IMPROVING STUDENTS’ SPEAKING ABILITY THROUGH JIGSAW TASK AT THE CLASS NINE OF SMPN 2 BUKIT KEMUNING

KEMUNING

(a Script)

By

TRI WAHYUDI

(0813042051)

Advisors:

1. Dr. Muhammad Sukirlan, M.A.

2. Drs. Ramlan Ginting Suka

LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION DEPARTMENT TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY

UNIVERSITY OF LAMPUNG BANDAR LAMPUNG

TASK AT THE CLASS NINE OF SMPN 2 BUKIT KEMUNING BY

Tri Wahyudi

The objective of the research is to find out whether or not there is an improvement of students’ speaking ability after being taught through jigsaw task and to identify the students’ response after being taught trough jigsaw task. The population of the research is the class IX b odd semester in academic year of 2012/2013 and one class is taken as the sample. The sample is selected using simple probably sampling trough lottery drawing.

This is a quantitative study using one group pretest – posttest design. This research was conducted in 5 meetings for three weeks. The pretest was conducted before the treatment and posttest was conducted after the treatment. In this research the writer focuses on speaking ability in forms of interpersonal dialogue. 11The result of pretest and posttest shows that the total gained score of the students’ speaking ability improvement was 504 which the gain score increased from 2088 to 2592. In other words, it is known that their gain score improved 24.14%. Besides, the researcher found that the mean score of students’ speaking ability increased from 61.41 in pretest to 76.23 in posttest or it can be said that the improvement of the students’ speaking ability is 14. 81%. Furthermore,it is found that the highest mean score improvement of each aspect of speaking from the pretest to the posttest was “grammar” where its gained score improvement was 3.88%. In the other hand, the hypothesis test shows the value of two tail significant is p=0.000 in which the significant improvement is determined by p<0.05. an other words, H is approved if sig <p. the result shows 0.00 significant levels. Besides, it is also found that jigsaw task has been responded well by the students. This finding is supported by the students’ response from the questioner. From the result, there were 96,6% students give positive respond toward jigsaw task and 3.4% give negative respond. The students felt that jigsaw task technique helped them to understand the expression easily.

Therefore, it was concluded that jigsaw task could significantly improve students speaking ability especially in the aspect of grammar. And the students give positive response towards the implementation of teaching speaking through jigsaw task.

2. Test Instruction posttest... 69

3. Lesson Plan 1 ... 70

4. Lesson Plan 2 ... 75

5. Lesson Plan 3 ... 80

6. Students’mean score pretest and posttest R1... 86

7. Students’mean score pretest and posttest R2... 87

8. Students’ gainedscore... 88

9. Random test of pretest and posttest... 89

10. Normality test of pretest and posttest ... 90

11. The analysis of the hypothesis ... 92

12. Distribution of the pretest scores ... 93

13. Distribution of the posttest score ... 104

14.Students’ gained score in speaking ability... 113

15. Reliability of pretest ... 115

16. Reliability of posttest... 116

17. Direction ... 117

18.The distribution of students’ total score in responding each item of questioner ... 121

I. INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses the following points: introduction that deals with the background of the problem, formulation of the problem, objectives of the research, uses of the research, scope of the research, and definition of terms.

1.1 Backgrounds of the Problem

Speakingis one of the language skills whichisessential for students to master.But the learners of English still have problems in speaking.Basedon the researcher’s experience when conducting Field Practice Program (PPL) in SMPN 2 Bukitkemuning, it can be reported that many students still have difficulties in expressing their ideas in English orally. Some students found difficulties in finding factual information that should be involved in speaking such as appropriate expression and context. The students also faced difficulties in pronouncing some words since they are not given the same chance to practice speaking in the class because of time limitation.Besides, the lack of vocabulary is also as one of the problemsthat is faced by the students. Some students spend much time to pay full attention to express some words in English.Byrne (1977) points out that the students of senior high school often have difficulties in speaking although they have enough time to study English from junior high school.In the previous study that was done byRahayu(2004) at senior high school

of YP Unila,it was known that the students of senior high school still have difficulties in their speaking. Furthermore, one factor that may cause the problems is because the teachersoftenuse traditional way of teaching. Therefore, in this research the researcher states that one of possible way to solve this problem is that the use of appropriate technique in teaching speaking. There are many techniques of teaching speaking that can beused by the teacher suchas, jigsaw task, think-pair-share, three-step interview, round robin brainstorming,three-minute review, numbered heads, team pair solo, circle the stage, partners, etc.

In this research, the researcherused jigsaw task to help the teacher solvetheproblems.The researcher expected that it will improve students’ speaking ability by giving factual information that will be experienced by them and give a lot of speaking practicein group cooperatively to the students.Aronson et al (1978) explains thatjigsaw teaching task is Cooperative Learning technique. This technique can be used in teaching listening, speaking, reading and writing. In this technique, teacher pays attention to students’ experience background and helps student activate their schemata so that the material becomes more meaningful. Besides, students work together with their friends in cooperative situation and have many opportunities to process the information and increase communication skill.

By considering the advantages, the writer thought that jigsaw task is important for teaching in the class. It is because the jigsaw task insures the participation of the students that have unique and essential information; it helps the students inlearning the content of subject; it has a strong effect on attitude to learning and social relationship among students in group; andit enables the students to

understand the text because while they are doing the activity they will try to know the meaning of words or sentences in order to get complete task.In this reserachtheresearchertried to explore whether jigsaw technique could also be used in teaching speaking and whether there is a significant improvement of students’ speaking ability score from pretest from posttest after being taught through jigsaw task.

