english department teacher training and …... · speaking skill includes: 1) ... lesson plan ......
TRANSCRIPT
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
i
(A Classroom Action Research at the Eleventh Grade Students of SMA Negeri 4 Surakarta in the Academic Year of 2011/2012)
Written by:
Reni Purnaningsih
K2208092
THESIS
Submitted to Teacher Training and Education Faculty of
Sebelas Maret University to Fulfill One of Requirements for Achieving
the Undergraduate Degree of English Education
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY
SEBELAS MARET UNIVERSITY
2013
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
ii
PRONOUNCEMENT
Speaking Ability through Talking Chips (A Classroom Action Research at
the Eleventh Grade Students of SMA Negeri 4 Surakarta in the Academic
is really my own work. It is not plagiarism or made by
which are listed on the bibliography.
If then, this pronouncement proves wrong; I am ready to receive any
academic punishment.
Surakarta, 2013
Reni Purnaningsih
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
iii
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
iv
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
v
ABSTRACT
Reni Purnaningsih. K2208092. ABILITY THROUGH TALKING CHIPS ((A Classroom Action Research at the Eleventh Grade Students of SMA Negeri 4 Surakarta in the Academic Year of 2011/2012). Thesis, Surakarta: Teacher Training and Education Faculty, Sebelas Maret University.
This research aims to: 1) identify how the implementation of talking chips nd 2) describe the situation when
talking chips is implemented in the speaking class. The problems faced by some students included: a) lack of vocabulary to speak up; b) difficulty in pronunciation; c) difficulty in grammar; d) difficulty in fluency.
The method used in this research was a collaborative action research. The research was conducted in two cycles at the eleventh grade of SMA Negeri 4 Surakarta from April- May 2012. The data were collected through observation, document analysis, interview, questionnaire and test (pre-test and post-test). The qualitative data were analyzed by using constant comparative method which is consisted of five stages. They are assembling the data, coding the data, comparing the data, building interpretation and reporting the outcomes. The quantitative data were analyzed by comparing the mean scores of the pre-test and post-test.
The research findings show that the implementation of talking chips could exposition)
and the classroom situation of speaking class. The speaking skill includes: 1) Students had enough vocabulary to deliver speech; 2) the students were able to pronounce the word correctly during delivering the speech; 3) the students could produce the sentences grammatically correct; 4) the students delivered the speech more fluent. The improvement of classroom situation includes: a) the class was more alive because the students participate actively during the speaking class; b) there was an equal participation during the speaking class; c) the students were motivated to speak English than Indonesian; d) the interaction improved significantly.
It can be concluded that the implementation of talking chips can improve . It
is hoped that this result can give other teachers inspiration to implement talking chips in their classroom.
Key words: Talking chips, speaking.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
vi
MOTTO
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
vii
DEDICATION
This thesis is proudly dedicated to:
Her beloved late father, Tenan Sudibyo, who always inspires her,
Her beloved Mom, Suginem, who always gives affection,
Her beloved elder brothers and sisters, who always support her,
The Sudibyos.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
viii
ACKNOLEDGEMENT
blessing to the writer so that she can finish her study. In this occasion, the writer
would like to express her deepest gratitude and appreciation to the followings.
1. Prof. DR. H.M Furqon Hidayatullah, M. Pd, the Dean of Teacher
Training and Education Faculty, for his permission and his approval of
this thesis.
2. Dr. Muh Rohmadi, S.S, M. Hum , the Head of the Art and Language
Education, for giving permission to write this thesis
3. Endang Setyaningsih, S. Pd, M. Hum the Head of English Education
Department of Teacher Training and Education Faculty, for giving
advice and approval to this thesis.
4. Drs. A. Dahlan Rais, M. Hum as the first consultant who has patiently
given his guidance, advice, encouragement and time.
5. Teguh Sarosa, S. S, M. Hum as the second consultant who has
patiently given his guidance, advice, encouragement and time.
6. Drs. Unggul Sudarmo, M.Pd as the Headmaster of SMA Negeri 4
Surakarta for facilitating the writer in collecting the data.
7. Indi Astuti, S. Pd as the collaborative English Teacher and the students
of XI IPA 6 of SMA Negeri 4 Surakarta for their kindness.
8. The students of SMA N 4 Surakarta, especially class XI IPA 6 who
were being the population of the research
9. Her beloved parents, for their prayer, supports and motivation.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
ix
10. The Sudibyos, her beloved brothers and sisters, for their supports.
11. Drs. Suwachid, M.Pd, M.T and his family, for their support and
guidance.
12. Her beloved friends Atin, Tyas, El, Gembul, Ayumico and Yeny for
being her best friends.
13. Her friends in English Department, especially English Department
students of 2008 for the beautiful friendship.
The writer realizes that this thesis has many mistakes and inaccuracies.
Therefore, she accepts every suggestion, criticism, and comment from those who
concern to this thesis. She hopes that this thesis will be able to give contribution
and be useful for readers especially for those who are interested in the similar
study.
Surakarta, Januari 2013
Reni Purnaningsih
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
x
Table of Content
TITLE ................................................................................................................. i
PRONOUNCEMENT ......................................................................................... ii
APPROVAL OF CONSULTANTS .................................................................... iii
APPROVAL OF THE BOARD EXAMINERS ................................................. iv
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................ v
MOTTO .............................................................................................................. vi
DEDICATION .................................................................................................... vii
ACKNOWLEGDEMENT ................................................................................. viii
TABLE OF CONTENT ...................................................................................... x
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................. xiii
LIST OF CHARTS ............................................................................................. xiv
LIST OF ABBREVIATION ............................................................................... xv
LIST OF APPENDICESS ................................................................................... xvi
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 1
A. Background of Study ...................................................... 1
B. Problem Statements ......................................................... 3
C. Objectives of The Study .................................................. 4
D. The Benefits of The Study .............................................. 4
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE ..................................................... 5
A. Review of Speaking ........................................................ 5
1. The Definition of Speaking Ability ............................ 5
2. The Elements of Speaking .......................................... 6
3. Micro and Micro Skills of Speaking........................... 7
4. The Characteristic of Successful Speaking Activity .. 10
5. Speaking Assessment ................................................. 11
B. Review on Talking Chips ................................................ 13
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
xi
1. The Definition of Talking Chips ................................ 13
2. The Advantages of Talking Chips .............................. 16
3. The Disadvantages of Talking Chips .......................... 18
C. Review on Discussion ..................................................... 19
D. Review on Drilling ......................................................... 21
1. Definition of Drilling .................................................. 21
2. The Use of Drilling in Teaching Speaking ................. 21
3. Types of Drilling ........................................................ 22
4. The Benefits of Drilling in Teaching Speaking .......... 24
E. Review on Related Research ........................................... 25
F. Rationale ......................................................................... 26
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................ 29
A. Setting and Time of the Research ................................... 29
1. The Place of the Research .......................................... 29
2. The Time of the Research ........................................... 29
B. Subject of the Research ................................................... 30
C. Method of the Research .................................................. 30
1. The Definition of Action Research ............................. 30
2. Characteristic of Action Research .............................. 32
3. The Model of Action Research ................................... 32
4. Procedure of Action Research .................................... 33
D. Step of Conducting the Action Research ........................ 35
1. Technique of Collecting Data ............................. 35
2. Technique of Analyzing Data ............................. 36
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDING AND DISCUSSION ............................ 38
A. The Process of the Research ........................................... 38
B. The Research Findings .................................................... 69
C. Discussion ....................................................................... 71
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
xii
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION AND SUGGESTION ........... 75
A. Conclusion ...................................................................... 75
B. Implication ...................................................................... 76
C. Suggestion ....................................................................... 76
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................... 78
APPENDICESS .................................................................................................. 81
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. Individual Speaking Assessment Criteria .................................. 12
Table 3.2. Research Schedule ...................................................................... 29
Table 3.2. The Technique of Collecting Data .............................................. 35
Table 4.1. The Process of Pre-Research ....................................................... 38
Table 4.2. The Pre Test Score from Both Scorers ....................................... 40
Table 4.3. The Average of pre Test Score.................................................... 40
Table 4.4. Pre Test Average Score from each Aspect .................................. 41
Table 4.5. Pre Test Average Score of each Aspect from both Scorer .......... 41
Table 4.6. Result of Pre Research ................................................................ 41
Table 4.7. The Schedule of Pre Test and Cycle 1 ........................................ 44
Table 4.8. Post Test of Cycle 1 .................................................................... 55
Table 4.9. Post Test Scores of Cycle 1 from both Scorers ........................... 55
Table 4.10. Post Test Scores of each Aspect of Cycle 1 ................................ 55
Table 4.11. Post Test Average Scores of each Aspects of Cycle 1
from both Scorers ........................................................................ 56
Table 4.12 The Schedule of Cycle 2 and the Post Test 2 .............................. 59
Table 4.13. Post Test Score of Cycle 2 .......................................................... 67
Table 4.14. Post Test Score of Cycle 2 from both Scorers ............................ 67
Table 4.15. Post Test Average Scores of each Aspects of Cycle 2 ................ 67
Table 4.16 Post Test Average Scores of each Aspects of Cycle 1
from both Scorers ........................................................................ 68
Table 4.17. The Improvement of S Speaking Scores ........................ 73
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
xiv
LIST OF CHARTS
Chart 4.1 The Improvement of Speaking Aspects between Pre
Test and Post Test of Cycle 1 .......................................................... 56
Chart 4.2 The Improvement of Speaking Aspects between Pre Test
and Post Test of Cycle 1 .................................................................. 68
Chart 4.3 ................................ 70
Chart 4.4 The Improvement of Stud
Aspect ............................................................................................. 70
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
xv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AR : Action Research
AW : Anindita Wijaya
DC : Dian Cahya
F : Fauziah
IA : Indi Astuti
KKM : Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal
KTSP : Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan
LKS : Lembar Kerja Siswa
MA : Muhammad Abi Rafdi
MEA : Maharani Angel Ein
NH : Niken Heliananta
RP : Reni Purnaningsih
SMA : Sekolah Menengah Atas
TW : Tito Wijaya
TY : Tiara Yanri
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
xvi
LIST OF APPENDICES
1. Research Schedule ................................................................................. 81
2. List of ............................................................................ 82
3. Field Notes of Pre Observation ............................................................... 83
4. Transcript of Interview before AR with Teacher .................................... 89
5. Transcript of Interview before AR with Students ................................... 94
6. Questionnaire in Pre Research .................... 102
7. Lesson Plan ............................................................................................. 104
8. Field Notes .............................................................................................. 134
9. The list of Group in Cycle 1 and 2 .......................................................... 153
10. The Result of the Tests ............................................................................ 155
11. Photographs ............................................................................................. 173
12. Data analysis of Questionnaire after Implementation ............................. 176
13. Transcript of Interview after AR with Teacher ....................................... 177
14. Transcript of Interview after AR with students....................................... 181
15. Sample of Scoring Rubrics...................................................................... 188
16. Sample of the ........................................................ 195
17. Sample of the ................................................... 203
18. Legalization ............................................................................................. 207
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background of The study
mastering English is gradually increasing. People are competing to gain an
English speaking proficiency in order to be able to compete in the global world. It
is no exception for Indonesian government in addressing this issue. Through the
formal education, students are being exposed to English, even from the earlier age
of development. Indeed, English becomes a compulsory subject to be taught in
both Senior and Junior High Schools.
There are basically four language skills need to be mastered in learning
English, i.e., Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing. Among them, speaking
skill is considered as the most difficult one to achieve since it involves a very
complex cognitive process in which at the same time covers the other language
skills.
This study is about the speaking problems found at the eleventh grade
students of SMA Negeri 4 Surakarta, in the academic year of 2011/2012. Based
on the KTSP curriculum recently applied in Indonesia, students of this grade have
to master speaking competence, particularly in expressing meaning in formal and
sustained transactional and interpersonal interaction by using the spoken language
accurately, fluently, and well accepted to interact in daily life context. This
involves the activities like producing monologue text orally. In order to achieve
this competence, students need to master both fluency and accuracy aspects
reflected in micro and macro skills of speaking. Among those are the abilities in
pronouncing the words correctly, the ability to use the pauses and fillers
appropriately during the speech, the ability to use the proper terms or dictions to
deliver certain meanings.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
2
However, as a matter of fact, the researcher found some problems
test, questionnaire,
observation and interviews conducted in the pre-research. These problems are
indicated by several indicators, both from st
classroom situation. From the speaking skill for example, most students are not
able to pronounce the words correctly. It happened because the teacher more
ctice it.
