49 friends. From the respo
ndents’ answers, 23 students 79.31 agreed and 6 students 20.68 disagreed.
From those three statements, the researcher relates those actions with conative component of attitudes Altman Valenzi, 1985, p. 95. Conative
component is the students ’ behavioral disposition toward their problem. Martin
1967 as cited in Altman Valenzi, 1985 states that some psychologists believe that a certain attitude will lead to predictable behavior p. 447. It can be
positive attitude like actively participating in teaching learning activities, consulting to the teacher, and discussing the material with their friends. However,
before the implementation of Scientific Approach, the students did not indicate those behaviors during the teaching learning activities. Therefore, the researcher
used it as part of the treatment for the students to participate in learning, consulting and receiving feedback from the teacher, and also having discussion
during the teaching learning activities. To conclude, the students are interested in learning English subject and
feel motivated to learn. However, the teacher’s method in teaching and unclear
explanation can lead to unmotivated students’ perception. Another problem that
comes up is their selection of stimuli which can affect their perception on their problem in mastering speaking skill like vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, and
tenses. Those sorts out of stimuli are strengthened by their self-concept that they have less chance to practice their ability in speaking. The students also built the
perception that speaking skill is harder than other skill because they accustomed to learn in written assignments rather than having speaking activity in class which
50 was guided by the teacher. Most of the students agreed that they needed to have
attitudes to solve their problems like what Altman and Valenzi 1985 define as conative action or behavioral disposition to solve their problem in positive ways.
Referring to this result, the researcher tried to solve the problem by implementing Scientific Approach in class during the treatment. The aim of the
implementation itself is to give the students chance to increase their speaking skill.
According to Ferianda 2013, the students’ perception and behavior can be changed through the process of learning. On this research, at first, the students
experienced that speaking was difficult. However, since speaking activities were adjusted to the students’ condition and interest, they could consider the speaking
activity is interesting. In the next paragraph will be explained about the research findings to
answer the second research question in quantitative ways by using t-test to see whether the implementation of Scientific Approach in KTSP can help vocational
school students in mastering speaking skill.
B. The Effect of Implementing Scientific Approach in KTSP
The second problem of this research focused on the effect of implementing Scientific Approach in KTSP on
the students’ ability in mastering speaking skill. In order to know the effect of the implementation, the researcher first presented
the hypothesis testing for the result of the pre-test and the post-test. The researcher also explained about the process of implementing Scientific Approach in class
during the treatment as the factor that influenced the result of the experiment. In
51 the paragraph below, the result of speaking evaluation and the field notes show
that the implementation of Scientific Approach can improve the students’ ability
in speaking and change the students’ perception and attitude that speaking is difficult.
1. Hypothesis Testing
The hypothesis testing was done to see whether there is any improvement after implementing the treatment or not. In testing the hypothesis, the researcher
used t-test. There are two assessors in assessing speaking skill to get the objective results. The samples of this research were 32 male students and 1 female student
in one group. However, during the pre-test and the post-test, there were 5 students who were absent. So, for those who were not participating on the pre-test or post-
test, they would not be included in the analysis. Therefore, the total number of the participant which was analyzed was 28 students. The assessors were the
researcher and the teacher. That is why in the hypothesis testing, there are two results from the researcher and the teacher. First, the researcher would do the
hypothesis test ing on the researcher’s rubric in the pre-test and post-test. The
result of the analysis shows that the treatment could influence the students’ ability
in mastering speaking skill. It is shown based on the result of the t-test which was counted manually. This shows that the
is bigger than the in which the
result of the analysis shows that the of the researcher is 10.7288 whereas the
= 1.7033 see Appendix 8. The value of is taken by the db that is 27
with α: 0.05, which is shown in
= 1.7033. The result of the rubric that was done by the teacher also shows an improvement with the
=11.0480;
52 whereas, the
= 1.7033. In conclusion, the result of the research after collecting and calculating the data, the result of the t-test showed the difference in
the mean score from the pre-test and the post-test. The null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis is used.
2. The Researcher Field Notes during the Treatment in Class
In this part, the researcher explained the factor that was found during the research. Before implementing Scientific Approach in the teaching learning
activities, the researcher did the pre-test. The aim of doing pre-test and post-test is as direct evaluation to assess the progress of the students in learning the material.
The thing that needed to be evaluated was the students’ improvement in speaking skill. The material that the researcher chose was the expression of persuading.
However, this material was integrated with the expression of convincing others, the next topic after persuading, because it can be assessed together through
persuasive text and speech. There were 4 times meeting for the treatment that was scheduled on
Tuesday and Thursday. On Tuesday, the time allocation is 2x45 minutes. On Thursday, the time allocation is 2x45 minutes. However, the learning activity is
following the school’s prayer activities, so the time allocation is reduced 30 minutes in every Thursday meeting.
The pre-test was done on April 9, 2015. The students had received the information for the very first meeting after conducting questionnaire
’s survey was the pre-test evaluation. The pre-test evaluated
the students’ in performing oral presentation in a form of brief persuasive speech. Even though they had already