Based on the background above,the researcher intended to find out whether jigsaw task can significantly improve the students’ speaking ability score from pretest to posttest through research entitled “Improving the Students’ Speaking Ability through jigsaw Task at class IX of SMPN 2Bukitkemuning”.

1.2 Formulation of the Problem

For based on the problem above, the researcher formulated the problem as follow:

1. Is there any significant improvement of students’ speaking ability after being taught through jigsaw task?

2. What is the students’ response after being taught through jigsaw task?

1.3 Objective

The objective of this research is:

To find out whether there is a significant improvement students’ speaking ability score from pretest to posttest after being taught through jigsaw task.

1.4 Uses of the Research

The uses of the research are:

1. Theoretically, this result of this research is expected to support the previous theories that Jigsaw task can be used to increase students’ speaking ability and learning activities in the class.

2. Practically, this research can be made as information to English teacher that Jigsaw task can be used to increase students’ speaking ability and teachers’ performance, especially in teaching speaking.

1.5 Scope of The Research

The researcher intended to find out whether there is a significant improvement of students’ speaking ability score from pretest to posttest after being taught through jigsaw task. The researcherwouldalso see the students’ response after beingtaught through jigsaw task. In this research, the researcherfocused on speaking skill in forms of interpersonal dialogue. The criteria for evaluating students’ speaking ability used are five aspects of speaking namely, pronunciation, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and grammar based on the rating scale by Harris (1974:84). Cooperative learning used in this research is jigsaw task since it has many opportunities to improve their speaking abilities. This study was intended for intermediate students class IX of SMPNBukitkemuning. One class was taken as the sample. The class consists of 40 students. The researcher conducted this research in 5 meeting for three weeks.

1.6 Definition of Terms

Jigsaw

It is defined as a task in teaching speaking in which the students should share the information because they do not have the complete information.

Speaking

Is defined a productive skill in which the speaker produces and uses the language by expressing a sequence of ideas and at the same time to get the ideas or the message across. In this case, there is a process of giving message or encoding process. Tarigan (1982:5) who says that speaking is the instrument of language and the primary aim of speaking is forcommunication.

Teaching

It is defined as the instructional action to organize something which has contact with learning, so created the situation than can motivate the students to study effectively.

Teaching Speaking

It means the process of giving knowledge, or skill to others, which the goal is emphasized to improve communication skill in order to make them be able to communicate especially in sharing their ideas and sharing their speech.

I. FRAME OF THEORIES

This chapter discusses the following points, i.e, concept of speaking, types of speaking, concept of teaching speaking, concept of jigsaw task, procedure of teaching speaking through jigsaw task, advangtages and disadvantages of jigsaw task, theoritical assumption and hyphotesis.

1.1 Concept of Speaking

Speaking is a way of communication by whichpeople can share their ideas each other. According to Byrne (1984) speaking is an oral communication. It is a two-way process between speaker and listener that involves productive and receptive skills.Welty(1976) states thatspeaking is the main skill of communication. Based on these ideas, it was understood that through speaking someone can expressestheir ideas clearly.

Lado (1976:240) states that speaking as an ability to converse or to express a sequence of ideas fluently. It means that in the process of speaking there must be at least two people, one is the speaker and the other is the listener. In speaking process, the speaker must be able to share the ideas clearly so that the listener can

receive what the speaker communicates, he or she must comprehend in coming message and then organize appropriate responses for production.

Rivers (1978:162) says through speaking someone can express his or her ideas, emotions, and reactions to other person and situation and influence other person. Furthermore, someone can communicate or express what he or she wants from other and responses to other speaker. It means that in order to express someone’s ideas, the speaker must also attend the aspects of speaking, in order that the message is understandable to the listener.

According to Doff (1987:2) in all communication or conversation two people are exchanging information or they have a communication or conversation need. It means that the reason for people to communicate with each other is in order to tell people things, which they do not know, or to find things out from other people. Murcia (1978:91) says thatspeaking is the primary element of languages and it can be developed from the beginning when someone was born, from the first contact with the language.

Rivers (1976:6) explains that speaking is developed from the first context with the language. So, we will introduce speaking with the language that we learn because by speaking, the teacher should motivate the students to use English for variety of communicative purposes. The teacher should be able to choose technique that can develop students’ speaking ability. If the teacher has found the technique which is appropriate to the students’ level, he or she should apply it in the teaching learning process.

From the definitions above,itcan beconcluded that speaking is an ability to express ideas, feelings and emotions to other person. The language is used to express oneself to be understood by others; therefore speaking is a skill of transferring the message to the others. It concerns with the use of language in daily activity in which people need to communicate with others to fulfill the need of life and socialization.

1.2 Types of Speaking

According to Brown (2001) our language teaching is devoted to instruction in mastering English conversation. He also classifies six types of speaking classroom activities as follow:

2.2.1 Imitative

A very limited portion of classroom speaking time may legitimately be spent generating” Human tape-recorder” speech, where, for example, learner practice an

intonation contour or try to pinpoint a certain vowel sound. Imitation of this kind is carried out not for the purpose of meaningful interaction, but for focusing on some particular element of language form.

2.2.2 Intensive

Intensive speaking goes one-step beyond imitative to include any speaking performance that is designed to practice some phonological or grammatical aspect of the language. Intensive speaking can be self-imitated or it can even from part of

some pair work activity, where learners are “going over” certain forms of

language.

2.2.3 Responsive

Responsive assessment tasks include interaction and test comprehension but at the somewhat limited level of very short conversations, standard greetings and small talk, simple requests 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 dialogues:

Dialogues: Example I

Mary: Excuse me, do you have the time? Doug: Yeah. Nine fifteen.

