-
i
THESIS
IMPROVING SPEAKING SKILL BY USING CHAIN
DRILL TECHNIQUE AT THE EIGHTH GRADE
STUDENTS OF SMPN I AMLAPURA IN ACADEMIC
YEAR 2013/2014
MILA JANUAR WIDYANINGSIH
ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM
FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION
MAHASARASWATI DENPASAR UNIVERSITY
DENPASAR
2014
-
ii
THESIS
IMPROVING SPEAKING SKILL BY USING CHAIN
DRILL TECHNIQUE AT THE EIGHTH GRADE
STUDENTS OF SMPN I AMLAPURA IN ACADEMIC
YEAR 2013/2014
MILA JANUAR WIDYANINGSIH
NPM. 10.8.03.51.31.2.5.3981
ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM
FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION
MAHASARASWATI DENPASAR UNIVERSITY
DENPASAR
2014
-
iii
PRE-REQUISITE TITLE
IMPROVING SPEAKING SKILL BY USING CHAIN
DRILL TECHNIQUE AT THE EIGHTH GRADE
STUDENTS OF SMPN I AMLAPURA IN ACADEMIC
YEAR 2013/2014
Thesis
As Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Education Study Program
Faculty of Teacher Training and Education
Mahasaraswati Denpasar University
MILA JANUAR WIDYANINGSIH
NPM 10.8.03.51.31.2.5.3981
ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM
FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION
MAHASARASWATI DENPASAR UNIVERSITY
DENPASAR
2014
-
vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
First of all, the researcher would like to express her
great-sincere
gratitude to the Almighty God, Alloh SWT, the only God, who
gives power,
strength, blesses and mercies so that this thesis entitle
Improving Speaking Skill
by Using Chain Drill Technique at the Eighth Grade Students of
SMPN I
Amlapura in Academic Year 2013/2014 could finally be completed
on the due
date.
Her tremendous gratitude further goes to her first and second
advisor,
Nengah Dwi Handayani,S.Pd.,M.Pd. and AA Istri Yudhi
Pramawati,SS.,M.Hum.
who have already guided her and shared their brilliant ideas for
the improvement
of the thesis. In addition, she would like to thank their
helpful guidance and
correction during the writing of the thesis.
Moreover, she also wishes to share out her gratefulness to
the
Headmaster and an English Teacher of SMPN I Amlapura for their
permission
and of course the eighth grade students of VIII B for their kind
assistance during
the process of gathering the data needed for the present
study.
Next, she is also deeply indebted to her parents, Mr. Sonny
Sudarsono
and Ms. Sumarni, and her brother sisters who have given their
prayer, support and
motivation so that she is able to complete her study
successfully.
Finally, she would like to dedicate this thesis to her beloved
husband,
Alvin Kurniawan, and her lovely daughter, Almira Rahma Maulidya,
who have
given their prayer, love, affection, fidelity, devotion and
tremendous support
during the process of writing the thesis. The researcher would
not able to finish
this thesis without the help of the above mentioned people.
Amlapura, February 2014
The researcher,
Mila Januar Widyaningsih.
-
viii
ABSTRACT
Widyaningsih, M. J. (2014). Improving Speaking Skill by Using
Chain Drill
Technique at the Eighth Grade Students of SMPN I Amlapura in
Academic Year 2013/2014. The first Advisor: Nengah Dwi
Handayani, S.Pd., M.Pd. and the Second Advisor: AA Istri
Yudhi
Pramawati, SS., M.Hum.
The undertaking of the present classroom action research was
mainly
intended to figure out whether or not chain drill technique can
improve the
subjects speaking skill. The subjects of the present study was
the eighth grade B students of SMPN I Amlapura in academic year
2013/2014 that consisted of 35
students, 14 females and 21 males. Based on the result of the
pre-test which was
carried out in the pre-cycle, it pointed out that the subjects
ability in describing something or someone orally was categorized
insufficient. The total score of pre-
test was 1852 and the mean score was 52.91. In IR, only 2,85% of
the subjects
under study reached the standard minimum achievement, where the
standard
minimum achievement (KKM) in SMPN I Amlapura was 77. The
present
classroom action research then was carried out by implementing
chain drill
technique in two-planned cycles, cycle 1 and cycle 2, which each
cycle consisted
of two sessions. The result of the post-test 1 (R1) obviously
showed that there was
significant improvement concerning the subjects speaking skill
in describing something or someone. The total score of post-test 1
was 2460 and the mean was
70.28. In post-test 1, the computation showed that 20% of the
subjects under study
reached the standard minimum achievement. The scores of Cycle II
were
excellent. The total score of R2 was 2824 and the mean was
80.68. In post-test 2, the computation of the scores showed that
80% of the subjects under study
reached the standard minimum achievement, which meant that the
study was
successful in improving subjects speaking skill. This research
furthermore showed that there was changing learning behavior as the
result of positive
responses concerning the technique applied in improving the
subjects speaking skill. To sum up, the present classroom action
study proved that chain drill
technique could improve speaking skill of the eighth grade
students of SMPN I
Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014; in addition, the subjects
also responded
positively the implementation of chain drill technique in
speaking activity.
Keywords: improving, chain drill technique, speaking skill
-
ix
TABLE OF CONTENT
COVER...............................................................................................
i
INSIDE
COVER..................................................................................
ii
PRE-REQUISITE
TITLE.....................................................................
iii
APPROVAL SHEET
1............................................................................
iv
APPROVAL SHEET
2...........................................................................
v
STATEMENT OF
AUTHENTICITY.....................................................
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENT........................................................................
vii
ABSTRACT.........................................................................................
viii
TABLE OF
CONTENT........................................................................
ix
LIST OF
TABLES................................................................................
xi
LIST OF
GRAPHS..............................................................................
xii
LIST OF
APPENDICES.....................................................................
xiii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION.......................................................
1
1.1 Background of the
study...................................... 1
1.2 Research
problem................................................ 3
1.3 Objectives of the
study........................................ 4
1.4 Limitation of the
study........................................ 4
1.5 Significance of the
study....................................... 4
1.6 Definition of key
terms......................................... 5
CHAPTER II THEORITICAL AND EMPIRICAL REVIEW.............. 7
2.1 Theoritical
Review............................................. 7
2.1.1 Speaking Skill.........................................
7
2.1.2 The Elements of Speaking..................... 9
2.1.3 Assessesing Speaking............................. 13
2.1.4 Chain Drill Technique............................. 15
2.2 Empirical
Review.............................................. 17
2.3
Hypothesis........................................................
18
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD 19
3.1 Subject of The
Study.......................................... 19
3.2 Research
Design.................................................. 19
-
x
3.3 Research
Procedure............................................ 23
3.3.1 Planning.................................................
24
3.3.2
Action..................................................... 24
3.3.3 Observation..............................................
25
3.3.4
Reflection................................................. 26
3.4 Research
Instrument............................................. 26
3.5 Data
Collection....................................................
27
3.6 Data
Analysis......................................................
28
3.7 Success
Indicator................................................. 30
CHAPTER IV FINDING AND DISCUSSION
4.1
Finding..............................................................
29
4.1.1 Pre-cycle................................................
29
4.1.2 Cycle 1..................................................
30
4.1.3 Cycle 2...................................................
32
4.1.4 Questionnaire.........................................
34
4.2
Discussion........................................................
36
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1
Conclusion.......................................................
38
5.2
Suggestion......................................................
39
REFERENCES...................................................................................
42
APPENDICES..................................................................................
44
-
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table of Oral Proficiency Scoring
Categories..................................... 27
Table 4.1 Tabulation of data showing the subjects progressing
score in
Speaking after the implementation of chain drill
technique........... 33
-
xii
LIST OF GRAPH
Graph 4.1 Depicting the subjects progressing achievement in
speaking by
Using chain drill
technique............................................................
36
-
xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Daftar nama siswa kelas VIII
B............................ 45
Appendix 2 Lesson Plan of Cycle 1 and Cycle
2...................... 46
Appendix 3 The Instruments of pre-test, post-test 1, post-test
2
and questionnaire...............................................
54
Appendix 4 The scores of pre-test, post-test 1, post test 2
and questionnaire..............................................
58
Appendix 5 Surat pengantar penelitian dari kampus...............