Besides, students also often produce so many pauses during their speech. It is also
caused by the limited chance to practice. Some students often produce incorrect
grammatical sentence because they have lack of knowledge about grammar. The
last, some students are not able to express their idea because they have problem in
vocabulary. Then, from the classroom situation such as, the students prefer did
non academic activity to focus on the lesson, most of students did not pay
attention to the teacher, there was less interection among the students and between
the teacher and the students, and the class was dominated by some students
These problems are actually derived from various factors from both the
found that teacher is not well-
prepared in conducting the lesson. It can be seen from the observation, the teacher
just used the text book and she did not prepare any interesting media to support
the lesson. She also tends to use conventional method or teaching technique which
mainly focuses on lecturing, without providing sufficient opportunity for students
to get involved in classroom interaction. What is more, teacher often applies lack
of teaching variation; thus, students get easily bored with the lesson. Based on the
interview, it can be seen from the teacher statement in the interview that she did
not really understand about teaching technique since she stated that she used
answer question as the teaching technique. It proves that the teacher has lack of
ies lack of teaching
variation.
Meanwhile, from the students , they still have limited background
knowledge of English pronunciation and English grammar to express certain
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
3
meaning. Not to mention, they also have limited vocabularies in expressing their
ideas. Students often think too much of grammatical structure in their speech;
thus, it affects their speech rate and continuity. Furthermore, they are afraid to
make mistakes; thus, it resulted in their being silent in every classroom interaction
and the lesson is dominated by few students. In addition, students are not
interested in the topic being discussed, or in the way the lesson conducted. What
is more, students are still being influenced by their mother-tongue while speaking.
Actually, the problem in students' low speaking proficiency can be
overcome by applying the appropriate method or teaching technique which meet
students' interest in learning English. One of the appropriate teaching techniques
is Talking Chips. Because this teaching technique allows the students to
participate in the discussion, so students can share information with one another.
It also provides oral language development to practice speaking. This teaching
technique also overcomes the class problem which is dominated by few students
in speaking class and their speaking ability will improve.
B. Problem Statements
The problem of this research can thus be formulated in the questions
below:
1. Does and to what extend the using of Talking Chips improve
grade of SMA Negeri 4
Surakarta of Academic year 2011/2012?
2. How is the class situation when Talking Chips technique is
implemented for teaching speaking skills in the class?
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
4
C. Objectives of The Study
The objective of this study will be the answers of the questions stated in
the problem statement. The objectives can be stated as follows:
1. To identify w
of eleventh grade of SMA Negeri 4 Surakarta of Academic year
2011/2012.
2. To describe the situation when Talking Chips is implemented in teaching
speaking skills in the class.
D. The Benefits of The Study
The result of the study is expected to be able to give some advantages for the
students, the teacher and the other researcher. The following are some advantages
of this study:
1. For the students
This study is expected to be able to improve the student
in an enjoyable classroom environment.
2. For the teacher
This study is expected to give inspiration and motivation to the teachers to
have efforts in developing various teaching techniques which are more
attractive and communicative implemented in the speaking class.
3. For other researchers
This study is expected to give the researcher a valuable knowledge which
can be used for doing a better action research in the future.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
5
CHAPTER II
REVIEW ON LITERATURE
A. Review of Speaking
1. The Definition of Speaking Ability
Speaking is an important skill in learning every language. Therefore it can
be regarded that one of the main principles in teaching and learning is to teach the
students to speak.
There are several definitions of speaking in literature. The first comes
from Brown (1994: 4) who states that speaking is an interactive process of
constructing meaning that involves producing, receiving, and processing speech of
sounds as the main instrument.
For most people, mastering the art of speaking is the most important
aspect of learning a first language, and success is measured in terms of the ability
to carry out a conversation in the language (Nunan, 1991: 39). The theories above
emphasize that speaking is an effort to use language freely, being able to speak
which puts more emphasizing on interaction, communication and understanding
each other. When people talk about something, it has several meanings. Speaking
can be many things. It means that when someone speaks to someone else, he or
she is thinking of what one wishes to say, choosing appropriate words from our
vocabulary, putting the words in the proper grammatical frame work,
communicating the feelings someone have, and so on.
In addition, Brindley (1995: 19) makes specification about oral
communication. Here, oral communication can be defined as speaking. He
believes that oral is to:
a. Express oneself intelligibility
b. Convey intended meaning accurately with sufficient command of vocabulary.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
6
c. Use language in appropriate context
d. Interact with other speaking fluently
He also rates oral skill into four areas, which are interactive
communication, which covers fluency or effect on listener, intelligibility, which
covers pronunciation or prosodic features, appropriateness consisting of pragmatic
competence or register, and accuracy including structure and vocabulary resources
(1995: 23). It means that speaking demands fluency, intelligibility,
appropriateness, and accuracy.
Based on the theories above, it can be concluded that speaking is the
interactive process of interaction, communication and understanding each other
through the use of language, which demands fluency, intelligibility that is
pronunciation, appropriateness, and accuracy that is grammar and vocabulary. In
this research the researcher make a limitation about the intelligibility, she only
focus on the pronunciation aspect.
skill in interactive process of interaction, communication and understanding each
other through the use of language, which demands fluency, intelligibility that is
pronunciation, and accuracy that is grammar and vocabulary which is requires
training and experience to do well.
2. The Element of Speaking
According to Knight (1992:294) there are eight elements of speaking:
a. Grammar
Grammar is important because it is the language that makes it possible for
us to talk about language. Grammar names the types of words and word
groups that make up sentences not only in English but in any language.
b. Vocabulary
Vocabulary is the knowledge of words and word meanings. Vocabulary is
acquired incidentally through indirect exposure to words and intentionally
through explicit instruction in specific words and word-learning strategies.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
7
c. Pronunciation
Pronunciation is definitely the biggest thing that people notice when they
are speaking English. It includes individual sounds, stress, rhythm,
intonation, linking, elision, and assimilation.
d. Fluency
It refers to the ability to produce speech in the language and be understood
by its speakers. It includes the speed of talking; and hesitation before and
after speaking.
e. Conversational skill
It refers to the topic development, initiative (in turning talking, and topic
control), cohesion and conversation maintenance (clarification, repair,
pause filler, and checking).
f. Sociolinguistics skill
In sociolinguistics skill, the speakers distinguish register and style (e.g.
formal or informal) and use cultural references.
g. Non-verbal
It includes eye-contact, body posture, gesture, and facial expression.
h. Content
It refers to the idea of what speakers say. It needs to pay attention to the
coherence of arguments and it must be relevant.
From the elements above, not all the elements are analyzed in this
research. It depends on the material and the type of assessment itself. Because the
research assesses about monologue text, the researcher only uses five elements
assessed. They are pronunciation, vocabulary, fluency, grammar and content.
3. Micro and Macro Skill of Speaking
The micro-skills refer to producing the smaller chunks of language such as
phonemes, morphemes, words, collocations, and phrasal units. The macro-skill
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
8
style, cohesion, nonverbal communication, and strategic option. Brown (2004:
142-143) classified the micro and macro skills totally in 16 objectives as follows:
a. Micro-skills
1) Producing difference among English phonemes and allophonic
variant.
2) Producing chunks of language of different length.
3) Producing English stress patterns, words in stressed position,
rhythmic structure, and intonation contours.
4) Producing reduced forms of words and phrases.
5) Using an adequate number of lexical units (words) to accomplish
pragmatic purposes.
6) Producing fluent speech at different rates of delivery.
7)
devices pauses, fillers, self-corrections, backtracking- to enhance
the clarity of the message.
8) Using grammatical word classes (nouns, verbs, etc), systems (e.g.
tense, agreement, pluralization), word order, pattern, rules, and
elliptical forms.
9) Producing speech in natural constituents: in appropriate phrases,
pause groups, breathe groups, and sentence constituents.
10) Expressing a particular meaning in different grammatical form.
11) Using cohesive devices in spoken discourse.
b. Macro-skills
1) Accomplishing appropriately communicative function according to
situations, participants, and goals.
2) Using appropriate styles, registers, implicative, redundancies,
pragmatic conventions, convention rules, floor keeping and
yielding, interrupting, and other sociolinguistic features in face to
face conversations.
3) Conveying links and connections between events and
communicate such relations as focal and peripheral ideas, events,
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
9
and feelings, new information and given information,
generalization and exemplification.
4) Conveying facial features, kinesics, body language, and other
nonverbal cues along with verbal language.
5) Developing and use battery of speaking strategies, such as
emphasizing key words, rephrasing, providing a context for
interpreting the meaning of words, appealing for help, and
accurately assessing how well your interlocutor understands you.
It can be concluded that in designing tasks for assessing spoken language,
these skills can act as checklist of objectives. While the macro-skills have the
appearance of being more complex than the micro-skills, both contain ingredients
of difficulty, depending on the stage and context of the test taker. From the skills
above, not all the skills were used by the researcher as the objective in this
research. She used four skills of the micro skills as the objectives. They are (1)
Producing English stress patterns, words in stressed position, rhythmic structure,
and intonation contours. It is related with the pronunciation; (2) producing the
fluent speech at different rates of delivery; (3) using grammatical words classes
(nouns, verbs, etc), system (e.g. tenses, agreement, pluralization), word order,
pattern, rules and elliptical forms and (4) using cohesive devices in spoken
discourse. In this research, it is focused on the conjunctions. They are chosen
because they are the appropriate skills to be achieved in the senior high school
level.
4. The Characteristic of Successful Speaking Activity
Ur (1996: 120) states that there are four characteristic of successful
speaking activities as follows:
a. The students talk a lot
The activity can make the students talk and speak in the target
language. Teachers must provide some material that can enable students to
talk and speak in the target language.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
10
b. Every students has an even chance to talk
In teaching learning process teachers must give activities which
enable students to talk or speak English and at the same time must control
that all students participate in the activity. Smart and talkative students
should not dominate the speaking activity.
c. High motivation
The classroom activities must motivate the students to speak in target
language. Teachers must provide students interesting topics and speaking
activities so that students have desire to join the activities and reach the task
objectives.
d.
During speaking activities, students express words, phrases, and
sentences based on their level of proficiency. The speaking can be
understood by other students only if the interlocutors also belong to that
level
From the statement above, it can be concluded that someone is successful
in speaking if he/she can produce oral language to participate in any kind of
activity. He/she can
social relationship. Besides, his/her language is acceptable and easily
comprehensible at the level of language accuracy.
Ur (1996:121) identifies four problems that may hamper the success of the
speaking class.
a. Inhibition
Being afraid of making mistakes become one of the inhibition in
speaking class. The students who avoid failure will keep silent during the
speaking class. That is why they can not improve their speaking skill
because they refuse the opportunities to practice speaking.
b. Nothing to say
Although the students have some vocabularies related to the topics,
some of them often can not find the words to express their idea.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
11
c. Low or uneven participant
This problem may occurred in the speaking class, espeacially in the
big class. The students have to wait their chance to speak and the time was
over before they start to speak up. This problems can be worse by the
d. Mother tongue use
The use of Indonesian during the speaking class will hamper the
students to achieve the goal of speaking class.
These problems are often found in the researcher
the following indicators. First, some students could not answer the
question. When the teacher asked question, they just smiled and kept silent.
Sometimes, some students prefer to use Indonesian in speaking class. The second,
some students could not express their ideas using appropriate vocabulary and
grammatical forms. The third some students often produced mispronounced words
and fillers during the speaking class.