Example II

T: What is the most urgent environmental problem today? S: I would say massive deforestation.

Example III

Jeff: Hey, Stef, how’s it going?

Stef: Not bad, and yourself?

Jeff: I’m good.

Stef: Cool. Okay, gonna go.

2.2.4 Transactional (dialogue)

Transactional dialogue, which is carried out for the purpose of conveying or exchanging specific information, is extended form of responsive language. Conversation, for example, may have more of a negotiate nature to them than does responsive speech.

2.2.5 Interpersonal (dialogue)

Interpersonal dialogue carried out more for maintaining social relationship than for transmission of the facts and information. Interpersonal communication includesmessagesending and message reception between two or more individuals. It can involve one on oneconversationsorindividualsinteracting with many people within asociety. It helps us understand how and why people behave and communicate in different ways to construct and negotiate asocial reality.

Example:

Rudi : Hi, what is your name? Andi : My name is Andi and you?

Rudi : My name is Rudi, where do you live? Andi : I live in Sukaraja, and you?

Rudi : I live in Sukajaya. Andi : Nice to meet you Rudi : Nice to meet you too Andi : Thank you

2.2.6 Extensive (monologue)

Students in intermediate to advanced level are called on to give extended monologues in the form of oral reports, summaries, or perhaps short speeches. In this, the register is more formal and deliberative. This monologue can be planned or impromptu.

From all the types of speaking above, finally the researcher chooses interpersonal type of speaking as the main subject at the research. Jigsaw task is used to ask the students to take conversation related to the topic.

2.3 Concept of Teaching Speaking

Teaching speaking means teaching how to use language for communication, for transferring ideas, thought or even feeling to other people. So, itis clear that language is very important. We cannot only teach what will be spoken but also situation that will deal withthe teacher teach speaking by carrying out the students in a certain situation concerning the topic discussed. For instance, the topic is

about “drugs” hence the teacher carrier out to involve the students’ activities in

this situation. The topic must be familiar to the students so that the ideas and organization are clear and the learners have an oral command of the language need to describe the topic (SariYunila, 2002:7).

2.4 Concept of Jigsaw Task

Aronson et al (1978) developed jigsaw task as Cooperative Learning Technique. Jigsaw is excellent for task that has several distinct aspects or components. Home teams are formed, with each team member taking responsibility for one aspect of the problem in question. Expert team is then formed of all students responsible for the same aspect. The teams go over the material they are responsible for and plan how to best teach it to their home groups. After adequate time has been given, the students return to the home teams and bring their expertise to bear on the assigned task. Positive interdependence is fostered because each student has different information needed to complete the task.

This technique can be used in teaching listening, speaking, reading or writing. In

this technique, teacher pays attention to students’ schemata or students’

material become more meaningful. Besides, students work together with their friends in cooperative situation and have many opportunities to process the information and increase communication skills.

In implementing jigsaw task, teacher needs to make every learner active. The students are divided into pair or group (each group consists of 4-6 students). Each student has information and everyone needs to get information. All participant need to exchange information to complete the given.

Meanwhile, the role of the teacher is a facilitatorfor the student to learn. Certainly, the teacher has many roles to fulfill, since the teacher is a manager of the classroom activities. During the activities, the teacher acts as advisor, answering

students’ question and monitoring their performance. Jigsaw task is a kind of technique in teaching speaking that requires the learners to think and share information because they do not know the information yet.

Nation (1990: 29) argues that jigsaw task ensures the participants in need of getting other information. By applying the technique, each learner has unique or essential information. None has the same information. In this case, the students share the information to bridge the gap.

Long and Porter(1990:207) points out that where there is jigsaw(two way task) there is more feedback activity includes checking, understanding, seeking clarification and making sure the message get across. According to them jigsaw gives more chance for the teacher knowing his students response as a feedback in teaching learning process. In this way, the students get language input containing

new items which they understand through feedback with the speaker. On the other hand, in one way task he or her so here is no listener who provides such feedback.

Aronson (1978: 43) says that jigsaw task is a technique which has a strong effect

on students’ attitude to learning and social relationship among learners in the

group. This also means that jigsaw task can help the students to rely on each other for information in a way which puts one leaner above others finally, each learner will value in the group.

According to Doughty and Pica (1981), jigsaw task refers to the existence of lack information among participant, each of whom possesses some piece of information not known to, but needed by all other participants to complete the given tasks.

In conclusion, jigsaw is a task in teaching speaking in which the students should share the information because they do not have the complete information.

From the explanation above the researcher can conclude that in jigsaw task, groups four until six students are set up. Each group member is assigned some unique material to learn and then to teach to his group members. To help in learning, students across the class working on the same sub-section get together to

decide what is important and how to teach it. After practice in these “expert” groups the original group’s reform and students teach each other. Test or

2.5 Procedure of Teaching Speaking through Jigsaw Task

Lie(2002:69) states that procedure of teaching speaking through jigsaw task as follows:

A. Pre Activities

• The teacher greets the students.

• The teacher checks the student’s attendance list.

• The teacher show the picture and asks them’ Do you know how to invite

someone and accept or refuse an invitation? What are the expressions that

commonly used to it?”

• The teacher gives a chance for some of the students to give their opinion. • The teacher introduces jigsaw task to the students and gives them

explanation about the rule how to study in cooperative learning.

B. While Activities

The teacher tells them a short dialogue related to invitation.

• The teacher gives expressions that are commonly used with the meaning related to an invitation and how to pronounce some difficult words.

• The teacher divides the class into some groups in which each group consist of five students.

• The teacher gives some situations related to an invitation for each group and the teacher divides the material into five parts, the first student receives the first part while the second student receives the second part and so on.

