.2.3 The Teaching of Speaking Skill 8
2.2.4 Assessing Speaking Skill 9
2.3 Cooperative Learning 10
2.3.1 Advantages of Cooperative Learning 10
2.4 Role-Play Strategy 10
2.4.1 Advantages of Role-Play 11
CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Method and design 12
3.1.1 Method 12
3.1.2 Design 12
3.2 Variable and Operational Definition 13
3.2.1 Variable 13
3.2.2 Operational Definition 13
3.3 Population and Sample 13
3.3.1 Population 13
3.3.2 Sample 13
51
3.4 Instrument of the Research 14
3.5Procedures of Data Collection 14
3.5.1 Pre-Test 14
3.5.2Treatment 14
3.5.3 Post-Test 15
3.6 Technique of Data Analysis 15
CHAPTER IV. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Findings 20
4.2 Discussions 20
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion 28
5.2 Suggestion 28
REFFERENCES 30
APPENDICES 31
Appendix 1 Pre-Test 31
Appendix 2 Treatment 32
Appendix 3 Post-Test 33
Appendix 4 Questionnaire 34
Appendix 5 Rubric for Speaking Performance Assessment 35
Appendix 6 Treatment Materials 37
Appendix 7 Data of Pre-Test 39
52
Appendix 8 Mean Score and Standard Deviation of Pre-Test 40
Appendix 9 The Step Finding the Interval Class of Pre-Test 41
Appendix 10 Data of Post-Test 42
Appendix 11 Mean Score and Standard Deviation of Post-Test 43
Appendix 12 The Step Finding the Interval Class of Post-Test 44
Appendix 13 The Normality Analysis Pre-Test 45
Appendix 14 The Normality Analysis Post-Test 45
Appendix 15 The Data of t-Test 46
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ROLE-PLAY STRATEGY
TO IMPROVE STUDENTS SPEAKING PERFORMANCE
(A STUDY AT THE SECOND YEAR STUDENTS OF SMP NEGERI 2 TOLITOLI)
SKRIPSI
Presented to
State University of Madako
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of Sarjana in English Language Education
By
Diyenti Rusdin
NIM 40060014
53
UNIVERSITY OF MADAKO
GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION
SEPTEMBER 2010
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ROLE-PLAY TO
IMPROVE STUDENTS SPEAKING PERFORMANCE
SKRIPSI
OLEH
DIYENTI RUSDIN
NIM 40060014
54
UNIVERSITAS MADAKO
TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
2010
This is to certify the Sarjana’s skripsi of
Diyenti Rusdin has been approved by the skripsi
Advisors for further approval by the Board of Examiners.
Tolitoli,……………………………..
Advisor I
Asri, S.Pd
NIP……………………….
Tolitoli,………………………….
Advisor II
Jupriadi, S.Pd
55
NIP……………………..
APPROVAL SHEET
This is to certify that Sarjana’s skripsi of Diyenti Rusdin has been
approved by the Board of Examiners as the requirement for the degree of Sarjana
in English Language Education.
Yamon Sudamara, S.Pd, M.Pd, Chair
Asri, S.Pd, Member
Jupriadi, S.Pd , Member
Acknowledge by Approved by
56
Head English Department Dean, Faculty of Teachers Training and Education
Yamon Sudamara, S.Pd, M.Pd Drs. Abdul Muluk, M.Pd
NIP. 0905116901 NIP. 0911116201
ABSTRACT
Rusdin Diyenti, 2010. The Effectiveness of Role-Play to Improve Students’ Speaking Performance. Skripsi, English Language Education Department FKIP Madako University. Supervisors: (I) Asri, S.Pd, (II) Jupriadi,S.Pd.
This skripsi presents the effectiveness of Role-Play to improve students’ speaking performance at the second year students of SMPN 2 Tolitoli. This study is done since the students’ low speaking ability in speaking skill.
The research design belongs to an experimental one. The study aims at investigating whether Role Play Strategy is effective to improve the students’ speaking performance or not. The instruments of collecting data are test, observation, and questionnaire. The observation is used to find out the data about the process of doing the treatments, the speaking test is used to obtain data in order to find out the effect of the implementation of Role-Play, and the questionnaire is used to elicit the data about the students’ feeling towards the implementation of Role Play Strategy. It is found that : (1) the implementation of Role-Play can improve the students’ interaction and participation in speaking class activities; and (2) Role-Play strategy is one of the strategies that can be implemented in the teaching of English at Junior High School because most of the students feel relax and easier to understand the material.
57
PERNYATAAN KEASLIAN TULISAN
Saya yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini:
Nama : Diyenti Rusdin
NIM : 4006 0014
Jurusan/Program Studi : Bahasa Inggris
Fakultas/Program : Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan
Menyatakan dengan sebenarnya bahwa skripsi yang saya tulis ini benar-benar merupakan hasil karya saya sendiri; bukan merupakan pengambil alihan tulisan atau pikiran orang lain yang saya akui sebagai hasil tulisan atau pikiran saya sendiri.
Apabila dikemudian hari terbukti atau dapat dibuktikan skripsi ini hasil jiplakan, maka saya bersedia menerima sanksi akadenik maupun sanksi hukum atas perbuatan tersebut.
Tolitoli,
Yang membuat pernyataan,
Tanda tangan
58
Diyenti Rusdin
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Alhamdulillahi Rabbil Alamin, the writer praises his highest gratitude to Allah SWT who
has given His love, blessing, and mercy to her in completing this skripsi. Salam and salawat are
due to the highly chosen prophet, Muhammad SAW, His families and followers until the end of
the world.
The writer realizes that this skripsi would have never been completed without the
assistance of a number of people. Therefore, the writer would like to express her deepest
appreciation and thanks to those people who have helped in completing this skripsi, especially to
the writer’s beloved parents, Rusdin Godang and Nur Hasanah (Alm) who always pray,
motivate, educate, and provide countless materials during her study.
The writer’s deep appreciation to her first consultant, Asri, S.Pd and her second
consultant, Jupri, S.Pd. They spent much time to give guidance, correction, and suggestion to her
during the process of writing of this skripsi. Next, the greatest thanks also go to Yamon
Sudamara, S.Pd, M.Pd as the Head of English Department of Madako University, and all lectures
and staff of English Education Department of Madako whose names could not be mentioned
one by one for their supporting and appreciation in the writer’s academic process.
59
The writer’s special thanks go to her younger brother Yosep Roybel and younger sister
Triyella Oktabella, who never got bored of giving motivation. The writer would also like to give
appreciation to the second year students of SMP Negeri 2 Tolitoli in academic year of 2009/2010
who have participated well in the research process. The research would not be finished without
their participation.
Many thanks also go to the headmaster, vice headmaster, all teachers, and staff of
SMPN Negeri 2 Tolitoli for their permission, guidance, and help to the writer during her research
experiment in the school. The writer does not forget to give her deepest appreciation to all of her
friends that she cannot mention their names one by one for their motivation and help to the
writer.
May Allah the Almighty God always be with us, Amin.
Tolitoli, Agustus 2010
The writer
60
LIST OF TABLE
Table Page
Frequency and Rate Percentage of the Students’ Speaking on
Accuracy Component 20
Frequency and Rate Percentage of the Students’ Speaking on
Fluency Components 21
Frequency and Rate Percentage of the Students’ Speaking on
Comprehensibility Component 22
Frequency and Rate Percentage of the Students’ Speaking on
Three Components Observed 23
Mean Score and Standard Deviation of the Students’ Pretest and
Posttest 24