5. Speaking Assessment
To get the objectives assessment, the researcher used this following
scoring scale which is appropriate for the senior high schools students and the
material. The learners are tested on fluency, vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation,
and content. They may get a maximum score of twenty points of each of these
five aspects. The total score will be one hundred. This scoring scale is adapted
from the Massachusetts Department of Education Assessment of Basic skills,
Speaking Assessment Rating Guide. The scale score of testing speaking can be
seen in the table 2.1.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
12
Table2.1
Individual Speaking Assessment Criteria
No Aspect Scale Score Max score
1. Fluency 1. Speaks fluently. 16-20
20 2. Speaks with near native-like fluency. Any hesitations
do not interfere with communication. 11-15
3. Speaks with occasional hesitation. 6-10 4. Speaks hesitantly because of rephrasing and
searching for words. 1-5
2. Vocabulary 1. Use extensive vocabulary but may lag behind native speaking peers in vocabulary development.
16-20 20
2. Uses varied vocabulary. 11-15 3. Uses adequate vocabulary. Some word usage
irregularities. 6-10
4. Used limited vocabulary. 1-5 3. Pronunciation 1. The pronunciation is very clear that you can
understand well 16-20
20 2. The pronunciation is clear that you can understand
most of the message 11-15
3. The pronunciation is unclear that you find difficulty to understand the message
6-10
4. The pronunciation is so unclear that you cannot understand most of the message.
1-5
4. Grammar 1. The speaker makes very few grammatical mistakes. 16-20
20
2. The speaker makes few grammatical mistakes. 11-15 3. The speaker makes many grammatical mistakes. 6-10 4. The grammar and vocabulary are so poor that we
cannot understand most of the message. 1-5
5. Content 1. The content is superior in meeting the requirements of the task.
16-20
20
2. The speaker uses words and concepts which are appropriate for the knowledge and experience of a general audience.
11-15
3. The speaker uses words and concept which are inappropriate for the knowledge and experiences of the listener.
6-10
4. The speaker focuses primarily on irrelevant content, appears to ignore the listener and the situation.
1-5
Total of the max score 100
Source: Massachusetts Department of Education Assessment of Basic skills,
Speaking Assessment Rating Guide
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
13
B. Review of Talking Chips
1. The Definition of Talking Chips
Talking chips is one of the teaching techniques of cooperative learning
which is developed by Dr. Spencer Kagan in 1992 for the first time. In talking
chips students participate in a group discussion, giving a token when they speak.
The purpose of this technique is to ensure equitable participation by regulating
how often each group member is allowed to speak. Because it emphasizes full and
even participation from all the members, this technique encourages passive
students to speak out and talkers to reflect. Talking chips is useful for helping
students discuss controversial issues, and it is useful to solve communication or
process problem such as dominating or clashing group members.
Before using talking chips as learning technique the teacher should make a
preparation. The first preparation is determine a question or topic to be discussed
in a group discussion. The second is bring poker chips, playing cards, or simply
gather a sufficient number of paper clips, pencils, chalk, or other available items
to serve as token. This token will be used by each student when they take turns to
talking. The chips include different strategies to use in conversation and could
include:
Answer a question
Ask a question
Give an idea
Respond to the idea
Summarize
Encourage participation
Students place one of these chips on their desks before speaking. When
they finish speaking, the other members think of different ways to respond and
continue the discussion. Students should not speak unless they use one of the
talking chips. The goal is for all students to use their chips, avoiding the risk that
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
14
only some members of the group participate in the task. So, this technique can
minimize the class problem dominating by some students.
The procedures of talking chips can be seen below:
a. Form students group. To minimize the time teacher can help
students to create the group.
b. Give each student three to five tokens that will serve as
permissions to share, contribute, or debate in the conversations.
c. Ask students to participate equally in the group discussion,
specifying that as they contribute comments, they should surrender
a token and place it in view of the other group members.
d. When all the students have contributed to the discussion and all
tokens are down, ask students to retrieve and redistribute the chips.
So that the procedure repeats for the next round of discussions, or
end the discussions if the activity is complete. (Barkley, 2005:117)
There are some variations and extensions during the process of talking
chips. The variations are:
a. Give each student several chips of the same color. For example,
students A receives blue chips, student B receive red chips, and so
forth. Allow the conversation to proceed for a while. Ask students
to examine the surrendered chips and to reflect on how the
conversation has gone. Ask them to continue with their discussion
but to try to work toward an equal number of chips from each
member group.
b. To regulate the length of time each students speaks more than the
number of the time they speak, give each students several chips
and instruct them to surrender a chip every three to five minutes
that they have in the floor.
c. Give each student only a chip. When everyone has contributed,
retrieve the tokens and start the process again. This variation could
be useful in brainstorming or listing items.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
15
d. Instead of using chips, assign a group member the task of recording
individual contributions to a conversation. Do this by creating a
additional column or columns for the recorder to note down when
each individual speaks. The recorder can place a checkmark or
to promote an even level of participation among group members.
When time is up, ask group members to review the sheets and
analyze the interaction.
Millis and Cottell (in Barkley, 2005) state that talking chips can help to
consider more carefully what they have to say, since it will require their
surrendering a token. passive students feel encouraged to speak because the
ground rules have created an environment that promotes participants by all.
To achieve the goal of speaking in this research, the researcher make a
variation in conducting talking chips. The variation is combining talking chips
with drilling. The researcher also used grid sheet to help the students found their
problems and mistakes. The steps of the variation of this technique are:
a. The researcher divided the class in to some small group discussion.
She placed at least one of students who have a good achievement
in speaking for each group as the leader.
b. Then the researcher delivered the material to the students. The
material involved vocabulary, grammar and generic structure of
hortatory exposition. The researcher not only provided the
vocabularies related to the topic but also modeled how to
pronounce it. This step helped the students to solve their problems
in vocabulary, pronunciation and also grammar
c. After delivering the material the researcher used drilling technique
to enforce the students understanding and ability especially in
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
16
pronunciation and grammar. The researcher applied repetition
drilling in this research. Like the second step, this step also helped
the students to overcome their problem in pronunciation.
d. Then the students did such kind of discussion with their group.
They did it based on the rule of talking chips. During the
discussion the students gathered and shared ideas with others. This
step helped students to solve their problems in fluency,
pronunciation and grammar.
e.
own problems and mistakes in the grid sheet. It used to analyze
what are the next problems during the discussion in order
to create speech.
f. Later the researcher helped the students to solve their problems and
correct their mistakes based on the grid sheet by explaining it in the
class. In this step the students were helped to overcome all of their
problems in speaking such as grammar, pronunciation, and
vocabulary.
So based on the explanation above, it can be concluded that each step of
2. The Advantages of Talking Chips
According to Dr. Spencer Kagan (2011) in Cooperative Learning, talking
chips as one of teaching strategy in cooperative learning has some advantages.
They are:
a.
b. It also can build an interaction among the students creating mutual
understanding between the members of the group.
c. Students learn to work with and understand other group members by
working in the group.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
17
d. Talking chips also increases the
Because there is a step in talking chips in which students have to evaluate
skill. To make it effective they must know what to look for and be able to
justify their comments.
According to Education Broadcasting corporation (2004) in What are The
Benefits of Cooperative and Collaborative Learning?, there are some advantages
from small groups learning in cooperative learning that we can find in talking
chips, among others:
a. Celebration of diversity.
By doing discussion, the students learn how to work with the others. They
will learn how to response the differences. Discussion also allow students
to add their perspective to an issue based on their cultural and background
knowledge differences.
b. Acknowledgement of individual differences.
Each student has different response or opinion toward the raising issue,
Each this can help the group create more complete and comprehensive
c. Interpersonal development
Students can get benefit from structured interactions with others. By
working together in the group, students who have lack of social skill will
be helped to interact with the others .
d. Actively involving students in learning.
Each member has opportunities to contribute in talking chips because
they have an equal chance to speak up.
e. More opportunities for personal feedback.
Since there are more exchanges among the students in talking chips, the
students receive more personal feedback about their ideas and responses.
Especially by using grid sheet in talking chips, the other students have
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
18
3. The Disadvantages of Talking Chips
Moving towards the disadvantages of talking chips, Spencer Kagan (2011)
states that there are some disadvantages that can be aroused in talking chips. They
are:
a. It may result social conflicts
This may happened to the students who have lack of social skill. They will
find difficulties to work in group that is way it may result social conflicts
among the member of the group.
b. Fear of failure;
A student who wants to avoid failure will keep silent during the speaking
class. They do not want to make people think that they are stupid.
c. It is hard to control all of the group
The teacher needs to pay attention more during the discussion to make
sure that all of the group go on the right track.
d.
The parents of high achievers may complain that their son or daughter is
being used in spending their precious time in doing the procedure of
talking chips.
Although there are some problems or disadvantages which may be found
while conducting talking chips. There are some tips in conducting talking chips to
minimize the problems. The tips are:
a. Do not allow interaction which exceeds your management
methodology
b. Help the students to create a group to minimize the time
c. to work together before moving to
academic tasks
d. Inform the parents before using this teaching technique in the class
By considering those tips, it can help the teacher to minimize or overcome
the disadvantages of talking chips.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
19
C. Review on Discussion
Teaching technique is important in creating a successful teaching learning
process. According to the Anthony in Brown (2004: 14), technique is specific
activity manifested the classroom that is consistent with a method and therefore is
in harmony with an approach as well. Choosing the learning technique depends on
a lot of factors such as the instructional objectives, teaching aids and materials.
Discussion is useful in language teaching especially in speaking class. Discussion
is the most natural and effective way for learners to practice talking freely in
English. It can be thinking out some problems or situation together. Discussion,
broadly, includes anything from the simplest question to the complex one. It
covers not only talking but also reading and writing that may be entailed (Ur,
1981:2)
Arends (1997: 200) defines that discussion is communication in which
people talk to one another, sharing ideas and opinions. Another explanation is also
proposed by Golebiowska (1998: 5), she explain that discussion is a
communicative activity in which learners retain their own personalities and views.
Their task is to come to an agreement regarding the issue introduced by the
teacher. It means that the members systematically define, analyze and exchange
information. According to Karo (1979: 25), discussion is a teaching technique
used by the teachers during the instructional activity through assignment given to
conduct scientific conversation for achieving the goals. Further, discussion might
also be defined as a way of delivering certain material in which the teacher gives
opportunities to the students to create scientific conversation in order to collect
opinions, make conclusion or set alternative solution about certain problems
(Moedjiono, 2004: 19)
From the explanation above, the researcher may say several characteristic
that discussion processes: it involves groups, interaction; it is oral; it is
purposeful; and it proceeds systematically.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
20
Besides characteristic owned by discussion, according Hasibuan and
Moedjiono (2004: 23-24), there are several steps in conducting the discussion, as
follows:
a. The teacher tells the students about the problems will be discussed and
gives direction dealing with solving the problems
b. The teacher organizes the students to make groups, choose leader and
arrange the site. The leader chosen should: (1) understand the problems
that are going to be discussed, (2) be able to speak fluently, (3) be firm,
fair, and democratic.
c. Students discuss the problems in their own group. What the teacher does
is only walking around from one to others to keep the situation conducive.
Besides, the teacher also pushes the students to actively participate.
d. Each group reports the result of the discussion. The report will get
feedback from the other students. The teacher gives comments and
explanations to the reports.
e. Finally, the students note the results of the discussion including the
explanation from the teacher and submit the report.
From the explanations above, it can be concluded that discussion is one of
teaching technique in which the teacher gives opportunities to the students or
groups of the students to be actively involved in order to solve the problems and
make a conclusion to achieve the goal.
D. Review on Drilling
1. The Definition of Drilling
Based on BBC Learning English (2001) in Drilling Technique, drilling is
the repetition by students of a model given by the teacher. Students can be drilled
individually or in a group. Drilling is a technique that has been used in foreign
language classroom for many years. It was a key feature of audio lingual
approaches to language teaching which placed emphasis on repeating structural
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
21
pattern through oral practice. At its simplest, drilling means listening to a model,
provided by a teacher, or a tape or another student, and repeating what is heard.
This is a repetition drill, a technique that is still used by many teachers when
introducing new language items to their students. The teacher says (models) the
word or phrase and the students repeat it.
2. The Use of Drilling in Teaching Speaking
Nowadays we know that language learning is a far more complex and
creative process and language is a lot more than just a list of structures to be
memorized. Based on the behaviorist view that learning to speak foreign
language-like other skills- was simply a question of correct habit information, it
was thought that repeating phrases correctly lots of times would lead to mastery of
the language. An approach based mainly or only on language drills is unlikely to
find many adherents today. However, drilling remains a useful technique in the
classroom if it is used appropriately.