• The first student concerns on how to invite someone to a party, the second student concerns on how to invite someone to study together in his or her house, third student concerns on how to accept an invitation, the fourth concerns on how to refuse an invitation and the fifth concerns on how to invite someone have a dinner.

• The teacher asks the students to make five expert groups where each group consists of the students who have the same part.

• The teacher asks them to discuss what is important of their part and how to teach or explain it in their original groups.

• The teacher asks them to return to their original groups after being given an adequate time.

• The teacher asks them to share and discuss the information since each student has different information needed.

C. Post Activities

• The teacher asks them whether they have some difficulties related to the topic.

• The teacher gives a chance for the students to answer their friend’s

question first and then she helps to answer it only if needed.

• The teacher asks them’ what they have learnt?” and asks some students to

conclude the topic. • The teacher and the class.

2.6 Advantages of using Jigsaw Task to improve the students’ speaking ability

According to Aronson (1978: 44) the advantages of jigsaw task are

• It insures the participation of the students because the students have

unique, essential information; all learners need to get other’s information.

• It helps the students in learning the content of subject.

• It has a strong effect on attitude to learning and social relationship among students in group.

• It enables the students to understand the text because while they are doing the activity, they will try to know the meaning of words or sentences in order that they can get complete task.

2.6Disadvantages of using Jigsaw Task to improve the students’ speaking ability

There are same disadvantages of using jigsaw task (Johnson & Johnson, 1993). They are

• Requires some time to prepare student to learn how to work in-groups. • Requires planning and structuring by the teacher in other teaching to be

successfully.

• Requires creative assessment by the teacher for the students.

• Requires some time to make groups that each group has heterogeneity in their member ability.

• The teacher has to distribute the information and arrange the seating, so that the students have easy access to the partner and they cannot see their partner information. So, it will use (need) longer time and more attention. • The teacher will see the students who work individually since they do not

want to ask question to their partner.

2.7 Theoretically Assumption

In teaching speaking, they are some techniques that can help the teacher to reach the aim of teaching learning process. For this, jigsaw task was chosen as a technique in teaching speaking.

Jigsaw task was used because it got the students to be involved and active. Since, the students in this case have a unique, essential part to play in the activity. Therefore, jigsaw task has an effective technique in teaching speaking.

2.8 Hypothesis

Ha: there is a significant improvement of students’ speaking abilityscore from

pretest to posttest after being taught through jigsaw task.

Ho : There is no significant increase of students’ speakingability aftertaughtusing Jigsaw task at Lampung.

III. RESEARCH METHODS

This chapter discusses the following points: research design, population and sample, data collection technique, research procedures, validity, criteria for

evaluating students’ speaking ability, data analysis, data treatment andhypothesis testing.

3.1 Research Design

This is a quantitative research and researcher used one group pretest-posttest, experimental design. The researcher selected one class as the experimental group using random sampling. The aim of this research is to find out whether there is

significant improvement of students’ speaking abilty after teaching using Jigsaw

Task at class IX of SMPN 2Bukitkemuning. To answer the research questions, the writer usedOnepre test–post testdesign. Here the writer used one class only. The research design can be represented as follows:

T1 X T2

(Hatch and Farhady, 1982:20) Note:

T1 : Pretest X : Treatmant T2 : posttest

Hatch and Farhady( 1982:20) in Setiyadi (2001 : 44)

Thisresearchwas intended to find out whether there is a significant improvement

of students’ speaking ability score from pretest to posttest after being taught

through jigsaw task. Pretest was given to know how far the competence of the students in speaking skill before the treatment. Then, the students were given three treatments by using jigsaw task. Posttest was given to know the progress of

students’ speaking ability after being taught through jigsaw task. Besides, in order

to answer the second research question the researcher shared the questioner to the students. It was given to infer the students’ response toward technique being

implemented.

3.2Data

This research was aimedto know the improvement between the students’ speaking

ability score before and after the treatment in performing interpersonal dialogue concerns on five aspects of speaking namely pronunciation, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and grammar based on the rating scale by Harris (1978:84). The score was ranked from 20 – 100. Moreover, this research was also intended to draw students’ response toward jigsaw technique

3.3 Step in Collecting the Data

3.3.1 Selecting Speaking Materials

In selecting the speaking material the researcher used the syllabus of class IX of SMP student based on school based curriculum or KTSP (an English operational curriculum which is arranged and applied by each education unit ) which was the newest curriculum used by the school. The topics chosen were meeting and parting, accepting and refusing an invitation and expressing happiness, showing attention and sympathy in the forms of interpersonal dialogue.

3.3.2Determining the Instrument of the Research

The instrument in this research is speaking test. The researcherconducted the speaking test for the pretest and posttest.These tests were aimed to gain the data of

students’ speaking ability score before the treatment and after the treatment.In

taking the score of speaking thisresearchwas based on five aspects of speaking by Harris(1978:84), namely pronunciation, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and grammar.

In achieving the reliability of pre test and post test of speaking, inter rater reliabilitywas used in the study. The first rater was the researcher himself and the second rater was the English class teacher. Both of them discussed and put in mind the speaking criteria in order to obtain the reliable result of the test.

Validity of the pre test and post test in this research applied to face and construct validity. The face validity or superficial inspection of the speaking test had been previously examined by both advisors and colleagues, until the test which was in form of instruction looked right and understandable to other teacher.

Construct validity, in this research the researcher focused on speaking ability in forms of interpersonal dialogue. The topics chosen wereinviting someone, meeting and parting and expressing happiness, sympathy and attention. Those topics were the representative of speaking materials of School Based Curriculum or KTSPas a matter of tailoring the lesson to students’ need.