62
Appendix 6 Surat keterangan dari SMPN I Amlapura............
63
Appendix 7
Biography......................................................
64
-
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
There are four skills in learning English those are listening,
speaking,
reading and writing. But, the mastery of speaking skills in
English is a priority for
many second-language or foreign-language learners (Richards,
2008:19). Why it
is become the priority? Because english is an international
language which is used
by all people around the world to communicate with others. From
a pragmatic
view of language performance, listening and speaking are almost
always closely
interrelated (Brown, 2003:140). Both cannot be separated. By
listening a correct
model, students will be able to speak correctly. By creating
English atmosphere in
the classroom placed teacher as a model, students will
accustomed to use english
orally to express their mind, feeling, communicate with their
friends and teacher
and etc, so they will able to use English fluently in daily
life.
The problems were found when the writer did PPL in SMPN I
Amlapura.
Students were lazy to speak. When they were asked to speak, they
used their first
language (native language) rather than using English. It is
because they do not
accustomed to use English in English class. The students
difficulties in speaking
are caused by the lacked of related vocabularies, low ability in
constructing
sentences and utterances, and also low motivation to participate
in speaking
activity caused by shyness and embarrassment in making
mistake.
The situation was getting worse because teachers fault in
deciding the
material and also teaching technique which made students felt
bored and lost
interest in the speaking class. Moreover, teacher did not
explore students
-
2
potential to speak as he did not provide many chances for
students to speak
because the class was teacher-centered, teacher who talk alot
and dominate the
class. This type of teaching technique made students lazy to
speak. They also
could not perform maximally in the speaking test where the
Standard Minimum
Achievement (KKM) score is 77 point for English course but their
mean score of
daily test was 70; consequently, the students must do remedial
phases to pass the
test. That was unsatisfactory result for the students that is
why they need to be
motivated by applaying teaching teachnique which is able to make
them
enthusiastic and confident in expressing their mind in the
target language.
For years, experts have totally given their mind in the study
of
developing techniques and methods to teach English as the second
language in
order to improve the motivation of the students in learning
English. As the result,
a variety of English teaching techniques and methods have been
found and
applied in every level of education. One of them is chain drill,
a teaching
technique that is created from the Audio Lingual Method firstly
applied by
Charles Fries (1945) of the University of Michigan
(Larsen-Freeman, 2000:35).
Teaching speaking by using chain drill technique is started by
the
teacher. Teacher prepares questions to be asked to the student
nearest with the
teacher. Chain drill gives students an opportunity to speak
their idea individually.
The teacher listens and can tell which students are struggling
and will need more
practice. A chain drill also lets students use the expressions
in communication
with someone, eventhough the communication is very limited.
Then, teacher
addresses a questions to the student nearest with her. After
that, the first student
responds to the teachers question. The teacher ask another
questions then the first
-
3
student answers or responds the questions given. The first
student understand
through teachers gestures then he turns to the student sitting
beside him and ask
questions like teacher asked before. The second student, in
turn, says her lines in
replay to him (first student). When the second student has
finished, she greets and
asks questions to the student on the other side of her. This
chain continues until all
of the students get a chance to ask and answer the questions.
The last student
directs the greeting and asking questions to the teacher.
This kind of technique is really fun and makes students enjoy
the lesson.
Teaching by using chain drill technique will make students enjoy
and understand
more the point of the material given, moreover it will improve
students speaking
skill as well. That is why in this research, the writer would
use Chain drill
Technique to improve speaking skill at the eighth grade students
of SMPN I
Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014.
1.2 Research Problem
As already been explained above that the achievement of students
in
speaking was quite low and it influences their score and also
their confidence in
using English for communication, the teaching-learning process
must be riched by
using Chain drill technique as a solution to solve the
weaknesses of the students in
speaking. So, the problem that is going to be discussed in this
study can be
formulated as follows: can the speaking skill of the eighth
grade students of
SMPN I Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014 be improved using
Chain Drill
Technique?
-
4
1.3 Objective of the Study
To be able to answer the statement of research question above,
the
objective of the study is to figure out whether or not Chain
Drill Technique can
improve speaking skill of the eighth grade students of SMPN I
Amlapura in
academic year 2013/2014. This study was conducted in order to
know the
students confidence, motivation and improvement during the
technique applied in
speaking class. In addition, the hope of this study is that
Chain Drill Technique
can be a better way in teaching speaking.
1.4 Limitation of the Study
This research is only limited on the use of Chain Drill
Technique in
improving students speaking skill of the eighth grade students
of SMPN I
Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014 with the material about
describing
something or someone.
1.5 Significance of the Study
The concern of this research is teaching speaking by using Chain
Drill
Technique. The use of this research is to know how the technique
can overcome
the problem faced by the students and an English teacher in
improving students
speaking skill. At the end, this research has significance of
the study which is
devided into theoretical and practical.
Theoretically, this research is expected to support the existing
theories
and empirical evidences of the working knowledge and principles
of English
language teaching particularly to the achievement of the
students speaking skill
-
5
by using Chain Drill technique. Practically, the study is
considered to be practical
in its nature that is to provide the educational feedback.
For the English teacher, the finding of this study would help
teacher in
determining the methods and techniques of teaching as the way to
create new
atmosphere and new habit which can improve students motivation
and
confidence in learning English.
For the eighth grade students, the finding of this study would
help
students in understanding more the material given by the
teacher. This finding
also hoped can improve students motivation and confidence,
creating new habit
and new atmosphere which will improve their achievement too.
For the school, the finding of this study would be able to
increase the
schools score which will make it to be the most favourite school
among others.
1.6 Definition of Key Terms
In order to avoid the misunderstanding of this investigation to
the
readers, the definition of key terms is used to make it clear in
comprehending this
study, such as: Improving Speaking skill, Chain Drill Technique
and SMPN I
Amlapura.
1. Improving Speaking skill
Speaking is the activities by which human beings try to express
thought,
feeling, opinion and to exchange information by using utterances
in the form of
communication. And speaking skill is the ability to produce
words, to express, to
state, and to deliver thought, ideas and feeling. Speaking is a
tool of
communication that is why it is necessary for people to improve
their speaking
skill in order to have a good communication with others.
-
6
2. Chain Drill Technique
Chain Drill technique is a teaching technique that is created
from the
Audio Lingual Method firstly applied by Charles Fries (1945) of
the University of
Michigan. Chain drill gives students an opportunity to say the
lines individually.
The teacher listens and can tell which students are struggling
and will need more
practice. A chain drill also lets students use the expressions
in communication
with someone, eventhough the communication is very limited. This
chain
continues until all of the students get a chance to ask and
answer the questions.
3. SMPN I Amlapura
SMPN I Amlapura is the level of junior high school which is
located in
Ngurah Rai Street Amlapura, Karangasem regency, Bali. SMPN I
Amlapura is the
favourite school in Karangasem and becomes the place where the
research will be
conducted.
-
7
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL REVIEW
2.1 Theoretical Review
The theoretical review is used in a scientific study and it
should be based
on some theoretical background and empirical evidences. On the
other hand, it
needs as foundation that can guide this scientific study. The
background of this
study is related to some theoretical which will be discussed as
follows:
2.1.1 Speaking Skill
According to the Webster College Dictionary (2003:873), to speak
means
to utter words with the voice; to utter by means of words (speak
the truth), to
address a gathering, to mention in speech or writing, to carry a
meaning as if by
speech, to make a natural or characteristic sound, to use in
talking. Speak may
apply to any articulated sounds ranging from the least to the
most coherent. While
talk is less technical and less formal and implies a listener
and connected
discourse or exchange thoughts. On the other hand, speech means
the
communication or expression of thoughts in spoken words.
Furthermore,
Kushartanti, et al (2005:32) defines speaking as set of voices
uttered by one and
understood by someone else. In line with these, the researcher
conclude that
speaking is the verbal communication between people. When two
people are
engaged in talking to each other, the researcher is sure that
they are doing
communication. Communication between people is an extremely
complex and
ever changing phenomenon. There are certain generalizations that
we can make
-
8
about the majority of communicative events and these have
particular relevance
for the learning and teaching process.