In the classroom, drilling is a classroom technique which some teachers
reject due to a possible lack of communicative quality and its highly controlled,
teacher-centered nature. However, there are advantages to it also, such as offering
learners an opportunity to practice pronunciation in a non-threatening dynamic
3. The Types of Drilling
According to Diane Larsen-Freeman (48: 2000), there are several types of
drilling forms. They are:
a. The Repetition Drill
The teacher says models (the word or phrases) and the students
repeat it.
Examples:
Teacher : It did not ve taken my umbrella
Students : It did not
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
22
b. The Substitution Drill
Substitution drill can used to practice different structures or
vocabulary items (i. e one word or more word change during the drill).
Example:
Teacher : I go to school. He?
Students : He goes to school
Teacher : They?
Students : They go to school
c. The Question and Answer Drill
The teacher gives students practice with answering questions. The
ckly. It is also
possible for the teacher to let the students practice to ask question as well.
This gives students practice with the question pattern.
Example:
Teacher : does he go to school? Yes?
Students : Yes, he does.
Teacher : No?
Students : No, he does not
d. The Transformational Drill
The teacher gives students a certain kind of sentence pattern, an
affirmation sentence for example. Students are asked to transform this
sentence into a negative sentence. Other examples of transformations to
ask of students are changing a statement into a question, an active
sentence into a passive one, or direct speech into a reported speech.
Example: (positive into negative)
Teacher : I clean the house.
Students
Teacher : She sings a song.
Students
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
23
e. The Chain Drill
The teacher begins the chain by greeting a particular student, or
asking him a question. That student respond, then turns to the students
sitting next to him. The first student greets or asks a question of the
second student and the chain continues. A chain drill allows some
controlled communication, even though it is limited. A chain drill also
Example:
Teacher : What is the color of sky?
The color of sky is blue
what is the color of banana?
Student A : The color of banana is yellow
what is the color of leaf?
Student B : The color of leaf is green
what is the color of our eyes?
Student C : The color of our eyes is black and white.
f. Backward build-up (expansion) drill
This drill is used when a long line dialog is giving students trouble.
The teacher breaks down the line into several parts. The students repeat a
part of the sentence, usually the last phrase of the line. Then following the
of the sentence (and works backward from there) to keep the intonation of
the line as natural as possible. This also directs more student attention to
the end of the sentence, where new information typically occurs.
Example:
Teacher : My mother is a doctor.
Students : My mother is a doctor
Teacher : She works in the hospital.
Students : She works in the hospital
Teacher : My mother is a doctor. She works in the hospital.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
24
Students : My mother is a doctor. She works in the hospital
Teacher : She take cares the patient.
Students : She take cares the patient
Teacher : My mother is a doctor. She works in the hospital. She take
cares the patient
Students : My mother is a doctor. She works in the hospital. She take
cares the patient
In this research the researcher used Repetition Drilling because it is the
appropriate technique to
researcher modeled to pronounce the words then repeated by the students. This
technique made the students easier to improve their pronunciation.
4. The Benefits of Drilling in Teaching Speaking
BBC Learning English (2001) states that drilling technique is very useful
for the learners, because it can:
a. Make the learners focus on accuracy at certain stages of the lesson or
during certain task types.
b. Provide learners with intensive practice in hearing and saying provide for a
focus on accuracy. Increased accuracy is one of the ways in which a
improvement so there is a need of particular words or
phrases. They can help learners get their tongues around difficult sound
that may be rather different from that of their first language.
c. Provide safe environment for learners to experiment with producing the
language. This may help to build confidence particularly among learners
who are not risk-takers.
d. Help students notice the correct form of pronunciation of a word or phrase.
Noticing and raising the consciousness of language is an important stage
in developing language competence.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
25
e. Provide an opportunity for learners to get immediate feedback on their
accuracy in terms of teacher or peer correction. Many learners want to be
corrected.
f. Help memorization of common language patterns and language chunks.
This may be particularly true for aural learners.
g. Meet students expectation. For example, they may think drilling is essential feature in speaking class
E. Review on Related Research
Pembelajaran Konsep Sistem Pencernaan Manusia dengan Strategi Talking Chips
pembelajaran talking chips dapat meningkatkan kualitas pembelajaran system pencernaan manusia di kelas VII E SMP N 1 Banjarnegara, dilihat dari meningkatnya aktivitas, pemahaman siswa, dan interaksi dengan
From the statements above, it can be seen that talking chips can improve
the
and students. It also improves the interactions among the students so that they can
share their idea and the problem which can be solved by the other students. Then
the students can improve their comprehensions.
Cooperative Learning Strategies
to Enhance Writing Skill. Further explanation, she states that talking chips can
improve the students writing skill because in this method students are given
opportunity to write and to revise and rewrite what they have written. Peer
criticism aids students sharpen their knowledge about grammatical rules. In order
to evaluat
and be able to justify their comments or opinions. This technique also encourages
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
26
reticent students to participate and solve communication or process problems,
such as dominating or clashing group
What make this research different from the previous research is take place
in the implementation of talking chips itself during the teaching learning process.
In this research the researcher not only used talking chips as the only one teaching
technique which was implemented in the teaching learning process but also
combined talking chips with drilling technique and discussion. This combination
was done to help the students improve their speaking ability.
F. Rationale
The students of SMA Negeri 4 Surakarta find difficulties in speaking skill.
First, most students were not able to pronounce the words correctly because they
have limited background knowledge of pronunciation. Second, some students
often produced ungrammatical sentences. For example, the students still found
difficulties in using appropriate cohesive devices especially conjunctions in
spoken discourse and often used the wrong tenses to express certain meaning.
Both the problems were
English grammar. Those problems arose because they did not pay attention with
the lesson. They were easily got bored because the teacher often applied lack of
teaching technique variation. The teacher stated that she used question and answer
as a teaching technique. Third, some students were not able to express their idea
because they had lack of vocabulary. Furthermore some students also often
produced so many fillers during their speech. Those difficulties arose because
they never practice their speaking ability. Some students could not practice
speaking because the class was dominated by the teacher and few students.
Talking chips is one of teaching techniques in cooperative learning. In
talking chips students participate in a group discussion. Before the students speak
up, they have to put the chips one by one every time they want to speak up. The
The purpose of the
talking chips is to ensure the equitable participation by regulating how often each
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
27
group member is allowed to speak. Speaking up is an obligation for each student
in talking chips; this technique encourages the passive students to speak up.
Talking chips can help the students to solve their difficulties in producing the idea
to speak because they can share their idea with the other members group during
the discussion. Talking chips is also useful to solve the classroom condition
problem such as dominating or clashing group members (Barkley, 2005).
Drilling is the repetition by the students of a model given by the teacher
(BBC Learning English, 2001). At simplest, drilling means listening to a model
provided by a teacher, tape or other equipments and students repeating what is
heard. This technique offer learners an opportunity to practice pronunciation in a
non-threatening dynamic.
The teacher combined the talking chips with drilling technique and
discussion. The vocabulary problems can be solved by the teacher help. Drilling
was used to solve vocabulary problem. It also helped them to produce a
better pronunciation. The kind of drilling technique used by the teacher in this
research is repetition drilling. The teacher provides some vocabularies which
relate with the topic they will be discussed. The teacher did not only provide the
vocabularies but also model how to pronounce the words. Then the students
repeated what the teacher said. The students also can improve their vocabularies
during the discussion. During the discussion, the students also can share their
ideas in their own group in order solve the problems.
The grammatical problem in delivering the idea can be solved by using the
overcome the cohesive devices problems especially conjunctions. Grid sheet is a
columns for the recorder to note down when each individual speaks. They can
. It can
help because in each group there is a leader who has good achievement in
speaking. He/she can help the other students to find and to correct the other
When time is up, the teacher asks group members to review
the sheets and analyze the interaction. In the analyzing session all the students will
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
28
grammatical form or the pronunciation.
From the explanation above, it can be assumed that talking chips strategy
and drilling can be implemented to improve the speaking skill in the eleventh
grade students of SMA Negeri 4 Surakarta.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
29
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research methodology provides the method that was used to find the
answer of the problem in this research. This chapter involves the setting and
subject of the research, method of the research, technique of collecting data and
technique of analyzing data. Each of them is discussed in the following section.
A. Setting and Time of the Research
1. The Place of the Research
This classroom action research was conducted in SMA N 4 Surakarta. This
senior high school is located at Jl. LU Adi Sucipto no. 1, Surakarta. The lesson
was conducted in the class.
2. The Time of the Research
The research was conducted for 6 months from October 2011 to June 2012
by exploiting the use of Talking Chips as a teaching technique. This research
includes the pre-research, action, and activities after the action. It can be arranged
as follows:
Table 3.1
Research schedule
No. Activity Time of Research 1. Pre-research ( interview, observation) October 2011- January 2012 2. Preparation of thesis proposal February 2012 3. Preparation of and pre-test March 2012 4. Pre-test April 2012
5. Action
a. Cycle 1 April, , May 2012 b. Cycle 2 May 2012
6. Post-test
a. Post Test 1 May 2012 b. Post Test 2 May 2012
7. Analyzing the result June 2012
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
30
B. Subject of the Research
The subject of the research was the second grade students of SMA N 4
Surakarta 2011/2012 academic year. The class is XI IPA 6. There should be 34
students in this class, but there were only 33 students joining the research because
one of the students passed away. The student who passed away is Nazari Fitri.
C. Method of the Research
This research was undertaken as Classroom action research in SMA N 4
1. Definition of Action Research
There are several definitions of action research proposed by experts. Mills
(2000: 6) defines action research as:
Any systematic inquiry conducted by teacher researchers, principals, school counselors, or other stakeholders in the teaching learning environment, to gather information about the ways that their particular school operate, how they teach and how well their students learn. This information is gathered with the goals of gaining insight, developing reflective practice, affecting positive changes in the school environment (and on educational practices in general), and improving the student outcomes, and the lives of those involved.
finding to practical problem solving in social situation with a view to improving
the quality of action within it, involving the collaboration and cooperation
define action research as the systematic collection of the information that is
designed to bring about social change.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
31
Kemmis (in Hopkins, 1993) proposes the following:
Action research is a form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social (including educational) situations in order to improve the rationally and justice of (a) their own social or educational practices, and, (b) their understanding of these practices, and (c) the situation in which the practices are carried out. It is most rationally empowering when undertaken by the participants collaboratively, though it is often undertaken by indeducation, action research has been employed in school-based curriculum development, professional development, school improvement programs, and systems planning and policy development. Similarly, Elliot (in Hopkins, 1993:45) says that action research might be
defines as the study of a social situation with a view to improving the quality of
action within it. The fundamental objective of action research is to improve
practice rather than to produce knowledge. It is carried out to feed practical
judgment in concrete situations. Theories are not validated independently and
then applied to practice. They are validated trough practice.
Mason and Bramble (1997: 42) define action research as a research which
is designed to uncover effective ways of dealing with real world problems. The
research is not confident to a particular methodology or paradigm. It may utilize
qualitative or quantitative methodology or a mixture of both. Action research is
distinguished more by intention than methodology.
Based on the above statements, it can be concluded that action research is
a systematic inquiry to overcome educational problems or to change things
related to educational problem which covers observation, analysis, and
adjustment where the educators involve themselves in action to come into the
goal of understanding teaching and learning process in the classroom, and to
make a better change or improvement in classroom practice.
2. Characteristic of Action Research
Kemmis and Mc Taggart (1998) in Nunan (1992: 17) state that there are
three characteristics of the action research. Firstly, action research is carried out
by practitioners rather than outside researchers, secondly, the kind of the action
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
32
research is collaborative, and thirdly, the action research is aimed at changing
things. While Burns (1999) composed the characteristic as follows:
a. Action research is contextual, small-scale and localized-it identifies and
investigates problems within a specific situation.
b. It is evaluative and reflective as it aims to bring about changes and
improvement in practice.
c. It is participatory as it provides for collaborative investigation by teams of
colleagues, practitioners and researchers.
d. Changes in practice are based on the collection of information or data
which provides the impetus for change.