3.3.3 Determining Population and Sample

The population of this research is class IX of SMPN 2 Bukitkemuning that consists of 7 classes and one class is taken as the sample as experimental group. The class consists of 40 students andthe sample wasselected using simple probability sampling trough lottery drawing.

3.3.4 Conducting Pretest

Pretest was given before the treatment (teaching speaking through jigsaw task). The test was speaking in the forms of interpersonal dialogue. The material testedwasrelated to KTSP curriculum which is suitable with their level. In the activities of pretest, the teacher asked the students to divide into group and each groupswas asked to perform dialogue in front of the class according to the topic given. Pretest was given to know how far the competence of the students in speaking skill before the treatment. The test was held for2X45 minutes.The scoring system was based on the rating scale by Harris.

3.3.5 Giving the Treatment

The researcherconducted the treatment in experimental group through jigsaw task. There were three times treatments in this research. Each treatment was held in 2 X 45minutes. The materials given to the student were based on the syllabus of SMP. The materials were meeting and parting, accepting and refusing an invitation and expressing happiness, showing sympathy in the forms of interpersonal dialogue.

3.3.6 Conducting Posttest

The researcher administered posttest after treatment. It was aimed to know the

progress of students’ speaking ability after being given the treatment using jigsaw

task. The scoring system was based on the rating scale by Harris.

In conducting the posttest the researcherprovided some topics( Inviting someone, accepting and refusing an invitation, Expressing happiness, attention and sympathy, meeting and parting ) and themlet make a short dialogue in group in which each group consists of 2-3 students based on the topic provided.The first the teacher showed the example of invitation and gave a chance to the students to give their opinion. After that, the teacher introducedjigsaw technique to the students and gave the explanation. Then, the teachercalled the group one by one in front of the class to perform their dialogue before the researcher askedthem to

speak clearly since the students’ voice were be recorded during the test. The material for pretest and posttest was taken from the students’ handbook. The form

of the test was subjective test since there is no exact answer.

The questioner was given to language learners in an attempt to get data about the

students’ respond toward jigsaw task as a technique. In this study, the

questionnaire was only given after the treatment. Besides, the questionnaire was

used in finding out the students’ respond toward jigsaw task as a technique in

teaching speaking. The questionnaire used was referred

to“Metodepenelitianuntukpengajajaranbahasaasing:

PendekatanKuantitatifdanKualitatif” developed by Setiyadi(2006). The questionnaire was designed particularly to review jigsaw task technique used by learners in speaking.

The questionnaire consisted of eight items. It was translated and answered into Indonesian in order to facilitate the learners in understanding the questionnaire.

The questionnaire items measure the students’ response toward jigsaw task for

teaching speaking under one aspect and two indicators.

Table 1.Specification of students’ response jigsaw task in the questionnaire

No Aspects Indicators Question

Number 1 Students’ response toward

jigsaw task technique.

Indicated the

students’ jigsaw

task technique

1, 5, 6, 8

Indicated the uses of speaking ability through jigsaw task technique

Based on the aspects and indicatorswhich had been determined above, each itemshad a numerical value, for example:

1 = strongly disagree 1 = disagree

2 = agree

3 = strongly agree

3.3.8Analyzing, interpreting and concluding the data gained

After collecting the dataofstudents’ utterances in performing the dialogue and listening from recorder, the datawere analyzedbased on the rating scale namely pronunciation, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension and grammar. And then the interpretations of the data were finished.

In concluding the data gained, the researcher did these sequences of procedure. First, the researcher scored the pretest and posttestbefore tabulating the results of test and calculating the mean of the pretest and the posttest for experimental group. After that, he drew the conclusion from the tabulated results of the pretest and posttest, that was statistically analyzed by using Repeated Measures Independent T-test of SPSS (statistically package for social science) version 12.0 for windows since he had collected the paired data. The data were gained in order

to find out whether there was a significant improvement of students’ speaking

ability before and after treatment given.

A test is said valid because the test measured the object to measure and suitable with the criteria (Hatch &Farhady, 1982:250). According to Hatch and Farhady(1982;281) there are two basic types of validity; content validity and construct validity.

3.4.1 Content Validity

To get the content validity of the test, the researcher adopted the test based on the

students’ handbook and the curriculum used. Content validity concerned with the

test whichwas sufficiently representative and comprehensive. In the content validity and the material were considered to be suitable related to the curriculum. It meant that the materials were suitable will the students. Content validity is the extent to which a test measures a representative sample of the subject meter content, the focus of content validity is adequacy of the sample and simply on the appearance of the test (Hatch and Farhady, 1982).

3.4.2 Construct Validity

Construct validity is concerned with whether the test which actually in line with the theory of what it means to know the language that is being measured. It was examined whether the test question actually reflect what it meant to know a language. In this research the researcherfocussed on speaking ability in forms of interpersonal dialogue. The topics chosen wereinviting someone, meeting and parting and expressing happiness, sympathy and attention. Those topics are the representative of speaking materials of School Based Curriculum or KTSP as a

3.4.3 Reliability of the Test

Reliability refers tothe extend to which the test is consistent in its score and gives us an indication of how accurate the test score are (Hatch &Farhady, 1982: 244). In achieving the reliability of the pretest and posttest of speaking, inter rater reliability was used in this study. The first rater was the researcher herself and the second rater was the English class teacher. Both of themdiscussed and put in mind the speaking criteria in order to obtain the reliable results of the test.

In this research, the researcher get the reliability of pretest is 0.99 and the reliability of posttest is 0.99 9. Both raters made slightly different in total amount; it is 8 points of difference in pretest and 16 points in difference in posttest. The

reliability of speaking test above will be indicated that the results of the students’

speaking ability are accurate and consistent.