People do communication for some reasons. Jeremy Harmer
(2002:46)
stated the reasons as follows:
(1) They want to say something. What is used here is general way
to
suggest that the speakers make definite decisions to address
other people.
Speaking may, of course, be forced upon them, but we can still
say that they feel
the need to speak, otherwise they would keep silent.
(2) They have some communicative purpose. Speakers say
things
because they want something to happen as a result of what they
say. They may
want to charm their listeners; to give some information, to
express pleasure; they
may decide to be rude or flatter. To agree or complain. In each
of these cases they
are interested in achieving this communicative purpose what is
important the
message they wish to convey and the effect they want it to
have.
(3) They select from their language store. Speakers have an
infinite
capacity to create new sentences. In order to achieve this
communication purpose
they will select (from the store of language they posses) the
language they think
is appropriate for this purpose.
Of course there will be a desire to communicate on the part of
the
students and they will also have a communicative purposes. When
the students are
involved in a drill or in repetition, they will be motivated the
need to reach the
objective of accuracy. The emphasis is on the form of the
language. A teacher
should be in creating procedures of teaching in order that the
objective is reached.
-
9
Speaking is an important skill that must be taught in language
class. It is
widely argued that the success of using a language especially
second language and
foreign language in real life situation can be determined
through speaking. The
idea strengthened by Richards, he stated that the mastery of
speaking skills in
English is a priority for many second-language or
foreign-language learners.
Consequently, learners often evaluate their success in language
learning as well as
the effectiveness of their English course on the basis of how
much they feel they
have improved in their spoken language proficiency (2008:19).
English becomes
the priority because English is an international language spoken
all over the
world. That is why some job vacancies often require the jobs
seeker to be able to
speak fluently as their main requirement (Norton in Hornberger,
2010:96).
According to Thornbury, it is generally acceptable that knowing
a language and
being able to speak it are not synonymous (2005:1). It means
that someone who
knows a lot about a language can not be guaranteed to have a
good speaking skill
in that language. Thornbury also defines speaking as a part of
daily life that we
take it for granted (2005:1). In other words, in our daily life
speaking is an
important tool that we use to communicate through the words
arrangement that we
produce. As been stated above, we knew that mastering speaking
skill is the
priority in learning a language.
2.1.2 The Elements of speaking
To be a good speaker, the ability to produce utterance
(utterances) is not
enough. There are much linguistics to be mastered by languages
learners in order
to be able to express their feelings and ideas appropriately.
Here are the elements
of speaking according to Harmer in his book The Practice of
English Language
-
10
Teaching that the speakers have to be competent in speaking
skill, those are
language features in which contains four points. They are:
Connected speech. It is the sounds modifying in producing
utterance when
people speak. In which includes modifying (assimilation),
omitting (elision),
adding (linking), or weakening (through contraction and stress
patterning).
Expressive devices. It is the stress and pitch variation in
producing utterance
in order to convey the truth meaning of the messages meant by
the speaker. It
includes the variation of the volume and speed of the speech. By
using these
devices, people will be able to show what and how they feel to
whom they are
talking to.
Grammar and lexis. People live in different ways, places and
environments
which is causing a different mind set too. Therefore, teachers
need to supply
their students with various phrases for different function in
their speaking
classroom activity. For instance, students will know what
expressions they
have to use appropriately in different stages of
interaction.
Negotiation language. This is the speech clarification. It is
the use of
language on how to clarify and to show what they means.
Sometimes people
do not hear or understand what other peoples saying. Therefore,
it is
necessary to have an appropriate language of how to clarify in
order to avoid
missunderstanding between speaker and the listener (Harmer,2001:
267-270).
In addition, Harmer concerned with other elements of speaking
that is
necessary to be mastered by a successful speaker; those are
mental/ social
processing and the rapid processing which involves language
processing,
interaction and information processing.
-
11
Language processing. Effective speakers need to be able to
process language
in their own head and put it into coherent order, so that it
comes out in forms
that are not only comprehensible, but also convey the meaning
that are
intended.
Interaction. Most speaking involves interaction with one or more
participants.
It means that effective speaking also involves a good deal of
listening, an
understanding of how others felt and a knowledge of how the
linguistically to
take turns or allow others to do so.
Informations processing. Quite apart from our response to others
feelings,
we also need to be able to process the information they take us
the moment
we get it. The longer it takes for The penny to drop, the less
effective we are
as an instant communicator. However, it should be remembered
that this
instant response is very culture-specific, and is not prized by
speaker in many
other language communities.
In line with these elements, the researcher concludes that,
speaker who
wishes to say anything has to consider two things. First, the
language feature by
which people know the use of language such as: how to modify the
sound and
how to use appropriate expression. Second, people also must know
how to arrange
words into the right order. Therefore, the intended messages are
sent. In this case,
people not only hope to be understood by someone else solely,
but also they have
to understand other participants feeling. Here, people are
demanded to know
when they have to take turn on the conversation and to allow the
others to do so.
Such those elements mentioned above showed that the speakers
must be
communicatively competence in the language they use. As it is
stated by Walter in
-
12
her book, about communicative competence that it defines as the
ability to use
language appropriately in variety of context (Walter, 2008:18)
which involves:
Grammatical Competence. It is a competency that focuses on the
accuracy
and correctness of using language code such as vocabulary,
spelling,
grammar, pronunciation and so on in the language skill
especially speaking
and writing.
Sociolinguistics Competence. It is a competency that focuses on
the use of
appropriate language in variety social setting. Here, the target
language
speaker is demanded to know how, where and when the language
will be
uttered by them in appropriate situation, such as how to invite,
how to asking
information, how to describe something and etc.
Discourse Competence. It is a competency that focuses on the
appropriateness
of combining and conecting phrases and sentences in engaging
conversation.
Strategic Competence. It is a competency that focuses on
manipulation of
language in achieving the communication goals. This competency
involves
the use of both verbal and nonverbal, such as changing the voice
tone, using
the body language and emphasizing the specific word (Walter,
2008:19).
Apparently, it can be seen in following figure about
communicative
competence and its elements.
Figure: The Elements of Communicative Competence (Walter,
2008:19)
Grammatical
Competence
Socio-linguistics
Competence
Communicative
Competence
Discourse
Competence
Strategic
Competence
-
13
From those elements and competencies mentioned above, it can
be
concluded that to be a good speaker, he or she has to master
language elements.
On the other hand, it is not enough to have a lot of vocabulary
without other
knowledge.
2.1.3 Assessing Speaking
Speaking skill is the ability to use the language in oral form.
In junior and
senior high schools this skill is limited to the ability to
conduct a simple
conversations on some subject (e.g. expressing regret,
gratitude, agreement, offer,
certainty, etc.). Among the four skills, speaking skill is a
difficult one to assess
with precision, because speaking is a complex skill to acquire.
In giving scores,
there is rating scale developed by H.Douglas Brown. It showed
six items
generally recognized in analysis of speech process : Grammar,
Vocabulary,
Comprehension, Fluency, Pronunciation, Task (Brown,
2003:172-173).
According to Brown, there are 5 basic types of speaking, those
are
imitative, intensive, responsive, interactive and extensive
(2003:141-142).
Imitative is the type of speaking performance which the ability
is to
simply parrot back (imitate) a word or phrase or possibly a
sentence. The
examples of imitative assessment tasks given here are: Word
repetition task and
phonepass test.
Intensive is the production of short stretches of oral language
designed to
demonstrate competence in narrow band of grammatical, phrasal,
lexical or
phonological relationships (such as prosodic
elements-intonation, stress, rhthym,
jucture). The examples of intensive assessment tasks include
directed response
-
14
tasks, reading aloud, sentence and dialogue completion; limited
picture cued tasks
including simple sequences; and translation up to the simple
sentence level.
Responsive asessment tasks include interaction and test
comprehension
but at the some what limited level of very short conversations,
standart greetings
and small talk, simple request and comments and the like. The
stimulus is almost
always a spoken prompt (in order to preserve authenticity), with
perhaps only one
or two follow-up questions or retorts.