3. The Model of Action Research
Kemmis and Mc Taggart (1988) in Burns (1999: 32) state that the action
research occurs through a dynamic and complementary process which consists of
four fundamental steps in spiraling process. They are as follow:
a. Planning
Develop a plan of critically informed action to improve what is already
happening
b. Action
Act to implement the plan
c. Observation
Observe the effects of the critically informed action in the context in
which it occurs.
d. Reflection
Reflect these effects as the basis for further planning.
In this research the four steps above were expanded into five steps,
namely: 1) planning the action, 2) implementing the action, 3) observing or
monitoring the action, 4) reflecting the result of the observation, 5) revising the
plan for the following step. Actually, revising the plan was include in planning
step in the cycle 2.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
33
4. Procedure of Action Research
The procedure of this research consists of six steps. The second until the
last step form one cycle. The procedure is described as follows:
a. Identifying
The problems were identified firs before planning the action. The
problems referred to the factors making the low speaking ability of the
students and the passive behavior during the teaching learning process.
The problems were identified by using two techniques as follows:
1. Interview
The interview was hold in order to know the problems faced by the
-learning
process.
2. Questionnaire
The questionnaire was distributed to the students in order to know
the problems face by the students in learning speaking.
3. Observation
The observation conducted before the implementation of talking
chips. It was done to know the classroom situation during the
teaching learning process
4. Pre test
Pre test was conducted to find out the students problems in
speaking skill.
b. Planning the Action
Generally plan was made before implementing the action. The researcher
prepared everything related to the action as follows:
1) Making lesson-plan and designing the steps in doing the action.
2) Preparing materials, preparing sheets for classroom observation (to
know the situation of teaching-learning process when the techniques
is applied)
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
34
3) Preparing teaching aids (gambit or chips)
c. Implementing the Action
The researcher implemented the action. The researcher used chips in
conducting speaking activity. The researcher also delivered some
instruction to be done and some topic to be discussed.
d. Observing/ Monitoring the Action
The researcher observed and wrote all activities during the teaching
learning process in a field note.
e. Reflecting the Result of the Observation
The researcher and the teacher made an evaluation on the observation
result to find out the positive result and weakness during the action.
f. Revising the Plan
Based on the weaknesses which were found in reflecting process, the
researcher and the teacher revised the action plan for the next cycle.
The research was conducted in two cycles. Each cycle used Talking Chips
and drilling in speaking activity. Pre-test was hold at the beginning of the cycle to
-
tests in the end of the cycle one and two. The improvement was seen from the
result of post test which are compared to the pre-test.
D. Step of Conducting the Action Research
1. Technique of Collecting Data
The writer used test, interview, questionnaire, observation and document
analysis to get the data. There were two kinds of data, qualitative and quantitative
data. The quantitative data in numbers form were taken from the test that was
carried out before and after the treatment. Meanwhile, the qualitative data were
taken from the result of the observation, interview, and questionnaire. It can be
seen in the table 3.2.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
35
Table 3.2
The technique of collecting data
No Instruments Description of the Instrument Function 1. Interview 5. A list of oral question to know
the teacher opinion or ideas about the teaching learning process
6. A list of oral question to the teacher and students before and after the implementation
To know the strength and the weakness of the previous teaching learning process.
To know the
in learning English especially speaking
2. Questionnaire A list of written question with available answer in ranged
feeling, opinion or idea on certain issues
To get responses of the certain issues
3. Document analysis
, journal, etc)
To create a construct based on the existing theory
4. Pre-test competence speaking competence and
their difficulties on speaking before the treatment conducted
5. Observation report in form of field note and Photographs
Instruments to record the teaching learning process
Functioning as proves
6. Post-test after the treatment conducted. There were two post tests.
To measure the progress
competence
2. Technique of Analyzing Data
There were two kinds of techniques of analyzing data. They are
descriptive statistic method and constant comparative method.
a. Descriptive Statistic Method
Descriptive statistic method was used to analyze the
quantitative data. The data . The scores
were taken from pre-test scores and post-test scores. If the average
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
36
scores of pre test are less than pre test, it indicates that teaching
b. Constant Comparative Method
Constant comparative method was used to analyze the
qualitative data. This method is suggested by Mc Kernan (1996) in
Burns (1999: 156-160). Constant comparative method consists of five
steps: (a) assembling the data; (b) coding the data; (c) comparing the
data; (d) building interpretations; (e) reporting the outcomes. A brief
description of each step is as follows:
1) Assembling the data
At this step the researcher assembled the data through
interview, questionnaire, pre-test, post-test and observation.
Interview, questionnaire and observation were used to collect the
qualitative data. Meanwhile the pre-test and post-test were used to
collect the quantitative data.
2) Coding the data
The researcher coded the data gotten from interview,
observation, questionnaire, pre-test and post-test. The researcher
divided the data into some concepts, themes or types based on the
same characteristic of the data. The data characteristics are:
aspects.
3) Comparing the data
At this step, the researcher compared the data gained from
observation, interview, questionnaire, pre-test, and post-test. It was
done by identifying the relationship and the connection between
the differences of the researcher perception with
reaction and the other participants to take the relation between
information, the participant (who took a role to observe), and the
researcher perception.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
37
4) Building interpretation
In this research, the researcher tried to articulate the
underlying concepts and developing theories why particular
patterns of the behaviors interactions or attitude has emerged. The
researcher needed to come back to the data several times to pose
question, rethink the connections and develop explanation about
the results of the analyzed data
5) Reporting the outcomes
The final stage involves presenting an account of the
research for others. There are various ways to report the research; a
major consideration is to ensure that the report sets out the major
processes of the research, and that the findings and outcomes are
well supported with examples from the data. The researcher
involved presenting an account of the research for others. After the
researcher arranged and outlined the research findings based on the
daily observation, the researcher reported the outcomes.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
38
CHAPTER IV
RESULT OF THE STUDY
A. The Process of the Research
This chapter describes the implementation of talking chips to improve
g skill. The research was conducted in SMA Negeri 4 Surakarta.
In conducting the research, the researcher worked collaboratively with the English
teacher of class XI IPA 6, Mrs. Indi Astuti S, Pd. as the collaborator, she has
important role in this research. She was the observer in the teaching learning
process or a person whom the researcher can share and discuss the problem.
Besides, her advice and point of view are very helpful in the research. Therefore,
it is important for the researcher to discuss and share the entire problem and
information to the English teacher from the beginning until the end of the
research.
The research was conducted in two cycles. The first cycle consists of three
meetings and the second cycle consists of two meetings. The process of pre
research and action research can be seen in the table 4.1.
Table 4.1
The process of the pre research
Activities Dates 1. Observing teaching and learning process October2011- January 2012 2. Interviewing the teacher 16th January 2012 3. Interviewing the students 16th January 2012 4. Distributing the questionnaire 16th January 2012
5. Conducting pre test April 2012
1. Pre research
Pre research was conducted before the implementation of action
research. It is to identify the problem of the students. To gain the data, the
researcher conducted the observation toward the process of teaching learning
English. The observation was conducted during the PPL on October-
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
39
November 2011. Besides, she interviewed the teacher and the students and
distributed the questionnaire for students on Monday, January 2012. The
pre test was conducted on Friday, April 2012.
a. Classroom situation
During the pre research, the researcher found out the situation of
teaching and learning English in the class XI IPA 6 was not alive. They
tended to keep silent and spent their time by listening to the teacher
explanations. The class was dominated by some students because most of
the students rarely answer the teacher questions. It was only four or five
students who gave the response to the question.
Beside listening to the explanation, their activity was only doing
some exercises in the exercise book so the students just had a little chance
to practice speaking. The teacher used two kinds of hand book, LKS and
explain the material and to give student LKS (exercise book) was
mostly used by the teacher to give the students exercise.
The teacher rarely talked in English. Therefore, the students
preferred using Indonesian to English when they answered or delivered
questions. This situation made them lost much opportunity to practice
their speaking ability. They tended to forget the vocabulary that they have
learnt easily because they did not apply them in real communication. The
fact that the teacher conducted the English class by using the book only
unconsciously made her ignoring some important aspects in English, such
as grammar and pronunciation.
In the class, the teacher never created particular activity to improve
the book then asked the students to read the dialogue without correcting
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
40
b.
The result of the observation revealed that the students had limited
time and chance to practice oral skill. They had difficulty in expressing
their idea in English. Being asked to speak in front of the class was
something stressful and intimidating for them. They felt unconfident and
scared of making mistakes. When they spoke, they could not speak
fluently. They did not have many vocabularies and faced difficulty in
arranging good sentence to express their idea.
According to the result of the pre test, most of the students got the
score under the KKM (kriteria ketuntasan minimal) which is 71. During
their performance, most of them produced fillers. There were so many
pauses when they spoke. They found difficulties to express their idea
because they have limited vocabularies.
Based on the pre test result, the researcher reports the highest, the
lowest and the average score from the first and second scorer. It can be
seen in the table 4.4.
Table 4.2
Pre test score from both scorers
No Explanation scorer scorer
1. Highest score 68 60 2. Lowest score 23 37 3. Average score 49,4 48,9
The highest, lowest and average scores from both scorers are as
follows:
Table 4.3
The average of pre test score
No Explanation Score 1. Highest score 64 2. Lowest score 30 3. Average score 49
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
41
The scores were analyzed in five aspects. They were vocabulary,
pronunciation, grammar, fluency and content. The highest score for each
aspect was 20. The Score of each aspect multiply by 5 because the minimum
standard to be passed is 71. It was done to know whether they pass the
minimum standard or not with maximum scale of 100. The table is as
follows:
Table 4.4
Pre test average score of each aspects
No Speaking aspects Average score
( scorer) Average score ( scorer)
1. Fluency 36.9 32.6 2. Vocabulary 57.6 56.6 3. Pronunciation 39.8 40 4. Grammar 54 56 5. Content 58.3 59.4
The average scores of each element of speaking from the first and
second scorer are shown in the table 4.5.
Table 4.5
Pre test average score of each aspects from both scorer
No Speaking aspects Average score 1. Fluency 34.7 2. Vocabulary 57.1 3. Pronunciation 39.9 4. Grammar 55 5. Content 58.8
The results of the data indicate that the students were still weak in all
aspects of speaking. The target score (KKM) was still far to reach. Hence, the
Beside the pre test data, the following table is the brief result of the
observation.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
42
Table 4.6
Result of Pre Research
Activity Data collected
1. Observing the teaching
and learning process
a. The class was dominated by teacher and some students. It
in the class. Only few students got involved in the class.
b. The students had limited time and chance to practice
English because the teacher rarely used English during the
teaching learning process
c. No variation of activity because the teacher always use the
book. The teacher also tends to use conventional method or
technique in conducting the lesson so that the students get
bored easily. It caused also limited speaking activity.
2. Interviewing the English
teacher
a. Students felt shy to get involved and speak English in the
class because they were afraid to make mistakes.
b. Students had limited vocabulary
c. Students cannot arrange a good sentence(grammatical)
d. Students cannot pronounce the word correctly
e. Those reasons made the students found difficulties in
speaking English
3. Interviewing the students
a. They were quite interested in English
b. They felt unconfident to speak English and afraid of doing
mistakes so they preferred keep silent
c. They had limited vocabulary
d. They were unable to arrange sentence in correct grammar
e. They frequently mispronounced vocabulary
f. Those reasons made them find difficulty in speaking
English
4. Questionnaire
a. Students felt unconfident to speak English so they just keep
silent in the class
b. Students had limited vocabulary
c. Students had difficulty in arranging a good sentence
d. Students cannot pronounce vocabulary correctly
e. Those reasons made them find difficulty in speaking
English
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
43
Based on the data which were gained in pre research, the researcher
was somewhat good. Some of
them liked English because they could speak in another language but most of
them thought that English was difficult to be learnt. The teacher also said that they
really wanted to be able to speak English. However, it was very difficult to make
them spoke up in the class. It was because they have some problems in learning
English. They cannot pronounce the vocabulary properly, arrange a good sentence
and had limited vocabulary. These problems mad them unconfident to speak in
English. They were also afraid of making mistakes. It was proven in the pre test.
Their score was very low.