3.5 Criteria for Evaluating Students’ Speaking Ability

The consideration of criteria for evaluating students’ speaking ability was based

on the oral rating sheet from Harris (1974: 48). There are five aspects to be tested; pronunciation, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and grammar

In evaluating the students' speaking scores, the researcher and the second rater listened to the students' recorded voice in judging the score. The students' utterances were recorded because it helped the raters to evaluate more objectively. Based on the oral rating sheet from Harris (1974:84), there are five aspects to be tested.

Bellow is the table rating scales:

Table 2.of rating Scale

Aspects of speaking Rating scales Description

Pronunciation ₅ Speech is fluent and effortless as that native speaker.

4 Always intelligible though one is

conscious of a definite accent.

3

Pronunciation problems necessitate concentrated listening and Occasionally lead to understanding.

2

Very hard to understand because of pronunciation problem most Frequently asked to repeat.

1 Pronunciation problem so severe as to make speech unintelligible.

5 Use of vocabulary and idiom virtually that is of native speaker.

4

Sometimes use inappropriate terms and must rephrase ideas, because of inadequate vocabulary.

3

Frequently use the wrong word, conversation somewhat limited because of inadequate vocabulary.

2

Misuse of words and very limited vocabulary make comprehension quite difficult.

1 Vocabulary limitations so extreme as to make conversation virtually impossible.

5 Speech is fluent and effortless as that of native speaker.

Vocabulary

4 Speed of speech seems rather strongly affected by language problems.

3 Speed and fluency are rather strongly affected by language problems.

2 Usually hesitant often forced into silence by language problems.

1 Speech is so halting and fragmentary as to make conversation virtually impossible.

Comprehension

5 Appear to understand everything without difficulty.

4

Understand nearly everything at normal speed although occasionally repetition may be necessary.

3 Understand most of what is said at slower than normal speed with repetition.

2

Has great difficulty following what is said can comprehend only" social conversation" spoken slowly and with frequent repetition.

1 Cannot be said to understand even simple

conversation in English.

5 Grammar almost entirely in accurate

phrases.

4

Constant errors control of very few major patterns and frequently preventing communication.

3

Frequent errors showing some major patterns uncontrolled and causing

occasional irritation and

misunderstanding.

2 Few errors, with no patterns of failure.

1 No more than two errors during the

dialogue.

Harris (1974:84).

The scores of each point are multiplied by four; Hence, the highest score is 100

Here the identification of the scores If the students get 5, so5 X 4 = 20

4, so 4 X 4 = 16 3, so 3 X 4 = 12 2, so 2 X 4 = 8 1, so 1 X 4 = 4

For instance:

A student got 5 in Pronunciation, 4 in Vocabulary, and 3 in Fluency, 2 in

comprehension and 1 in grammar. Therefore, the student’s total score will be:

Comprehension 2 X 4 = 8 Grammar 1 X 4 = 4 Total = 60

It means he or she got 60 for speaking.

3.6 Data Analysis

To analyze the data, the students’ score in the pretest and posttest researcher

computed them by using the formula as follows:

M= ∑

Pronunciation 5 X 4 = 20 Vocabulary 4 X 4 = 16

Notes:

M = Mean (the average score) X = Students score

N = Total number of students (Arikunto, 1997:68)

Then the mean of pretest was compare to the mean of posttest to see whether jigsaw task has a positive effect toward students speaking ability or not. In order to know whether the students got an improvement the researcher used the following formula.

I= M2-M1 Notes:

I = the improvement of students’ ability M1 = the average score of pretest

M2 = the average score of posttest

After the data have been collected the researcher will treat the data by using the following procedures:

Table 3.Putting Students’ Scorein pretest (T1) and posttest (T2) on table below:

Ss’ Code

Pronunciat Ion

Vocabulary Fluency Comprehe Ension

Grammar Total

R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2

A B

Mean X1= X=2

Notes;

R1 : Rater 1 R2 : Rater 2 X1 :∑ R1 X2 :∑ R2

Table 4.Inter-rater reliability of pre-test

No Students’ code R1 R2 d1 d2

Reliability of pre-test:

= − 6. (d ) N. (n − 1) Notes:

R = reliability of the test

d1 = the difference between R1 and R2 d2 = the square of d1

3.7 Data treatment

According to Setiyadi (2006:168-169), using T-Test for hypothesis testing has 3 basic assumptions, namely:

1. The data is interval or ratio

2. The data is taken from random sample in population 3. The data is distributed normally

According to Setiyadi (2006:168-169), using T-Test for hypothesis testing had 3 basic assumptions, namely:

The data is interval or ratio

The data is taken from random sample in population

The data is distributed normally

Therefore, the writer used the following procedures:

1. Random Test

This was to make sure that the data was random. The writer used SPSS version12 to help him. The writer used mean as the cut point. The hypothesis was formulated as follows:

Ho: the data is random

H1: the data is not random

H is accepted if sign> @. In this case, the writer used the level of significance 0.05. From the result (see table below), we could see that p>0.05 in all test (pretest and posttest). It proved that the Ho was accepted and all the data were random.

Table 5. Random Test of the Data of Pretest

Descriptive Statistics

N Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum Maximum

Pretest 34 61.4194 3.68646 56.00 68.00

Runs Test

Pretest Test value(a)

Cases < Test Value Cases <= Test Value Total Cases

Number of Runs Z

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

61.4194 21 13 34 13 -1.315 .189

a mean

Descriptive Statistics

N Mean Std.