Interactive assessment task has quiet same model in its test
with the
responsive task, both emphazise the spoken prompt. The
difference between
responsive and interactive speaking is in the length and
complexity of the
interaction, which sometimes include multiple exchanges and/or
multiple
participants. Interactions can take the two forms of
transactional language, which
has the purpose of exchanging specific information, or
interpersonal exchanges
which has the purpose of maintaining social relationships. In
interpersonal
exchanges, oral production can become pragmatically complex with
the need of
speak in a casual register and use colloquial language,
ellipsis, slang, humor and
other sociolinguistic conventions.
Extensive (monologue) oral production tasks include speeches,
oral
presentations and story-telling, during which the opportunity
for oral interaction
from listeners is either highly limited or ruled out
altogether.
Brown also added there are micro- and macroskills of speaking.
The list
of speaking skills can be drawn up for the purpose that is to
serve as a taxonomy
of skills from which you will select one or several that will
become the
objective(s) of an assessment task. The microskills refer to
producing the smaller
-
15
chunks of language such as phonemes, morphemes, words,
collocations and
phrasal units. Then the Macroskills imply the speakers focus on
the large
elements: fluency, discourse, function, style, cohesion,
nonverbal communication
and strategic options. The micro- and macroskills total roughly
16 different
objectives to assess in speaking (Brown, 2003:142).
In assessing the tests, the writer followed rating scale
developed by
H.Douglas Brown (Brown, 2003:172-173). It showed six items that
were
important to be scored: Grammar, Vocabulary, Comprehension,
Fluency,
Pronunciation, Task. However, in this study, researcher do not
give score on all
items showed but creates the scoring rubric to be as simple as
possible based on
the students ability.
2.1.4 Chain Drill Technique
Speaking skill preceded by listening. Through listening, people
know
vocabulary they do not know before. Brown strengthened the idea
above, he
stated that Speaking is a productive skill that can be directly
and empirically
observed, those observations are invariably colored by the
accuracy and
effectiveness of a test-takers listening skill, which
necessarily compromises the
reliability and validity of an oral production test (2003:140).
In short, both
speaking and listening is integrated. This idea was strengthened
by Rost in Hinkel,
she stated that listening refers to a complex cognitive process
that allows a person
to understand spoken language (2005:503). Broadly speaking,
speaking skill is
influenced by listening skill.
Chain Drill Technique integrating both skills, speaking and
listening, in
learning process. According to Larsen-Freeman (2000:46) we have
to use drills if
-
16
we want the students to be able to speak English
communicatively. Furthermore,
she explained that drills, as part of audio-lingual method, have
been used in
teaching speaking. Since the primary goal of the audio-lingual
method is to use
the target language communicatively, drills are suitable for
teaching speaking.
Chain Drill itself is a teaching technique that is created from
the Audio Lingual
Method firstly applied by Charles Fries (1945) of the University
of Michigan.
And for this reason, it has sometimes been referred to as the
Michigan Method
(Larsen-Freeman, 2000:35). A chain drill gets its name from the
chain of
conversation that forms around the room as students, one-by-one,
ask and answer
questions of each other (Larsen-Freeman, 2000:48).
The rules of chain drill activity are that the activities begun
as the teacher
greets and asks questions to a particular student (student A).
Then student A will
respond the questions. After that, student A takes turn to ask
another student
sitting next to him. This activity will continuously work until
the last turn of the
last student. At the end, the last student directs greeting and
asking questions back
to the teacher.
A chain drill allows some controlled communication among the
students
while teacher can check students speech as well. Either teacher
or students
themselves can correct their friends oral sentences whether they
are well-
constructed or not. As the result, any mistakes that probably
occur can be
corrected directly as soon as possible. Besides, the use of peer
students correction
will prevent students worrying in making mistake that can
improve their
confidence to try. The use of chain drill can encourage the
improvement of
students listening and speaking skills. They get listening skill
from listening to
-
17
their friends questions. Therefore, they have to focus on what
their friends asking
about. Once they can answer the question correctly, it means
that they absolutely
can understand the question. Moreover, the way they ask
questions or answer the
questions drives students to practice speaking. This activity
makes students
accustomed to express their ideas through oral speech. It also
creates a new habit
to use English in communicating with others that will improve
their speaking skill
as the result.
2.2 Empirical Review
In this section, we can see the two of many researchers that
have done
their research about Audio Lingual Teaching as an Alternative
Method in
Teaching Speaking and Developing Students Ability in Simple Past
Tense
through Chain Drills. Here are their researches:
According to Anggraeni (2007:6-7), language learning is a
habit
formation. That is why if the teacher wants students to be able
to use english
communicatively, teacher must create a new habit in the
classroom that is using
English as the main language for communication with others.
Drills technique as
part of audio lingual method is one of the solution in improving
students
speaking skill. From the result, it could be concluded that the
difference was
statistically significant. Therefore, based on the computation
there was significant
difference between teaching speaking after and before using
Audio-lingual
Method. Teaching speaking after using Audio-lingual Method was
more effective
than teaching speaking before using Audio-lingual Method. It
could be seen by
the result of the test where the students score was higher after
being given the
treatment (Anggraeni, 2007: 63).
-
18
Other research showed by Abinur (2011). Abinur used CAR in
this
research. She thought simple past tense through chain drill.
This research
consisted of two cycles and each cycle consisted of four
elements, they were
planning, action, observation and reflection. Each cycle was
conducted in two
meetings, so the researcher conducted this research in four
meetings for one
month and two weeks. To collect and analyze the data, the
researcher used the
information from interview, observation and students
achievements in pre-test
and post-test in order to support the data collected. The result
of this data showed
that using chain drill in teaching simple past tense in second
years of MTSN 17
Jakarta could motivate the students to learn simple past tense
and develop their
ability in simple past tense. The students responses showed that
they were
interested to learn simple past tense because they thought that
the chain drill
technique was interesting. Moreover, the students achievement,
based from pre-
test and post-test result, showed a significant improvement. In
conclusion,
teaching simple past tense through chain drills could develop
students ability in
learning English.
2.3 Hypothesis
The hypothesis is useful to give the answer or tentative
solution which
can help the researcher in finding the result and conclusion of
the study.
Therefore, in this study the hypothesis can be stated as
follows: speaking skill of
the eighth grade students of SMPN I Amlapura in academic year
2013/2014 can
be improved by using Chain Drill Technique.
-
19
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHOD
3.1 Subject of the Study
The Eighth grade students at SMPN I Amlapura were devided into
ten
classes. Class VIII B was taken as the subject of the research
because based on the
interview with the English teacher, students of VIII B got low
scores in speaking.
There were 35 students in this class, 14 females and 21 males,
which was
considerably enough to be the purpose of the study. The data of
students list
would be showed completely in the appendix 1.
After having the interview with the English teacher of the VIII
B class,
the researcher got some informations about the problems that
were faced by the
students in learning English. In addition, a serious problem
found was the
students difficulties in expressing their idea orally. Students
got bored in the class
and lazy to speak their mind because the teaching learning
process which was so
monotone and mostly emphasized teacher as the authority in
classroom and
students as the passive position. That is why students
achievement in speaking
still low so that they need a new teaching teachnique which is
fun and can make
them enjoy and confident in expressing their mind orally.
3.2 Research Design
The classroom action research was used in this study to apply
Chain Drill
Technique and optimalize this technique in improving speaking
skill.
Globalization era demanded educators to be more professional in
their job,
otherwise they will be left behind. So, it is important for them
to be more creative
-
20
in finding a new kind of methods in teaching process. To support
all those things,
they have to conduct their own strategy of teaching by doing
some kinds of
research.
Hewitt and Little stated that Action research is a model of
professional
development that promotes collaborative inquiry, reflection and
dialogue. Within
the action research process, educators study students learning
related to their own
teaching. It is a process that allows educators to learn about
their own
instructional practices and continue monitoring the improvement
of students
learning (2005:1). Furthermore, Guskey in Hewitt and Little
stated that the idea of
action research is that educational problems and issues are best
identified and
investigated where the action is at the classroom and school
level. By integrating
research into these settings and engaging those who work at this
level in research
activities, findings can be applied immediately and problems
solved more quickly
(2005:1).
Within the action research process, teachers may choose to focus
their
study on one student, a small group of students, a class or
several classes, or a
whole school. The focus and level of participation among school
and district
colleagues depended on the level of support, needs, and
interests of the teacher(s)
and school. Ary, et al (2010:512) also argued that action
research has been used in
a variety of settings, including schools, hospitals, health
clinics, community
agencies, government units, and other environments. It could be
used to enhance
everyday work practices, to resolve specific problems, and to
develop special
projects and programs.
