english department teacher training and …... · speaking skill includes: 1) ... lesson plan ......

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


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


commit to user

iii


commit to user

iv


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.


commit to user

vi

MOTTO


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.


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.


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


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


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


commit to user

xii

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION AND SUGGESTION ........... 75

A. Conclusion ...................................................................... 75

B. Implication ...................................................................... 76

C. Suggestion ....................................................................... 76

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................... 78

APPENDICESS .................................................................................................. 81


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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?


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.


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.


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.


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


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,


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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)


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



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


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.


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.


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-


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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)


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.


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


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


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!


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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.

english department teacher training and …... · speaking skill includes: 1) ... lesson plan ......

Documents