Deviation

Minimum Maximum

Posttest 34 76.23329 5.85627 64.00 88.00

Runs Test

Posttest Test value(a)

Cases < Test Value Cases <= Test Value Total Cases

Number of Runs Z

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

76.2329 21 13 34 13 -1.315 .189

a mean

2. Normality test

The writer used normality test to know whether the data was distributed normally or not. The hypothesis was formulated as follows:

Ho: The data was distributed normally

H1: The data was not distributed normally

In this research, the criterion for the hypothesis was that: H is accepted if sign > @ in this case, the writer used the level of significance 0.05. From the result (see

appendix), we could see that p> 0.05 in all test (pretest and posttest). It proved that the Ho was accepted and all the data were distributed normally.

Table 7. Normality Test of the data of Pretest

Descriptive Statistics

N Mean Std.

Deviation

Minimum Maximum

Pretest 34 61.4194 3.68646 56.00 68.00

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

Pretest N

Normal Parameters(a.b) Mean

Std. Deviation Most Extreme Absolute Differences

Positive Negative Kolmogorov-Smimov Z

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

34 61.4194 3.68646 .279

.279 -.192 1.642 .060

a Test distribution is Normal. b Calculated from data

Table 8. Normality Test of the Data of Posttest Descriptive Statistics

N Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum Maximum

Posttest 34 76.2329 5.85627 64.00 88.00

One- sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test Posttest N

Normal Parameters(a.b) Mean

Std. Deviation Most Extreme Absolute Differences

Positive Negative Kolmogorov-Smimov Z

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

34 76.2329 5.85627 .152

142 -.152 .889 .408 a Test distribution is Normal.

b Calculated from data

3.8 Hypothesis Testing

The hypothesis testing was usedto prove whether the hypothesis propose in this research is accepted or not. The hypothesis analyzes by using Repeated Measure t–test through computing with Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS). Version 17.0 for Windows. The hypothesis is formulated as follows:

Ho : There is no significant increase of students’ speaking ability after taught using Jigsaw taskat Lampung.

Hα : There is significant increase of students’ speaking ability after taught

V. CONCLUSSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter presented the conclusion of the study and suggestion for future research in the related topic. The conclusions of the study were based on the findings and the discussions in the previous chapter.

5.1 Conclusions

Based on the result and the discussion of the findings, the writer draws the conclusions as follows:

1. There is a significant improvement of students’ speaking ability score

from pretest to posttest after being taught using jigsaw task. It is proven by seeing the progress of their average score, which is from 61.41 to 76.23.

The total score gain of the students’ speaking ability from the pre-test and post-test was 504, from 2088 to 2592. Jigsaw task can improve the students speaking ability by 14.81 %. The hypothesis test shows the value of the two tail significant is P 0.000 in which the significant improvement

is determined by p< 0.05. In other words, H is approved if Sig < p. the result shows 0.00 significant levels.

Furthermore, in this research the lowest improvement of students’

speaking ability compared the other aspects of speaking is in pronunciation. The main problem of students is difficult in remembering how to pronounce the words that has effect directly in fluency and comprehensibility. It can be solved if the students practice more often with their teacher and friends during teaching learning process in the classroom. By practicing often, unconsciously, their speaking skill such as pronunciation, fluency, and comprehension will improve too.

2. The students gave positive respond toward jigsaw task. It can be since from the result of the questioner which revealed the fact that 32 students gave positive response and only 2 students gave negative response. However, the teachers need to prepare a good lesson plan and the materials which were suitable and well constructed to avoid monotonous activity in class. At the last activity, it would be better if the teachers could discuss the jigsaw task that had been made by students and gave reward for the most interesting one.

5.2 Suggestion

Considering the result of the research and the conclusion, the writer would lie to propose some suggestion as follows:

1. It is necessary to consider about the time in applying jigsaw task. The teacher should have more time for adapting jigsaw task or even make the available time as the efficient as possible. The teacher as motivator should always encourage

students to express their ideas in better pronunciation by giving much oral activity practice.

2. The teacher should monitor the students’ progress of pronunciation more

intensively while they are being involved the activity. After this activity the teacher can discussthe students’ work with their students.

REFERENCES

Arikunto, Suharsimi. 1991. Dasar-DasarEvaluasiPendidikan. Jakarta:BumiAksara

David and Roger Johson.“Cooperative Learning.”October 2001.10 May 2006

http://www.clcrc.com/pages/cl.html.

David and Roger Johnson.”An Overview of Cooperative Leaning.” October 2001.

10 May 2006http://www.clcrc.com/pages/overviewpaper.html. Diknas, 2006.BukuSakuKurikulum Tingkat SatuanPendidikan.Diknas. Jakarta. Gefen, Raphael, April 1987. Oral Testing-the Battery Approach. English

Teaching Forum Journal vol.XXV. 20 pages 24-27.

Harris, David. 1987. English as Second Language. New York. Mc. Graw Mill. Hatch, E&Farhady. 1982. Research Design and Statistic For Applied Linguistics.

Tokyo. Newbury House of publisher

Hornby, 1986.Oxford Advanced Learner’s dictionary of Current oEnglish.Oxford

University Press.

Howard Community College’s Teaching Resources. “Ideas on Cooperative

Learning and the use of Small Groups. “October 2001. 10 May 2006.

http://www.howardcc.edu/profdev/resources/learning/groups1.htm. Hughes, Arthur. 1989. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge University

Press. New York. 172 pages.

Lado, Robert.1974. Language Testing. London. Longman.

Lie, Anita. 2002. Cooperative Learning. Mempraktikan Cooperative Learning di Ruang-RuangKelas. Jakarta. Grasindo.95 Hal.