-
21
Emily Calhoun in Hewitt and Little described three approaches to
action
research: individual teacher research, collaborative action
research, and school-
wide action research. Eventhough the environments are different,
the process of
action research remains the same. This process uses data to
identify
classroom/school problems, creates and implements a plan of
action, collects and
analyzes data, uses and shares the results, and makes
instructional decisions to
improve students learning continuously (2005:3).
According to Hewitt and little, the action research process
involved four
phases; Identifying a classroom problem, developing and
implementing an action
research plan, collecting and analyzing data, using and sharing
results (2005:2).
Another expert such as Kurt Lewin stated that the concept of
Action Research
design contained of four components; Planning, Acting, Observing
and Reflecting
(Kusumah and Dwitagama, 2009:20). But actually, both designs
above were
generally same in their action.
From those explanations, it could be concluded that the meaning
of
classroom action research was a kind of educational research
that aimed to
increase teaching and learning through problem solving. It
tempted to answer
questions related to some aspects of educational practice. Here
the teacher could
reflect on what they have discovered and then apply it to their
professional
practice.
3.3 Research Procedure
Classroom Action Research in this study took two cycles (Cycle I
and
Cycle II) which every cycle had two sessions. Those two sessions
consisted of
four activities which had bounding in every activity and they
were named:
-
22
Planning (P), Action (A), Observation (O), and Reflection (R).
However, in order
to measure the result of pre-existing speaking skill of eighth
grade of SMPN I
Amlapura, researcher administered Initial Reflection (IR). The
mean score of IR
would be compared to the corresponding mean score of R and at
the end of each
session would show the degree of speaking skills
improvement.
There were many kinds of the action researchs designs exist
at
present. Those are Kurt Lewins design, Kemmis and McTaggarts
design, Dave
Ebbut design, John Elliots design, McKernans design and many
more. However,
here the researcher focused on Kurt Lewins design. He was the
expert who
introduced the action research for the first time. His design
became the host and
the main basic of other further action research especially
classroom action
research. The concept of Kurt Lewins action research design
contains four
components those are Planning, Acting, Observing and Reflecting
(Kusumah and
Dwitagama, 2009:20) which could be showed completely below.
3.3.1 Planning
After making sure about the problem of the research, researcher
made a
preparation before doing an action researcher. The kind of
preparation could be
seen as follows:
(a) The steps and the activities during the research.
(b) Preparation for teaching facilities.
(c) Preparation for data analysis during the research
process.
(d) Preparation for all research in order not to make a mistake
during the research
such as alternative actions to solve the problem of the
research.
-
23
3.3.2 Action
Doing an action research was the main cycle of action research.
Then
was followed by observation, interpretation and also the
reflective activities. A
researcher must be very careful in practicing the classroom
research; he or she had
to follow the procedure or action planning during the research.
Action reffered to
what the researcher really do in the classroom setting during
the processes of
teaching speaking through chain drill technique which aimed was
to solve the
problems found.
The teaching process started with pre-activities. The teacher as
teacher
was greeting the students and checking their attendance list.
Pre-activities were
intended to activate the subjects prior knowledge related to the
topic which is
going to be discussed and practiced. The second phase was
whilst-activities. In
this phase the researcher carried the main process of teaching
speaking through
Chain Drill technique. Time allocation for these phase was about
40 minutes.
Firstly, teacher delivered some elicited questions about the
topic that is going to
be learnt. Secondly, the researcher would explain briefly about
the rules of chain
drill. Then students were given the descriptions topic. Thirdly,
teacher or
researcher asked questions to the student nearest to her, and
student respond
teachers questions. Then, he turned to ask another student
sitting next to him.
This activity was continuously work until the last turn of the
last student. The last
student directed greeting and asking questions to the
teacher.
Last phase was post-activities. Teacher asked students
difficulties in
learning speaking through chain drill technique. Teacher was
also asking about
what they feel during learning process using chain drill
technique. A chain drill
-
24
allowed some controlled communication among the students while
teacher could
check students speech as well. Either teacher or students
themselves could
correct their friends oral sentences whether they are
well-constructed or not. As
the result, any mistakes that probably occur could be corrected
directly as soon as
possible. Besides, the use of peer students correction will
prevent students
worrying in making mistake that can improve their confidence to
try.
3.3.3 Observation
In this step, a researcher had to observe all events or
activities during the
research. The observation could be classified into three
categories: (a) teachers
talk (b) pupils talk (3) silence or confusion.
Observation was a usual step when a researcher is observing or
assessing
the decision of research during teaching learning process as the
result of learning
interaction among the learners.
3.3.4 Reflection
A reflection was an effort to inspect what has or has not been
done, what
has or has not been resulted after having an alternative action.
The result of
reflection was used to establish the next steps of the research.
In other words, a
reflection was the inspection effort on the success or the
failure in reaching the
temporary purposes in order to determine the alternative steps
that are probably
made to get the final goals of the research (Hopkins in
Anggraeni, 2007:35)
After knowing the aims in conducting an action research, the
teacher
used an action research when he or she finds some problems such
as the students
have not achieved the target he/she expected during the teaching
learning process.
-
25
As a teacher, he or she has to find out the problem and try to
solve it. One way to
solve the problem was by conducting an action research. A
teacher did a
classroom action research and it was conducted in the class,
which involved all of
the students in the classroom. By doing an action research,
teachers might give
contribution to her or other teachers as well as to students in
general.
3.4 Research Instrument
To sustain the validity of the result, the researcher collected
data derived
from several ways. Those ways were tests and questionnaire.
1. Test
In present study, the students were given tests that separated
into two
tests (pre-test and post-test). The pre-test was administered in
order to find out
students pre-existing speaking skill before the researcher
conduct the reserch by
applying chain drill technique (X0). Furthermore, the post-test
was administered
in the end of each session. There were two cycles (cycle 1 and
cycle 2) in this step
where each cycle consist of two sessions. The last sessions of
each cycle, post-test
1(X1) and post-test 2 (X2) would be administered in order to
evaluate the
effectiveness of chain drill technique in teaching speaking with
the material in
describing something or someone. Moreover, those tests were
given because the
result would be easier to be quantified and analyzed by
comparing the scores of
X0, X1 and X2. The scores of the tests were ranging, depends on
the speakings
scoring rubric.
2. Questionnare
The questionnare was conducted to the eighth grade students of
SMPN I
Amlapura after the completion of cycle II. It was done to get a
clear picture of
-
26
students changes in their learning behaviour, their motivation,
their achievement
when they were taught speaking using chain drill technique. The
questionnaire
also let students to express their feeling about the teaching
technique, chain drill
technique, which was applied in the speaking activity.
3.5 Data Collection
There were three kinds of instruments used to gather the data of
this
classroom action study; pre-test, post-tests and questionnaire.
Thus, the data that
was gathered through administering pre-test, post-tests and
questionnaire to the
eighth grade students of SMPN I Amlapura, was required to answer
the research
question that was stated before. The pre-test of IR was
administered to the
subjects under study to obtain pre-existing speaking skill. In
pre-test, the subjects
were asked to describe someone orally. Pre-test was used to
measure the students
pre-existing speaking skill or before applying the chain drill
technique in teaching
speaking.. Post-test or reflection is administered twice (first
in cycle I and the
second was in cycle II). Furthermore, the questionnaire was
administered at the
end of cycle II to figure out how far the changes in students
learning behaviour,
their speaking achievement, their feeling and the new habit
created in the
classroom after implementing chain drill technique in teaching
speaking.
3.6 Data Analysis
Analysis means the categorizing, ordering, manipulating, and
summarizing of data obtain answers to research questions
(Kerlinger in
Anggraeni, 2007:56). The purpose of analysis was to reduce data
to be intelligible
and interpretable so that the relation of research problem could
be studied. In
-
27
scoring the test, the students called out in turn and the
researcher tested them by
asking the students to describe someone or something orally in
front of the class.
