Yuniarti, 2015 TEACHING ORAL COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES IN EFL SPEAKING CLASSES
Indonesia |
repository.upi.edu |
perpustakaan.upi.edu
Table 3.4 The description of research procedure
No. Meeting
Material or Classroom Activity Time
Allocation minutes
Experimental Group Control Group
1. Session 1
October 13
th
, 2014
Pre-test and questionnaire
Pre-test 2 x 60
2. Session 2
October 22
nd
, 2014 OCSs
Conversation practice pair work
Conversation practice
2 x 45 3.
Session 3 October 27
th
, 2014 Describing concrete and
abstract nouns group work
Describing concrete and abstract nouns
2 x 45 4.
Session 4 October 31
st
, 2014 Describing pictures pair
work Describing pictures
2 x 45 5.
Session 5 November 3
rd
, 2014 Interviewing pair work
Interviewing 2 x 45
6. Session 6
November 5
th
, 2014 Conversation practice pair
work Conversation
practice 2 x 45
7. Session 7
November 10
th
, 2014 Conversation practice pair
work Conversation
practice 2 x 45
8. Session 8
November 17
th
, 2014
Posttest, Questionnaires and collecting Strategy
Diary Posttest
2 x 60
3.6 Data Analysis
Data analysis is aimed at discovering pattern, ideas, explanations and understanding of data found and collected during research McMillan, 2001, p.
221. The analysis will be carried out as the research progresses to be continually refined and rearranged in light of the emerging results Dawson, 2009, p. 115. In
the current research, the analysis was performed in the sequences as explained below.
3.6.1 Recording
First, the recordings of the students’ speaking performance in pre-test and
posttest were scored based on the scoring rubrics proposed by Adam and Frith
Yuniarti, 2015 TEACHING ORAL COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES IN EFL SPEAKING CLASSES
Indonesia |
repository.upi.edu |
perpustakaan.upi.edu
1979, as cited in Hughes, 2003. Then, the pre-test and posttest recording of experimental class were transcribed, categorized, calculated and analyzed based
on the list of OCSs proposed by Nakatani 2005 to answer the first research question see Appendix G and H.
3.6.2 Score Data Analysis of the Test
This study aimed to find out the effect of teaching oral communication strategies in EFL speaking class. Therefore, the quantitative analysis was used to
see whether the teaching of OCSs wa s effective to improve students’ speaking
ability. There were two tests pre-test and posttest that were applied during the research. Since this research applied quasi-experimental design, the first step was
finding out the normality of data distribution in both of classes. The result of pre- test and posttest were used to seek the normality of participants
’ speaking scores. The calculation were made using SPSS 18. With the hypothesis are as follows.
H : The distribution of pre-testposttest score in the experimental
and control group are normally distributed. H
1
: The distribution of pre-testposttest score in the experimental and control group are not normally distributed.
There were some criteria to determine whether the result was accepting or rejecting H
. According to Hatch and Farhady 1982, the level significance criteria to determine normality distribution test are as follows.
If the probability 0.05, H is accepted
If the probability 0.05, H is rejected
The second step was seeking the homogeneity of data distribution in both of classes. It was done by calculating the result of pretest and posttest from both
groups using F
test.
The test was conducted to reject H where F
count
F
table
meant both elements were not homogenous, or to accept the H
1
where F
count
F
table
Yuniarti, 2015 TEACHING ORAL COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES IN EFL SPEAKING CLASSES
Indonesia |
repository.upi.edu |
perpustakaan.upi.edu
meant both element were homogenous. According to Hatch Farhady 1982, the variance formula is as follows:
Variance formula: F
test
=
∑ ̅
F
count
= Explanation:
x : Students’ score
̅
: Students’ score mean N
: Total of students Afterward, the results of posttest were compared to find out the significant
differences between two groups after the treatment Hatch Farhady, 1982; Brown, 1988; Hatch Lazaraton, 1994; D
ӧrnyei, 2007. Then, the pre-test and posttest score from both experimental and control group were analyzed using t-
test to seek the significance of the program by testing the H that has been
determined before, since the t-test is aimed to compare two means of different group Hatch Farhady, 1982; Hatch Lazaraton, 1994; D
ӧrnyei, 2007. The pre-test and posttest score were calculated using SPSS 18.0 computer program.
The statistical analysis was used to compare the speaking performance of both experimental and control groups and to find out whether the means of the two
groups were really different. It was intended to find out whether there was an effect of teaching OCSs to the students
’ speaking skill. Then, the hypothesis was tested to see whether H
was accepted or rejected. Hatch and Farhady 1992 claimed that the H
1
will be accepted if: a.
The mean of posttest score is higher than that of pre-test score of the two classes.
b. The mean of pre-test score of the experimental class is not different from
that the control class. c.
The mean of posttest score of the experimental class is higher than that of the control class.
There were also some considerations should be fulfilled to test the H . The
H will be received if:
a. There is no significant difference between mean of the posttest score and
pre-test score either of the experimental and control group.
Yuniarti, 2015 TEACHING ORAL COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES IN EFL SPEAKING CLASSES
Indonesia |
repository.upi.edu |
perpustakaan.upi.edu
b. There is no significant difference between mean of pre-test score of the
two classes. c.
There is no significant difference between mean of posttest score of the two classes.
3.6.3 Questionnaire and Strategy Diary