Purnamasari, Dessy. 2004. The Effectiveness of Jigsaw Reading Technique (A Study at SMA Negeri 1 Bandar Lampung) (A Script). Lampung Univesity. 84 pages. (Unpublish)

Rahayu, Ratu. 2004. Increasing Students’ Speaking Ability Through Role Play At

The Second Year Of SMU 1 Alkautsar Bandar Lampung (A Script). Lampung University.69 pages..(Unpublish)

Sari, Yunila.2002.Developing Student’s Speaking Ability Through Pair Work At

The Second Year of SMKN 2 Bandar Lampung.(A Script).Lampung Univercity.69 pages..(Unpublish)

Setiyadi, Ag.Bambang. 2006. MetodePenelitianUntukPengajaranBahasaAsing. GrahaIlmu.Yogyakarta.314 pages.

Susan, Imelda. 2001. Improving Student’s Speaking Ability Through Finding

Missing Information Technique At The First Year of SMA YP UnilaTanjungKarang. (A script) Lampung University..(Unpublish) Trianto. 2007. Model-Model PembelanjaranInnovatifberorientasiKonstruktivistik.

V. CONCLUSSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter presented the conclusion of the study and suggestion for future research in the related topic. The conclusions of the study were based on the findings and the discussions in the previous chapter.

5.1 Conclusions

Based on the result and the discussion of the findings, the writer draws the conclusions as follows:

1. There is a significant improvement of students’ speaking ability score from pretest to posttest after being taught using jigsaw task. It is proven by seeing the progress of their average score, which is from 61.41 to 76.23. The total score gain of the students’ speaking ability from the pre-test and post-test was 504, from 2088 to 2592. Jigsaw task can improve the students speaking ability by 14.81 %. The hypothesis test shows the value of the two tail significant is P 0.000 in which the significant improvement is determined by p< 0.05. In other words, H is approved if Sig < p. the result shows 0.00 significant levels.

comprehensibility. It can be solved if the students practice more often with their teacher and friends during teaching learning process in the classroom. By practicing often, unconsciously, their speaking skill such as pronunciation, fluency, and comprehension will improve too.

2. The students gave positive respond toward jigsaw task. It can be since from the result of the questioner which revealed the fact that 32 students gave positive response and only 2 students gave negative response. However, the teachers need to prepare a good lesson plan and the materials which were suitable and well constructed to avoid monotonous activity in class. At the last activity, it would be better if the teachers could discuss the jigsaw task that had been made by students and gave reward for the most interesting one.

5.2 Suggestion

Considering the result of the research and the conclusion, the writer would lie to propose some suggestion as follows:

1. It is necessary to consider about the time in applying jigsaw task. The teacher should have more time for adapting jigsaw task or even make the available time as the efficient as possible. The teacher as motivator should always encourage

students to express their ideas in better pronunciation by giving much oral activity practice.

2. The teacher should monitor the students’ progress of pronunciation more intensively while they are being involved the activity. After this activity the teacher can discussthe students’ work with their students.

Arikunto, Suharsimi. 1991. Dasar-DasarEvaluasiPendidikan. Jakarta:BumiAksara David and Roger Johson.“Cooperative Learning.”October 2001.10 May 2006

http://www.clcrc.com/pages/cl.html.

David and Roger Johnson.”An Overview of Cooperative Leaning.” October 2001. 10 May 2006http://www.clcrc.com/pages/overviewpaper.html. Diknas, 2006.BukuSakuKurikulum Tingkat SatuanPendidikan.Diknas. Jakarta. Gefen, Raphael, April 1987. Oral Testing-the Battery Approach. English

Teaching Forum Journal vol.XXV. 20 pages 24-27.

Harris, David. 1987. English as Second Language. New York. Mc. Graw Mill. Hatch, E&Farhady. 1982. Research Design and Statistic For Applied Linguistics.

Tokyo. Newbury House of publisher

Hornby, 1986.Oxford Advanced Learner’s dictionary of Current oEnglish.Oxford University Press.

Howard Community College’s Teaching Resources. “Ideas on Cooperative Learning and the use of Small Groups. “October 2001. 10 May 2006. http://www.howardcc.edu/profdev/resources/learning/groups1.htm. Hughes, Arthur. 1989. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge University

Press. New York. 172 pages.

Lado, Robert.1974. Language Testing. London. Longman.

Lie, Anita. 2002. Cooperative Learning. Mempraktikan Cooperative Learning di Ruang-RuangKelas. Jakarta. Grasindo.95 Hal.

Purnamasari, Dessy. 2004. The Effectiveness of Jigsaw Reading Technique (A Study at SMA Negeri 1 Bandar Lampung) (A Script). Lampung Univesity. 84 pages. (Unpublish)

Rahayu, Ratu. 2004. Increasing Students’ Speaking Ability Through Role Play At The Second Year Of SMU 1 Alkautsar Bandar Lampung (A Script). Lampung University.69 pages..(Unpublish)

Sari, Yunila.2002.Developing Student’s Speaking Ability Through Pair Work At The Second Year of SMKN 2 Bandar Lampung.(A Script).Lampung Univercity.69 pages..(Unpublish)

Setiyadi, Ag.Bambang. 2006. MetodePenelitianUntukPengajaranBahasaAsing. GrahaIlmu.Yogyakarta.314 pages.

Susan, Imelda. 2001. Improving Student’s Speaking Ability Through Finding Missing Information Technique At The First Year of SMA YP UnilaTanjungKarang. (A script) Lampung University..(Unpublish) Trianto. 2007. Model-Model PembelanjaranInnovatifberorientasiKonstruktivistik.