In giving scores, the researcher followed rating scale developed
by
H.Douglas Brown (Brown, 2003:172-173). It showed six items that
were
important to be scored: Grammar, Vocabulary, Comprehension,
Fluency,
Pronunciation, Task. While in this study, researcher did not
give score on all items
showed but created the scoring rubric to be as simple as
possible because the
students speaking ability was low. They only asked to construct
the drilled
answers into a comprehension sentences orally with the material
in describing
something or someone then perform it in front of the class.
Table: Oral Proficiency scoring categories
Point Comprehension Grammar Vocabulary Fluency Pronunciation
I Has very limited language experience
Errors in grammar
are frequent
Poor of
vocabularys repertory
Poor of
fluency
Errors in
pronunciation are
frequent
II Can get the gist of most conversation
of non-technical
subject
can usually handle
elementary
construction quite
accurately but
doesnt have confident control of
grammar
Lack of
vocabulary
repertory
Less of
fluency
Accent is
intelligible though
often quite faulty
III Comprehension is tolerable
Control of grammar
is tolerable
Tolerable of
vocabulary
repertory
Tolerable of
fluency
Error never
interfere with
understanding
IV Comprehension is quite good
Control of grammar
is quite good
Have pretty
many
vocabulary
repertory
Able to use
language quite
fluently
Error in
pronunciation are
quite rare
V Comprehension is good
Control of grammar
is good
Have a lot of
vocabulary
repertory
Able to use
language
fluently
error in
pronunciation are
disappear
-
28
The score was given by analyzing the students performance:
Maximum Score=25x4=100
The data was analyzed in percentage as follows:
Notes: M = Mean score
= sum of the score
N = sum of the individuals
The mean score was used to evaluate the achievement of
teaching
learning process by using chain drill technique whether it is
effective to improve
students speaking skill or not; besides, the changes of students
behaviour,
students achievement and students enthusiasm in speaking
activity.
3.7 Success Indicator
The researcher infered that based on the curriculum that is used
in SMPN
I Amlapura, the Standard Minimum Achievement is 77. Therefore,
this research
will regarded to be successful if the 80% of the researchs
subjects under study
can pass the minimum score which has been stated above.
M =N
fx
-
29
CHAPTER IV
FINDING AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Finding
The finding of the data that have been collected through the
present
classroom action study of the VIII B students at SMPN I Amlapura
in academic
year 2013/2014 would be presented in this chapter. The data was
collected by
three kinds of instrument, they were pre-test, post-test, and
questionnaire. Thus,
the data was required to answer the research question which
gathered by
administering pre-test, post-test and questionnaire. Pre-test or
IR was
administered to obtain their pre existing ability in speaking.
In pre-test the
subjects were asked to describe their friend who was sitting
next to them and then
performed their descriptions infront of the class. It was done
in order to know the
subjects speaking ability before the technique was applied.
Post-test or R was
administered twice, the last sessions of cycle I and cycle II.
The post test was
given in order to know the improvement of students ability in
speaking after
taught by using Chain Drill Technique. Therefore, there were
three sets of raw
score showing the subjects improvement in speaking. They were
pre-test score
and post-test score for each cycle (IR, R1, R2). The three sets
of scores which
were collected could be seen as follows:
4.1.1 Pre-Cycle
Pre-cycle or pre-test was conducted before the researcher taught
speaking
by using chain drill technique to the subject under the study.
It was used in order
to know the speaking ability of the subjects under study before
the technique was
-
30
applied. It was given before the Cycle I begun. This score could
be computed in
the initial reflection, the subjects or the students described
their friend who was
sitting next to them and then perform their description in front
of the class orally.
All of the students followed the Initial Reflection. The scores
of pre-test (IR) were
collected from 35 subjects under study. The total score of IR
was 1852 and the
mean score was 52.91. In IR, only 2,85 % of the subjects under
study reached the
Standart Minimum Achivement score. The details of the scoring
rubric could be
seen in the Appendix 4. The mean score of IR and the percentage
of students who
reached the Standard Minimum Achievement (KKM) were computed by
using the
formula below:
Mean Score of IR =
=
= 52.91
Percentage of students who reached KKM = sum of the students who
reached KKM
sum of all studentsx 100%
=
x 100% = 2.85%
4.1.2 Cycle I
In this cycle the researcher carried out the main process of
teaching
speaking by using chain drill technique. This cycle consisted of
two sessions. In
the first session the researcher taught speaking by using chain
drill technique with
the topic about describing bestfriend. Students directly
involved in teaching-
learning process where the students in chain were drilled
questions based on the
topic given and answered the questions by their own orally. The
chain continued
after all students got a chance to give and answer the drilled
questions. After that,
-
31
students were asked to arrange their answers into a good
descriptions about their
bestfriend and perform it orally in front of the class.
Second session started with a new topic in describing someone,
where in
the first session they were asked to describe their bestfriend
but in the second
session they were asked to describe their family. Chain drill
started from the
researcher who proposed drilled questions to the student nearest
to her. First
student responded the researchers questions then continued to
ask a friend who
was sitting beside her with the same drilled questions which
were related with the
topic given. This chain continued after all students got a
chance to give and
answer the drilled questions. After that, students arranged
their answers to be a
good descriptions about their family and described it in front
of the class orally. In
this session, the researcher administered the post-test I (R1).
The post-test I was
used as feedback to carry out the revision to solve the students
weaknesses which
would be done in cycle II. The total score of post-test 1 was
2460 and the mean
was 70.28. In post-test 1, the computation showed that 20% of
the subjects under
study reached the standard minimum achievement. The details of
the scoring
rubric could be seen in the appendix 4. The mean score of R1 and
the percentage
of students who reached the Standard Minimum Achievement (KKM)
were
computed by using the formula below:
Mean score of R1 =
=
= 70.28
Percentage of students who reached KKM = sum of the students who
reached KKM
sum of all studentsx 100%
=
x 100% = 20%
-
32
4.1.3 Cycle II
Cycle II was similar as Cycle I, the researcher taught speaking
by using
chain drill technique with the same material about describing
someone/
something. Actually, the difference was in the topic given. In
this cycle,
researcher gave students the material about describing things.
In the first session,
researcher proposed a topic entitled Describe your favourite
fruit and asked
students to perform it in front of the class orally. Chain drill
technique was done
in this session by proposing some questions which related with
the topic given.
After all students got a chance to give and answer the drilled
questions, they were
asked to arrange the descriptions and then describe their
favourite fruit in front of
the class orally.
In the second session, researcher proposed different topic where
in this
session students were given description topic entitled Describe
your favourite
food. Teaching speaking by using chain drill technique was done
here but a bit
different with the first session where in this session,
researcher fixed students
mistakes directly while applying the chain drill technique
because so much miss-
pronounciation while pronouncing some words. After all students
got a chance to
give and answer the drilled questions, they were asked to
arrange their answers
into a good descriptions and then decribe their favourite food
in front of the class
orally. The scores of Cycle II were excellent even some students
were still got
problem in arranging sentences to be a good descriptions about
their favourite
food and got problem too in speaking their mind in front of the
class. The total
score of R2 was 2824 and the mean was 80.68. In post-test 2, the
computation of
the scores showed that 80% of the subjects under the study
reached the standard
-
33
minimum achievement which meant that this research was
successful and
regarded to be stopped. The details of the scoring rubric could
be seen in the
appendix 4. The mean score of R2 and the percentage of students
who reached the
Standard Minimum Achievement (KKM) were computed by using the
formula
below:
Mean score of R2 =
=
= 80.68
Percentage of students who reached KKM = sum of the students who
reached KKM
sum of all studentsx 100%
=
x 100% = 80%
The students scores were increased compared with the pre-cycle,
cycle 1
and cycle 2 scores which meant that there was an improvement of
the students
achievement in speaking after chain drill technique was applied.