In teaching learning activity, they just kept silent when the teacher
asked. It was only few students who gave response to the teacher. It made the
situation in the class is not alive. The teacher did not give them much opportunity
to speak. She frequently used LKS as the teaching sources. She did not create any
to practice their speaking skill, she only asked them to memorize some
expressions.
2. Research Implementation
This action res
ability by using talking chips. It was conducted in two cycles. The first cycle
consisted of three meeting and the second cycle consisted of two meeting. The
duration of each meeting was 90 minutes. The first cycle was conducted on
thirtieth of April, second and third of May. The second cycle was conducted
on twenty first and twenty third of May. Each cycle consisted of five steps
including: (1) planning the action, (2) implementing the action, (3) observing
the action, (4) reflecting the action and (5) revising the plan.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
44
The more detail of the implementation is described on the following
section.
a. Cycle 1
The detail schedule of the implementation in cycle 1 can be seen in
the table 4.9
Table 4.7
The schedule of pre test and cycle 1
No Time Activity 1. April 2012 Pre test 2. 28th April 2012 1st meeting 3. 2nd May 2012 2nd meeting 4. 3rd May 2012 3rd meeting 5. 5th May 2012 Post test 1
1) Planning for the First Meeting
Before the implementation of the research, the researcher gave
pre test to the students of XII IPA 6. The aim of the pre test is to
measure the students speaking ability. Having identified
problem, indicators and causes the problem, the researcher chose a
teaching technique that could solve the . In this
case,
speaking ability.
The researcher planned some actions to overcome those
problems which were limited to vocabulary, grammar and
pronunciation mistakes. Those problems are the basic obstacles for
the students to not to speak English. They caused some other
problems for instance unconfident, afraid of doing mistakes and
always keeping silent in the class.
Then the researcher decided to prepare a plan to overcome the
problems. The first meeting would be
problem in grammar especially conjunctions and organization of
hortatory exposition. Firstly, she divided the class in to eight groups.
Then, she explained about the generic structures and characteristic of
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
45
hortatory exposition and conjunctions which are almost used in
hortatory exposition.
Before starting the discussion she explained the instructions of
talking chips. Then, she will give the students a grid sheet as a report
paper. Each student will get one grid sheet. The students have to
could write down their difficulties in the columns which were
provided in the grid sheet. The researcher gave a list of conjunctions.
The students had to make a sentence using the conjunctions. They
had to make the sentence through discussions using talking chips.
After finishing this session, the researcher asked the students to make
a big group discussion. In this section they discussed about their
mistake in producing the sentences using the conjunctions. The
researcher ended the activity and made reflection or conclusion.
Beside prepared the procedure of the first meeting
implementation; the researcher also provided media and the teaching
material. The media are chips, grid sheet, power point and speaker.
In this case, the material was about hortatory exposition. The
students were asked to make a speech. The topic of the speech is
school regulation. To help the students in making a speech they
would work in group. They discussed their topic. The discussion
hold through the talking chips teaching technique. The details of the
teaching materials are follows:
The material about Generic Structure of Hortatory exposition
The Example of Hortatory exposition text
The grammar material about conjunctions (connectives)
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
46
2) Action
First Meeting
Opening
The first meeting of cycle 1 was conducted on Saturday,
28th April 2012. The class started at 6.45 a.m. because English
was the first subject in that day. After the bell rang the
researcher and the collaborator entered the class. The students
were ready to join the English class but the researcher could see
coming. Then the collaborator explained what the researcher
would to do that day. The researcher greeted and checked the
of the lesson and told them what they were going to do.
Main Activity
The first step in the main activity the researcher divided
the class into eight groups; each group consisted of four
students. Then the researcher explained about the generic
structure and the characteristic of hortatory exposition. The
researcher also explained about the conjunctions that were
mostly used in hortatory exposition. After delivering the
material the researcher explained about the procedure of
talking chips and gave instruction to do. Before doing the
instruction the researcher distributed grid sheet to write down
The researcher
also gave five chips for each student. The researcher gave list
of conjunction. The students had to make oral sentence using
the conjunction and they had to make it one by one through
the discussion using talking chips. The instruction was make
sentences using conjunction below. After the discussion the
researcher asked the students to mention the problems and
mistakes during the discussion and the she explained about it.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
47
Closing
After the students finished with their duty the researcher
rev
about the material.
3) Planning for the Second Meeting
In the second meeting, the researcher focused on the
vocabulary and pronunciation. In this meeting the students should
construct a speech. The students started the discussion through
talking chips to create speech. They worked in group, so that they
can discuss with the others. The students can share their ideas or
asking help for the difficulties they faced during the constructing the
speech. The topic of the speech is School Regulation. Before starting
the discussion the teacher give the students grid sheet. The students
pronunciation during the discussion. They also can write down their
difficulties in the grid sheet.
Then, after doing the discussion for 35 minutes the teacher
asked the student to stop the discussion although they have not
finished creating their speech yet. In the last 25 minutes, the teacher
asked the student to mention their difficulties and the problems they
faced during the discussion then the teacher explained more about
4) Action
Second Meeting
Opening
The second meeting of cycle one was conducted on
Wednesday, 2nd May 2012. The researcher started the lesson
at 10.00 a.m. the researcher greeted the students and asked
getting good responses from the students, the researcher
started the lesson by stating the topic of the lesson. The topic
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
48
told them about the activity they were going to do.
Main Activity
In this meeting the researcher still conducted the class by
using talking chips but in this meeting the researcher
combined it with drilling. Drilling was used to help the
students to solve their problems in pronunciation. The drilling
technique was used in this meeting was repetition. The
researcher would pronounce the word the repeated by the
students. The students still worked in the same group with
the previous meeting. Before applying the talking chips the
researcher gave the students list of vocabularies. Not only
giving the list of vocabularies the researcher also giving the
examples on how to pronounce all the words in the list of
vocabularies. The list of vocabularies contained some words
related with the topic that was going to be discussed. The list
of vocabularies is as follows:
List of vocabularies
1. Education = ed.j ke . n 2. Discipline = d s. .pl n 3. Rule =ru l 4. Obligation = b.l ge . n 5. Obey = be 6. Punishment = p n. .m nt 7. Regulation = reg.j le . n 8. Learning = l .n 9. Process = pr .ses 10. Disturb =d st b
11. Therefore = ðe .f r 12. Should = d 13. Responsible =r sp n t .s .bl 14. Character = kær. k.t r 15. Behavior = b he .vj r 16. Attitude = æt. .tju d 17. Potentially =p ten. t l.i 18. Cheat =t i t 19. Examination = g zæm. ne . n
After finishing with drilling technique to solve the
vocabulary and pronunciation problems the researcher gave
the students grid sheet. The grid sheet was used as the report
paper. The students had to write down write down their
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
49
also can write down their difficulties in the grid sheet. After
finishing with the grid sheet the researcher gave instruction
to the students. The instruction is below:
After getting the instruction the students started to work
in group. They worked in group for 35 minutes. During the
di
mistakes. Based on the observation in the first meeting the
researcher started to pay attention more in the process of the
discussion. The researcher reminded the students to write
full fill the grid sheet because the students did not do it in
the previous meeting.
After working in group during 35 minutes the researcher
asked the students to stop the discussion. Then the
researcher asked some students from each group to mention
the problems they faced during the discussions. Not all
problems from each student were explained by the
researcher. The researcher just explained the example of
each problem faced by the students. The problems faced by
the students were conjunction.
Closing
The meeting closed by asking the students whether they
enjoyed the lesson or not. The researcher also checked the
Instruction:
1. Construct a speech in a form of hortatory exposition
discussion!
2. ronunciation
mistakes during the discussion in the Grid sheet!
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
50
students understanding. Then the researcher asked the
students to correct their mistakes at home and to bring it back
in the next meeting.
5) Planning for the Third Meeting
The third meeting was conducted on Thursday, 3nd May 2012.
In the third meeting the researcher planned to control the talking
chips process more because still there were some students did not
want to deliver their ideas and it was really disturb the process. The
other problem was that some students did not want to write on the
grid sheet. The researcher planned to tell to the students that apart
their score will be taken from the grid sheet so if they want to get
good mark they have to full fill the grid sheet.
In the third meeting the researcher focused on the final result of
So, all the
The result will be used
for the post test. In the third meeting the students would deliver their
speech in front of the member of their groups.
6) Action
Opening
As the previous meeting, the researcher started the class
readiness in joining the English class. The researcher told to
the students about the activity they are going to do.
Main activity
The main activity in the third meeting were continuing
the discussion and constructing the speech based on their
discussion. The students still worked with the same group.
They continued to discuss their topic. The students worked
during 20 minutes. The third meeting was better than the
previous meeting because the students started to speak up
during the discussion. They realized with their role in the
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
51
group. They
they did not. The researcher went around the class during the
talking chips to control the process. They students allowed
asking to the researcher when they faced the problem. After
finishing the discussion the students were asked to back to
their own seats. They had to construct hortatory exposition in
a form of speech based on the result of their discussion. The
researcher gave them 45 minutes to construct their speech.
During constructing the speech the students allowed asking
the researcher about their problem and difficulties. After the
students finished their speech, they collected to the
brought it back to them before the students practice it orally.
The researcher brought it back to the students on Friday, 4th
April 2012. Then the post-test was conducted on Saturday 5th
April 2012.
Closing
The researcher reviewed the lesson and checked the
students
whether they enjoyed the lesson or not. Before leaving the
class the teacher told that there will be post test on Saturday
5th April 2012. The students were asked to deliver the speech
orally. Before they delivered their speech the teacher asked
them to collect it first because she wanted to make some
correction and then the text will be back to them on Friday so
that they can learn it first before delivering the speech orally.
7) Observing the Action
The observation was carried out by the researcher and her
collaborator during the implementation of the talking chips in
teaching learning process. The focus of the observation is in the
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
52
detail explanation about the result of each meeting in cycle 1:
a. The first meeting
The researcher started the lesson by asking whether they had
ever delivered a speech or not. Most of the students answer in
Indonesian. Then the researcher started to explain about the
conjunction. This material would help the students to construct
the speech. After explaining about the conjunction the researcher
explained about the hortatory exposition. The material contained
about the purpose, the generic structure and the language features
of hortatory exposition. Further the researcher focus on the
hortatory exposition in a form of speech.
After explaining the material the researcher gave instruction
to the students. The students were asked to make sentences using
some conjunctions. Their sentences should be based on the
context and they had to do it in group through talking chips. They
were also given grid sheet. The function of grid sheet was as
also their own problem. During the talking chips the students
should produce the sentences orally then the others analyzed it
whether any mistakes or note. The mistakes would be written in
the grid sheet. So, from the grid sheet the researcher can analyze
he
class after the students finishing their discussion.
In the first meeting the talking chips took a lot of time in
creating the group. The students wasted time for choosing the
friends in group. This technique could not run well because some
students still dominated the class and the others still afraid to
speak up. Most students were lazy to fill the grid sheet although
the students can finished the tasks. There were also some
students using Indonesian in delivering their idea. It was no
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
53
problem for the researcher because at least they wanted to speak
up first although they made mistakes. From those mistakes the
researcher
provide the strategy to solve it.
b. The second meeting
The researcher began the second meeting by reviewing the
last lesson. Then the researcher asked the students to have a seat
with their previous group. Later on the researcher gave the
students instructions to make a speech through the talking chips
technique. They should discuss with their group to solve it. The
School Regulation
students starting the discussion the researcher gave the students
list of vocabulary. Then the researcher drilled the students about
vocabulary. Repetition was used as the drilling technique. It
means that the researcher will give model first and then repeated
by the students. The list of vocabulary was provided by the
researcher in order to give the students basic vocabulary that can
help them to deliver their idea. It was very useful for the
students with lack of vocabularies.
After drilling, the students started the discussion based on
the rule of talking chips technique. In this meeting the students
started to enjoy speaking lesson although there were some
students still shy and afraid to speak up. During the discussion
the researcher reminded the students to fill the grid sheet by
and the pronunciation.
After the discussion the researcher asked the students to
men
in front of the class. The researcher just gave one explanation
for the mistakes in the same category. Then the researcher asked
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
54
the students to correct their mistakes at home and to bring the
grid sheet in the next meeting.
c. The third meeting
In the third meeting the students continued their previous
discussion to solve the task from the researcher. The researcher
gave the students twenty minutes to continue their discussion.