The summary of
the data analysis were made in order to make the reader easier
in understanding
and learning the data collected. The summary of data analysis
from the Initial
Reflection, Cycle I and Cycle II could be seen below:
Table 4.1 Tabulation of Data Showing the Subjects Progressing
Score in
Speaking After the Implementation of Chain Drill Technique
Subjects Pre-Cycle (X0) Post-Test 1(X1) Post-Test 2 (X2)
S1 48 72 80
S2 48 72 80
S3 44 72 80
S4 64 64 80
S5 40 64 72
S6 40 64 68
S7 44 64 72
-
34
4.1.4 Questionnaire
As mentioned previously, there were some findings about
students
changing behaviour and motivation. Questionnaire was given at
the end of cycle 2
in order to collect the data about students feeling about
learning English
especially in the speaking activity by using chain drill
technique. Questionnaire
S8 56 64 80
S9 52 64 80
S10 48 64 80
S11 48 68 80
S12 60 80 80
S13 80 92 96
S14 60 72 76
S15 52 72 80
S16 40 68 80
S17 40 68 80
S18 56 68 80
S19 44 64 80
S20 52 64 60
S21 52 64 72
S22 44 64 72
S23 44 64 84
S24 48 68 80
S25 52 64 80
S26 64 80 80
S27 44 64 80
S28 52 68 84
S29 72 84 96
S30 64 80 84
S31 48 68 80
S32 48 68 92
S33 64 80 84
S34 64 72 96
S35 76 84 96
Total 1852 2460 2824
Mean 52.91 70.28 80.68
-
35
was made in Indonesian Language and the students answered the
questionnaire
based on their own feeling. The data obtained from the
questionnaire was
computed and discussed in this present classroom action study.
The detail of the
scores could be seen in the appendix 4.
The computation of the comparative percentages for the scores of
the
items of the questionnaire showing the subjects total responses
for the item of A,
B, C and D was showed as follows:
1. The percentage of item A = 321 x 100% = 43.38 % 740
2. The percentage of item B = 356 x 100% = 48.11% 740
3. The percentage of item C = 63 x 100% = 8.51 % 740
4. The percentage of item D = 0 x 100% = 0 % 740
The result of the analysis of the questionnaire scores showed
the
comparative percentage of item A was 43.38%, item B was 48.11%,
item C was
8.51% and item D was 0%. These findings clearly supported the
main finding of
the present study.
The findings of the present action study in table 4.1 clearly
showed that
the mean of pre-test scores (X0) obtained by the eighth grade
students of SMPN I
Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014 was 52.91. The grand means
obtained by
the subjects under study for both cycle I (X1) and cycle II (X2)
which showed
grand figure 70.28 and 80.68 were higher than corresponding
pre-test mean score.
-
36
To make it clear, the rising comparative mean figures of the
pre-test (IR)
score and post-test (R) scores obtained by the eighth grade
students of SMPN 1
Amlapura for cycle I and cycle II could be presented on the
graph below:
Graph 4.1 Depicting the Subjects Progressing Achievement in
Speaking by
Using Chain Drill Technique in Pre-cycle, Cycle I and Cycle
II
4.2 Discussion
The data analysis which established the findings of this
classroom action
study showed that the mean of the pre-test (IR) obtained by the
subjects under
study in speaking activity was 52.91. This mean figure of IR
clearly showed that
the ability of the subjects under study was definitely low
because the Standard
Minimum Achievement of the English subject in SMPN 1 Amlapura
was 77.
The result of the data analysis of the post-test score in cycle
I showed the
progress mean figure to 70.28. The mean figure obtained by the
subjects in cycle I
was clearly much higher than the mean score of IR. The mean
score of cycle I
showed the obvious improvement of the students ability in
speaking. The
progress in cycle 1 was the result of the revision after the IR
data was collected.
52,91
70,28
80,68
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
IR R1 R2
-
37
The result of the data analysis of the post-test scores in cycle
II showed
the progress mean figure to 80.68. The mean figure obtained by
the subjects in
cycle II was clearly much higher than the mean score of IR.
There was a
significant difference between mean figure of cycle I and mean
figure of cycle II.
This result was awesome. Students said that it was easier to
construct the
sentences by using drilled questions. It was logical if the
grand mean of the
reflection score in cycle II was higher than cycle I.
The questionnaire percentage figures of the total response of
the
questionnaire for item A, B, C, and D were 43.38%, 48.11%,
8.51%, and 0%. This
figures showed the changing of subjects positive learning
behavior in speaking
by using chain drill technique.
Students speaking skill changed progressively since the chain
drill
technique was applied. Thus, the speaking skill of the eighth
grade students of
SMPN 1 Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014 improved
significantly by using
chain drill technique.
-
38
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
In this chapter, the researcher presented the conclusion and
suggestions
based on the previous chapter. It clarified the result of the
classroom action
research as the answer of the research question whether the
speaking skill could
be improved or not by using chain drill technique at the eighth
grade students of
SMPN I Amlapura in academic year 2013/2014.
5.1 Conclusion
The present classroom action study was conducted to help the
students to
improve and develop their ability in describing something and
someone orally.
The main data for the present classroom action study were
gathered through
administering pre-test (IR) and post-tests (R1 and R2) to the
subjects under study.
At the end of cycle II, questionnaire was administered in order
to know the
changing of students learning behavior.
The grand mean of pre-test was 52.91. The grand mean of the
pre-test
clearly pointed that the speaking skill of the eighth grade
students of SMPN I
Amlapura was low, because the minimum score criterion which used
by the
school was 77. The grand mean of the post-test score for cycle I
was 70.28 and
80.68 for cycle II. The findings of the present classroom action
study
convincingly revealed that teaching speaking by using chain
drill technique could
effectively improve the low ability of class VIII Bs students of
SMPN I
Amlapura in speaking activity. This prove was strengthened by
the percentages of
the students achievement who reached the standard minimum
achievement
-
39
scores from the pre-test, post-test 1 and post-test 2 which were
awesome. The
students percentage who reached the Standart Minimum Achievement
(KKM)
was 2.85% in pre-test while in post-test1 and post-test2 were
increased, 20% and
80%. That was satisfactory result and regarded to be
success.
Other instrument which was conducted to the subjects under study
was a
set of questionnaire to measure their changing learning behavior
such as
motivation, behavior, enthusiasm and their confidence during
learning speaking
by using chain drill technique. The result of the analysis in
questionnaire clearly
showed comparatively figures of each item. Item A was positively
responded by
43.38 % of students, item B was 48.11 %, item C was 8.51 %,
instead no one of
the students choosed item D. These findings of the present
action study proved the
hypothesis of the study that the problems faced by the eighth
grade students of
SMPN I Amlapura could be satisfactory overcome through teaching
speaking by
using Chain Drill Technique. It could be concluded that Chain
Drill Technique
could improve speaking skill of the eighth grade students of
SMPN I Amlapura in
academic year 2013/2014.
5.2 Suggestion
Based on the result of the study the researcher would like to
suggest the
teacher and students of SMPN I Amlapura and for the further
researchers. First,
the English teachers of the eighth grade students are suggested
to teach speaking
by implementing chain drill technique in order to make the
students interested in
learning and became accustomed in speaking their mind. The
finding showed that
students were interested with chain drill technique in speaking
activity. Students
confidence and speaking ability were also increased while chain
drill technique
-
40
was applied in teaching speaking. Teachers must burn past habit,
where native
language dominated the speaking activity, and create a new habit
in the classroom
in order to make students become accustomed in using English
for
communication. Chain drill technique was one of many teaching
techniques in
teaching speaking which able to make the lesson became
interesting and
challenging. The English teachers were also suggested to
motivate their students
to speak their idea orally, give more chances to the students to
be more active and
asked them not to be afraid and shy in making mistakes.
Moreover, fixing directly
when mistakes occured could be the best way in giving students a
good model
which can motivate them to be better in the future. Giving a
positive feedback to
the students progress also could motivate students and make them
become more
confident and enthusiastic in speaking their idea.
The second suggestion was for the students. They were suggested
to
motivate themselves to learn English more serious not only
during the lesson in
the classroom but also outside the classroom as well. As the
finding showed that
the students speaking ability was increase after chain drill
technique was applied
which gave students more chances and practices to speak their
idea
spontaneously. As we all know that practice would bring us to be
better and more
practice would make us to be the best, so keep practicing and
never be afraid and
shy in making mistake.
Thirdly was for the further researchers, the researcher expected
that other
researchers would do better research related with teaching
English by using Chain
Drill Technique. This teaching technique was a part or Audio
Lingual method
which has various drill and repetition techniques that could be
applied not only for
-
41
teaching speaking but also for teaching other skills and
components. It was an
appropriate technique in teaching speaking based on the finding
that students
scores, motivation, confidence and their speaking skill were
improved after the
implementation of chain drill technique in teaching-learning
process.