Then after the discussion finished the students had to back to
their own seat to create their own speech based on the result of
their discussion. They had forty five minutes to create their
speech. After their speeches have done they had to collect it to
the researcher. The r
the next day she brought it back to the students before the
practice it orally as the post-test.
d. The fourth meeting
In the fourth meeting, the students did post-test. It was to
know the improvement of the students
to the pre test score. There were three speaking aspects that they
can pass. They were vocabulary, grammar and content. Their
score were higher than the minimal learning criteria/Kriteria
Ketuntasan Minimum (71).
However the students still find difficulties especially in
fluency and pronunciation. Most students produced fillers very
often during they delivered their speech. They were especially
the students who join the discussion passively.
Based on the result of the post test 1, the researcher reports
the higher and the lowest score and the average score from the
first and the second scorer. It is shown in the table 4.8.
Table 4.8 Post test score of cycle 1
No Explanation scorer scorer 1. Highest score 82 85 2. Lowest score 52 59 3. Average score 68.8 69.7
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
55
The following table showed the highest, lowest and average
score of both scorers.
Table 4.9
Post test score of cycle 1 from both scorer
No Explanation Score 1. Highest score 83.5 2. Lowest score 55.5 3. Average score 69.3
Further those scores were analyzed in more detail into five
aspects of speaking. They were pronunciation, vocabulary,
fluency, grammar and content.
Table 4.10
Post test scores of each aspects of cycle 1
No Explanation scorer scorer 1. Fluency 55.1 57.7 2. Vocabulary 74.8 75.6 3. Pronunciation 58.7 59.6 4. Grammar 74.3 74.1 5. Content 81 81.3
The average score of each aspect from both scorers is in the
table 4.11.
Table 4.11
Post test average scores of each aspect of cycle 1 from both
scorers
No Explanation Score 1. Fluency 56.4 2. Vocabulary 75.2 3. Pronunciation 59.1 4. Grammar 74.2
5. Content 81.1
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
56
The following chart showed the improvement of speaking
aspects of pre test and post test cycle 1.
Chart 4.1
The improvement of speaking aspects between pre test and post test of cycle 1
The chart shows the improvement of all speaking aspects.
The score of fluency increase from 37 to 56, vocabulary increase
from 58 to 75, the pronunciation increase from 40 to 59, the
grammar increase from 54 to 74, the content increase from 58 to
81. The overall result shows that pronunciation and fluency were
under the KKM.
8) Reflection
After conducting the first cycle, the researcher found out the
strength and weaknesses of the teaching learning process. They will
be elaborated in the next part.
a. The strengths
The positive result of the application of the talking chips
technique was that were improvements of the students in joining
34.7
57.1
39.9
55 58.8 56.4
75.2
59.1
74.2
81.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Fluency Vocabulary Pronunciation Grammar Content
pre test
post test 1
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
57
the speaking class and the improveme
each aspect of speaking competence.
talking chips
encouraged them to be able to speak English, because it was done
in group. Speak up being an obligation in talking chips so that the
students can speak up although they were being forced to do it in
first time. While they were doing discussion, they communicated
with the other students in their own group. This communication
gave them many experiences which they had never got before.
By trying to speak up at least they also knew that their speaking
skill was low by making mistakes. When they making mistakes
their friends will write it down in the grid sheet and then they can
correct it. When the students found difficulties, they can asked
their friends or write it on the grid sheet then asked to the
researcher. They also realized that they could not study language
silently, especially speaking. Therefore they had to say
something to improve their skill in speaking. There was also
advantages got dealing with the application of the talking chips
besides the improvement of speaking aspects. Some students
become very active during the discussion.
The most important improvement is in their speaking
performance. The score of speaking aspects namely fluency,
vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar and content improved. The
significant improvement is in aspect of vocabulary, grammar and
increase from 58 to 75, the content improved from 58 to 81 and
their grammar improved from 54 to 74.
b. The weaknesses
Although, the improvements in all aspects of speaking
competence were gained, there were only three aspects namely
the vocabulary, grammar and content which were over the
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
58
passing grade. Therefore there were two more aspects which
pronunciation.
The first weakness was found in creating a group. Students
took a long time in creating their own group in the first meeting.
The weaknesses were also fo
students were not giving full attention to the rule. Therefore,
they made the discussion slower than it should be. The class
become noisy and attracted the other class to see what was
happening in the class.
9) Revising The Plan
The researcher and the collaborator were required to overcome
the problem rising in the cycle 1 by revising the plan. In the next
fluency. They students will practice more in delivering speech in the
cycle 2. The researcher also provided the CALD 3 software to help
b. Cycle 2
The detail schedule of the implementation in cycle 1 can be
seen in the table 4. 12
Table 4.12
The schedule of cycle 2 and the post test 2
No Time Activity 1. Monday, May 2012 1st meeting 2. Wednesday, May 2012 2nd meeting 3. Saturday, May 2012 Post test 2
1) Planning for the First Meeting
Based on the weaknesses in the cycle one, the plan was revised
in the cycle 2. The first problem is in time management and class
management. The time management in the cycle one was still weak.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
59
It caused by the students in creating a group. They took a long time
in creating group. To overcome this problem, the researcher decided
to create the group by her own self. The researcher placed the active
students in each group as leader, perhaps can encourage the reticent
students to join the discussion actively. They also can help the others
students to find the mistakes and correct it. The researcher would
also focus more to the entire class by moving to all the students in
the class. To use the time efficiently the researcher asked the students
to create a speech at home and then practice it one by one in their
own group.
In the teaching learning process, the researcher gave the
students more time to practice delivering their speeches in order to
In the pre communicative activity the researcher made sure that all
students have done with their speech and then announced the new
group for discussion. She also asked the students to take a sit with
their new group and distributed grid sheet for each students
After that the students started the discussion. In this meeting,
they will start the discussion by delivering the speech. While one
student delivering the speech, the others should pay attention and
pronunciation and grammar. After a student finished their speech the
other member will give any comments or correction one by one
based on the rule of talking chips strategy. Each student should
deliver their comments. After finishing the discussion, the researcher
asked the students to mention any kinds of mistakes and problems
that they found during the discussion. The researcher will explain
and correct it in front of the class. In the closing session the
researcher will ask the students whether they understand and enjoy
the lesson or not. The researcher also asked the students to correct
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
60
their mistakes to make their speech better and to practice the
pronunciation at home after the teacher gave the examples.
In this cycle the researcher did not prepared special teaching
material
problems and mistakes in the grid sheet. It means that all the
mistakes and problems faced by students during the discussion will
in pronunciation and fluency the researcher provide some media. The
media are chips, grid sheets, CALD 3, Speaker.
2) Action
First Meeting
Opening
The first meeting of cycle 2 was conducted on Monday,
21th May 2012. The class was started at 7.30-09.00 a.m. After the
bell rang the researcher and the collaborator entered the class.
The researcher greeted and c
researcher also told them about the result of their post test in
cycle 1. In the first meeting the activities were how to improve
the pronunciation and fluency through talking chips. The
researcher asked whether the students have made a speech with
Main activity
In the main activity the researcher started by announcing the
new group for talking chips technique. The researcher arranged
the new group based on the observation in the cycle 1. Then the
students started to find their group and take a sit. After all the
students got their group, the researcher explained that the
students would work in group through talking chips. The
researcher told the about the procedure that they would practice
to deliver the speech which they made at home in group first. The
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
61
researcher also gave the students grid sheets to write down their
analysis of the
After listening to the researcher, the students started to work
in group. There were eight groups; each group was headed by a
student. The leader was the students who active in the previous
cycle. The leaders for each group were Maharani Angel, Niken
Helianta, Dian Cahya N, Ikbar N.F, Dhila Hapsari, Arnaldi D.L,
Muhammad A.R and Azhar Umam. They were the students who
got good mark in the post test 1. Before starting delivers the
speech each student spread the text of their speech to the member
of their group. It will help the others to analysis what mistakes
they have done and the problems they faced.
Each student started work with their group. One student
delivered the speech and the other member analyzed it to find out
the mistakes. After the student delivered the speech the other
opinions were about the pronunciation and grammar mistakes
based on their analysis in grid sheet. Each student must deliver
their opinion related with th
one by one based on the talking chips rule. The students repeated
it until all the students performed their speech an all the member
gave opinion. In this session the students communicated each
other. They learn from the other students about the mistakes and
the problems they faced. When all the students cannot solve the
problem they asked to the researcher.
After the discussion finished the researcher asked each
students to mention the mistakes and the problems they found in
the discussion. The mistakes and problems covered grammar and
pronunciation. When one student has delivered the mistakes and
the other have the same problem they did not need to mention it
again. In this session the researcher found some words than
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
62
mispronounced by the students. She wrote it in the white board.
The words were building, character, quality, even, enough,
youth, realize, etc. After that researcher gave the example how to
pronounce it by using CALD 3 then the students repeated it. In
here, the researcher started to use the drilling technique in a form
of repetition. The researcher also still found grammar problem
but not as much as pronunciation problems. There was a students
use double modal in a sentence. For example:
understand. The other example was that the students have
problem in passive voice such as After
students to correct their mistakes at home and they will practice
again next week in the same group.
Closing
asked them whether they enjoyed the lesson or not.
3) Planning for the Second Meeting
In this meeting, the students still asked the students to work in
group. She asked the students to perform their speech again in their
group. Students gave much chance to students in improving their
fluency by asking them to deliver their speech several times. It was
done in group first in order to minimize their nervous when they
deliver it in front of the class as post test. The researcher tried to
create the usual condition for students in delivering speech.
The researcher implemented the same teaching technique with
the previous meeting in the second meeting. She combined talking
pronunciation. This technique was helped by the using of CALD 3 as
the model of pronunciation.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
63
4) Action
Second meeting
Opening
The second meeting of the cycle 2 was conducted on
Wednesday, 2nd May 2012. The researcher started the lesson at
10.00-11.30 a.m. The researcher greeted the students and
checked their attendance. She reviewed the previous material.
Before starting the main activity the researcher asked the students
whether they had made any correction on their speech or not.
Then she told to the students that the students would work in the
previous group. She also told them that they would practice to
deliver their speech again.
Main activity
In this main activity the researcher did not need to explain
about the rule of talking chips. The researcher just told them that
they should work like in the previous meeting. They delivered
the speech and the other analyzed it. After that each of them gave
their opinion about the performance one by one based on the rule
of talking chips. Then the researcher asked them to mention the
problems and the mistakes they found during the discussion in
front of the class. in this meeting the teacher did not find
grammar mistakes any longer. But there were still some mistakes
in pronouncing the words. For example, key, occasion, chance,
develop, leave, etc. Although there were still any problems in
pronunciation, it did not as much as in the previous meeting. To
overcome this problem the researcher used drilling technique
again. She also used CALD 3 as the model in pronouncing the
words then it repeated by the students in several times to make
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
64
Closing
In this session the researcher asked the students whether
they enjoyed and understand the lesson or not. The researcher
also reviewed the material in this meeting.
Finally time was over. As usual, the researcher said
goodbye. Before leaving the class she announced that in the next
meeting they would have a test.
5) Planning for the Third Meeting
In this meeting the researcher together with the collaborator
would conduct the second post test. In the post test 2 the students
would be asked to deliver their speech. The researcher prepared an
audio recorder to record the test.
6) Action
Third meeting
Opening
The third meeting was conducted on Saturday, 26th May
2012. At that day they had speaking test. The researcher greeted
the students and checked their attendance. She gave instruction
about the speaking test. The instruction was that the students
Main activity
The students were asked to come forward based on the
students attendance list. They were asked to perform their
speech in front of the class. The researcher used voice recorder
gave the score based on the scoring rubrics of the speaking that
she had prepared before. The test had run well. After all the
students had been tested, she and her collaborator gave comment
improvement. The students were very happy to hear so.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
65
Closing the class
After giving comment, the researcher thanked to them and
said goodbye
7) Observing the Action
The observation was done and aimed at observing the effect of
action was conducted, the researcher acted as the teacher and the
collaborator observed the situation. The observation was conducted
when the talking chips was applied. The focus of the observation is
are the detail explanation of the observation in cycle 2:
a. The first meeting
The researcher began the class by greeting the students.
Then she asked the students whether they had made a hortatory
exposition in form of speech with topic
After making sure that all students had prepared the
speech the researcher announced the new group for discussion
through talking chips. In this meeting the researcher combined
talking chips and drilling technique.
During the talking chips, one student delivered the speech
whiles the others paid attention and made analysis about the
performance. The analysis covered the grammar and the
pronunciation mistakes. They had to write down their analysis in
the grid sheet. After the student finished with their performance,
the other gave opinion about the performance one by one. After
finishing with the talking chips procedure the researcher asked
the students to mention the problems and mistakes they found
during the discussion. Then the researcher explained about the
about the grammar mistakes then followed by
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
66
as model then the students repeated for several times. In the end
of the meeting the researcher asked the students to correct their
mistakes at home.
Second meeting
In the second meeting the researcher still applied the talking
chips technique and drilling technique. The procedure was the
same with the previous meeting. What made it different is that
this meeting more concerned to solve the pronunciation and
fluency problems. The students did more drilling in
pronunciation and practice more in delivering speech in order to
solve their fluency problems.
Third meeting
In the third meeting, the students did post test. it was to
ity. There
was improvement based on the final scores of first scorer. The
highest score was 85 and the lowest score was 63. The average
score was 63. Further it can be seen in the table 4.13.
Table 4.13
Post test score of cycle 2
No Explanation scorer scorer 1. Highest score 85 88 2. Lowest score 63 66 3. Average score 77 78.6
The following table showed the highest, lowest and the
average score of both scorers.
Table 4.14
Post test score of cycle 2 from both scorers
No Explanation Score
1. Highest score 86.5 2. Lowest score 64.5 3. Average score 77.8
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
67
Table 4.15
Post test average score of each aspects of cycle 2
No Explanation scorer scorer
1. Fluency 72.2 72.9 2. Vocabulary 78.5 83 3. Pronunciation 72.1 72.7 4. Grammar 81.3 83.2 5. Content 81 82.2
The score of each speaking aspects from both scorers is as
follows:
Table 4.16
Post test average score of each speaking aspects of cycle 2 from
both scorers
No Explanation Score 1. Fluency 72.5 2. Vocabulary 80.7 3. Pronunciation 72.4 4. Grammar 82.2 5. Content 81.6
The data in table 4.16 showed
speaking in four aspects. The score of fluency is 72.5, vocabulary
is 80.7, pronunciation is 72.4, grammar is 82.2 and the content is
81.6. In short, their score is above the KKM.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
68
The following chart showed the improvement of speaking
aspects of post test 1 and post test 2.
Chart 4.2
The improvement of speaking aspects of post test 1 and post test 2
8) Reflection
The positive result of the application of the talking chips
technique combined with drilling technique was that there were
in joining the speaking class. The
aking aspect namely fluency,
vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar and content increased.
Automatically the average score of speaking skill improve as well. It
was shown from the post test 1 score that 69.3 had improved to 77.8
in the post test cycle 2.
In th
chips teaching technique encouraged them to be able to speak
English, because the learning process was done in group. While they
56.4
75.2
59.1
74.2 81.1
72.5
80.7
72.4
82.2 81.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Post test 1
Post test 2
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
69
were doing the discussion, they communicated with the other
students in their own group. The students also got equal chances to
communicate in the group discussion. All the students including the
shy one involved during the group discussion.
Based on the result of the reflection, the researcher decided not
to revise the next plan and end the cycle of action.
B. The Research Finding
The researcher and the collaborator analyzed the result finding in the using
of talking chips technique combined with drilling technique in speaking class. The
finding includes the using of talking chips which combined with drilling can
in the class.
1.
The students average score in post test 1 was 69.3 then improved into
the pretest and post test can be seen in the chart below.
Chart 4.3
49
69.3 77.8
0
20
40
60
80
100
Speaking Skill
Pre test
Post test 1
Post test 2
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
70
The improvement of students speaking skill of each aspect is described in
the chart below:
Chart 4.4
2.
Beside the improvement of speaking score, another finding of the
class. The students were motivated to speak up during the teaching learning
process. The class is more alive because the students participated actively
during the teaching learning process. Even the shy students are very
motivated to do the task. They frequently speak in English rather than in
Indonesian. They feel confident to speak up during the discussion. It is
because working in group is less intimidating than working individually. It is
also caused by the researcher support, she always tells to the students that
The using of talking chips also encourages students to actively
interact in the class. Comparing to the situation in the observation, their
interaction improve significantly. It is caused by the equal chances that each
student has.
34.7
57.1
39.9
55 58.8 56.4
75.2
59.1
74.2 81.1
72.5
80.7
72.4
82.2 81.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Fluency Vocabulary Pronunciation Grammar Content
Pre test
Post test 1
Post test 2
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
71
C. Discussion
The overview of the research findings of the applying the talking chips
competence. The research findings above showed some important points as
follows: (1) the improvements of vocabulary, (2) the improvements of
pronunciation (3) the improvements of fluency (5) the improvements of the
content and (6
discussion.
Referring to the findings in this research, there were two main points to be
discussed. They were the improvement of students speaking competence and the
participations in the teaching-learning process in
applying the talking chips technique. They were discussed as follows:
1. Ability
Based on the result of the test done in the first cycle compared to the
second cycle, there were improvements in the score of speaking are almost
every aspects of speaking competences. Improvements were on: (a) the
words and could say the sentences clearly; (b) students
students could arrange text using appropriate conjunction and express their
new words during the discussions related the topic that they were discussed.
Most students could use them properly for creating a hortatory exposition text
, most of students could deliver their
speech clearly and fluently because in the group discussion, the students were
not shy to speak anymore. Moreover there were no interruptions while they
were delivering their idea and speech. Therefore, their ideas flow fluently.
This is stated by brown (2001: 270) that fluency can be best achieved by
allowing the stream of speech to flow; (e) the content of the text, the students
could produce a speech with a good content. The content of their speech is
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
72
appropriate with the topic provided by the researcher because they shared their
idea during the discus
According to Fulcer (2003: 23-29) states that to be clearly understood by the
listener ;( 1) the speaker must mind his accent or pronunciation, intonation and
stress; (2) the speech should be correct and fluent. The correctness refers to
word order, conjunction, preposition and tenses.
The students were able to communicate with others in the group while
preparing the speech. They delivered ideas or opinions with their simple
language or in the novice level. It means that by using talking chips which has
been applied in this research, there were improvements in each of speaking
aspects because this technique enabled the students to interact with the other
members of the group. The interactions enabled the students to get support or
even challenge from their mates. Thus, the students tented to make effort to be
better. It is said by Silberman (1996:99) that one of the best ways to create
active learning is to give learning assignment that are carried out in small
group of students. The peer support and diversity of viewpoints, knowledge,
and skill help to make collaborative learning become a good part of classroom
learning climate. Therefore, the students would have chances to interact, to
transfer their knowledge, to be the model, and to be supporter and competitor
towards their member of the group. The improvement of students speaking
scores can be seen in the table 4.17
Table 4.17
No Explanation Pre Test Post Test 1 Post Test 2 1. Highest score 64 83.5 86.5 2. Lowest score 30 55.5 64.5 3. Average score 49 69.3 77.8
From the table above, it is seen that there are improvements of the
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
73
2. Teaching
Learning Process
Based on the observation in cycle 1 and cycle 2, it was found that
there were improvements in each meeting in the cycles. The improvements
were on speaking class and
ess in the group discussion.
By using talking chips in this research, there were improvements in
participation as stated by Barkley (2005:18-120) that talking chips is one of
the collaborative learning techniques which has specific characteristic in
emphasizing full participation and encourage reticent students to speak out. It
could be concluded that the use of t
speaking competence and participation was clearly proved.
Their active participation in the group discussion gradually improved
from cycle to cycle because talking chips creates equal joy to learn, equal
share of job and equal chance to practice. The students then, have self
motivation to finish their job consciously for their own benefit to have the
same chance to practice talking as it stated by Barkley (2005:118-120) that by
using this technique, the contribution of the members for the success of
achieving the meaningful learning is bigger than using individual technique.
Besides, active learning, equal contribution and enjoyment are achieved
optimally through this collaborative learning.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
74
74
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATION AND SUGGESTION
This chapter describes the conclusion, implication, and suggestion of the
research of the applying the talking chips technique in improving the eleventh
A. Conclusion
After carrying out a research using talking chips to improve the speaking
competence of the eleventh grade students of SMA Negeri 4 Surakarta, it can be
conclude as the following:
1.
competence. The improvements can be seen from the increase of their scores
in every assessments test given after the treatments. Their scores gradually
increase in every cycle. Compared to the criteria of success stated in the
school curriculum that the students should pass the minimum standard of
passing grade (71),there were increases of the percentages of the students who
passed the passing grade in every cycle. The improvement was also identified
vocabulary and pronunciation. They got better comprehending other ideas and
had better grammar. Besides the grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation and
comprehension related the content, their fluency was also improved.
2. The implementation of talking chips can create an active class. Proofs can be
become active in participating in the group discussion, even the reticent
students. Good communication occurred among the members of the groups.
Therefore, they become more confident to speak up in delivering their ideas in
the group discussion.
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
75
From the statements above, it can be concluded that the objective of the
students of SMA Negeri 4 Surakarta is made well.
B. Implication
The result of the research shows that the implementation of talking chips
eleventh grade students. The strength of the implementation of talking chips is
that this technique gives equal chances for each member of the group. This can
make the students have similar chances to practice. The high frequency of
practices can increase their self confidence to talk. Thus, better pronunciation,
more vocabulary, and more familiar to the grammar can be achieved. It is also can
make the st
communicate and share their idea, so they can create a speech with good content.
In short, the implementation of the technique gives the students chance to be more
competence in speaking and of course, it is possible to apply this technique to
other classes of same grade or even higher ones.
C. Suggestion
Based on the result of the research stated in the previous chapter, there are
advantages of the implementation of the talking chips in the speaking class.
Therefore, some suggestions are given focusing on the implementation of the
technique to the followings:
1. The teachers
It is suggested to make a good planning for carrying out a good speaking
class using the above technique. The teacher should understand the basic
characteristics of the collaborative learning technique that it shares equal job
to each member and gives equal chance to participate or contribute in the
group. To create good speaking class, the teacher should concern of the
followings. They are: (a) see what the students needs. Teacher should
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
76
the suitable topic for the lesson in order to gain the goal easier, (b) be creative
in applying the technique. Teachers should know well the characteristics of
the techniques or methods they are going to use in delivering a lesson and
adjust it in accordance to both the students and the class condition, and (c)
treat the students as a subject of learning process not as object. Therefore, the
students should know well what to do when they have speaking class with the
technique. It is the students who learn the lesson. So, keep them learning in a
joyful and conducive situation.
2. The students
Speaking is easy but become good speaker is a bit difficult. Therefore, it
is suggested for them to open their mind to be more confident to use the
language more often to communicate with the others as they have equal
chance to talk in the group discussion when they implement the technique. It
is also suggested to take every chance they have to practice speaking English
because practice make perfect. Therefore, never be shy to speak up and never
be afraid of making mistakes because mistakes are the part of learning process
3. The institution
The institution should motivate the teachers to improve their competence
in using the technique for carrying out good class. Therefore, they can create
good classes which enable students to learn their subject well and pleasantly.
To support this, the institution should provide more books for references. By
reading many references on how to create active classes, build good climate of
learning and help students study optimally in class applying the collaborative
learning technique using talking chips. The institution should encourage and
facilitate teachers to do similar researches in order to be able to develop new
techniques in having speaking class. Teachers will not teach in monotonous
ways anymore.
4. Other Researchers
The result may inspire other researcher to do further research on the
technique because there is no perfect research. This report of the research may
perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id
commit to user
77
become the step stone for the other researchers to do similar research which
may become the answer to the problems that have not been answered in the
research. It may also become the reference to the similar research on the same
subject bust using different techniques or methods. It is suggested that before
making research, search as many as possible books and other similar research
to help the complete description on what you are going to deal with or what
you are going to talk about.