-
42
REFERENCES
Abinur, Siti Kurnia. (2011). Developing Students Ability in
Simple Past Tense Through Chain Drills. Unpublished Thesis :
Universitas Islam Negeri
Syarif Hidayatullah.
Anggraeni, Purwita. (2007). Audio-lingual Teaching as an
Alternative Method in
Teaching Speaking. Unpublished Thesis : Semarang State
University.
Ary, et al. (2010). Introduction to Research in Education.
Canada: Nelson
Education, Ltd.
Brown, H. Douglas. (2003). Language Assessment Principles and
Classroom
Practices. New York: Longman
Harmer, Jeremy. (2002). The Practice of English Language
Teaching. London:
Longman.
Harmer, Jeremy. (2001). The Practice of English Language
Teaching. London:
Pearson Education Limited
Hewitt, Ralph., and Mary Little. (2005). Leading Action Research
in Schools.
Florida: University of Central Florida.
Hinkel, E. (2005). Handbook of Research in Second Language
Teaching and
Learning. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Hornberger, N.H., and McKay Sandra L. (2010). Sociolinguistics
and Language
Education. Great Britain: Short Run Press Ltd.
Kushartanti, et al. (2005). Pesona Bahasa; Langkah Awal Memahami
Linguistics.
Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama
Kusumah, Wijaya., and Dedi Dwitagama. (2009). Mengenal Tindakan
kelas.
Jakarta: PT. Indeks.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. (2000). Techniques and Principles in
Language
Teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.
Merriam-Webster. (2003). Websters New Explorer College
Dictionary. Springfield, Massachusetts: Federal Street Press.
Richards, J. (2008). Teaching Listening and Speaking from Theory
to Practice.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
-
43
Thornbury, S. (2002). How to Teach Speaking. Edinburg Gate
Harlow Essex
England: Pearson Education Limited.
Walter, Teresa. (2004). The How-To Handbook Teaching English
Language
Learners. New York: Pearson Education
-
44
-
45
APPENDIX 1 : DAFTAR NAMA SISWA KELAS VIII B
NO NIS SUBJECTS INITIAL
1 13464 Ade Tri Sukadana Yasa S1
2 13465 Ade Wijayanti Ni Luh S2
3 13467 Adi Putra Wardana I Gede S3
4 13468 Agus Pratama I Gede S4
5 13469 Agus Satya Juniantara I Gede S5
6 13470 Agus Setiawan I Wayan S6
7 13471 Agus Tri Merta D I Komang S7
8 13473 Ardika Satya Pratama I Gede S8
9 13474 Ari Aditya I Putu S9
10 13478 Ayu Siwantari Kadek S10
11 13479 Cindy Mahartika Putri Ni Komang S11
12 13480 Dana Wahyu Fernanda I Komang S12
13 13484 Eka Wiranatha I Gede S13
14 13485 Nanditharta Deva I Gede S14
15 13486 Opi Widiantari Ni Kadek S15
16 13487 Paramadi Ida Bagus S16
17 13488 Raditya Manuaba Ida Bagus S17
18 13489 Raditya Yogi Suara I Gede S18
19 13490 Risma Juniantari Ni Kadek S19
20 13491 Singarsa Ida Bagus Gede S20
21 13492 Sri Komalawati Ni Made S21
22 13493 Sri Widiantari Kari Ni Kadek S22
23 13494 Suarnata I Wayan S23
24 13495 Tesya Eka Savitri Ni Putu S24
25 13496 Widiani Ida Ayu S25
26 13498 Yogi Hendrawan I Komang S26
27 13499 Yudha Sugiantara I Kadek S27
28 13473 Ayu Dwinita Juniari Ni Made S28
29 13471 Putu Adi Myarsithawan S29
30 13472 Aprilia Dwiantari Ni Kadek S30
31 13475 Putu Arianti Ni Luh S31
32 13476 Arya Dharma Putra I Gede S32
33 13477 Diah Puspita A Ni Kadek S33
34 13478 Dian Primantari Ni Putu S34
35 13479 Winda Apriyanti Ni Putu S35
-
46
APPENDIX 2 : LESSON PLAN CYCLE 1 & 2
LESSON PLAN CYCLE 1
School : SMP Negeri I Amlapura
Subject : Bahasa Inggris
Class/ Semester : VIII/ I
Skill : Speaking
Meeting : 1st and 2nd meeting
A. Standart Competence : Speaking
4. Expressing the meaning of short functional and
monolog texts orally, in the form of descriptive and
recount to interact with surrounding.
B. Basic Competence : 4.2. Expressing the meaning of simple
short monolog
in oral accurately, fluently and acceptable to interact
with surroundings in the form of descriptive
C. Indicator : 1. Doing a short monolog in the form of
descriptive
D. Learning Objective : 1. When the students are given the
topic; Describe
your bestfriend, they can describe about their
bestfriend orally
2. When the students are given the topic about family,
they can describe their family members orally
E. Expected Characters : Communicative, confidence, brave
F. Time allocation : 4x40 menit
G. Learning Material : Descriptive Text
A descriptive text is a text that describes the feature of
someone,
something or a certain place.
The generic structure of a descriptive text:
- Identification is the part of the paragraph that introduces
the thing.
- Description is the part of the paragraph that describes the
thing.
H. Technique : Chain Drill Technique
-
47
I. Learning Activities :
First Meeting
Pre Activities ( 9 minutes) Time X
1. Greeting the students
2. Checking the students attendance
3. Motivating the students and describing the
material which is going to be learnt generally
4. Stating the learning objective to be achieved
1
4
2
2
Whilst Activities ( 70 minutes)
Exploration
5. Proposing some rules about the teaching technique
that is going to be applied
Elaboration
6. Proposing a topic, bestfriend.
7. Stating questions which are related with the topic,
to the student nearest to the teacher, and the 1st
student answer the questions given
8. 1st Student continue to give questions to the
student nearest to him/ her and the 2nd student
answer the questions
9. Continuing the chain drill until all students get a
chance to give and answer the questions.
10. Asking students to arrange the questions-answers
into a good sentences of describing about
bestfriend and asking some students to perform it
infront of the class orally.
11. Checking students error and giving suggestions
for the next performance
4
62
2
-
48
Confirmation
12. Confirming the key concept of the lesson by
pointing out the informations in describing
something
2
Post-Activities ( 1 minutes)
13. Giving a new descriptive topic for the next
meeting
14. Ending the session
1
2nd Meeting
Pre Activities ( 9 minutes) Time X
1. Greeting the students
2. Checking the students attendance
3. Motivating the students and describing the
material which is going to be learnt generally
4. Stating the learning objective to be achieved
1
4
2
2
Whilst Activities ( 69 minutes)
Exploration
5. Asking students about the next topic that was
given in the first meeting
Elaboration
6. Proposing a topic, family.
7. Teacher giving some questions which are related
with the topic in order to help the students arrange
their sentences in describing their family.
8. Students starting the chain drill based on the
questions that have been proposed and continuing
the chain drill untill all students get the chance to
ask and answer.
9. Asking students to describe about their family in
front of the class orally
4
60
-
49
10. Giving comment for all performance and giving
suggestions to be better in the future
Confirmation
11. Confirming the key concept of the lesson one
more time by pointing out the informations in
describing something
3
2
Post-Activities ( 2 minutes)
12. Ending the session
2
J. References
- Buku LKS Target kelas VIII semester 1
- Kamus
K. Assessment
Technique: Oral Test
Instrument: Performance
Instrument:
1. Make a simple description about your bestfriend in 5-7
sentences and
perform it in front of the class.
2. Make a simple description about your family in 5-7 sentences
and perform
it in front of the class
Indicator Technique In Form of Instrument
1. Describe your
bestfriend
1. Orally --- ---
2. Describe your
family members
2. Orally
Scoring Rubric ---
-
50
LESSON PLAN CYCLE 2
School : SMP Negeri I Amlapura
Subject : Bahasa Inggris
Class/ Semester : VIII/ I
Skill : Speaking
Meeting : 1st and 2nd meeting
A. Standart Competence : Speaking
4. Expressing the meaning of short functional and