50
5 Preparing students’ attendance list b. Acting
1 Teacher distributed the handout to students 2 Teacher introduced the dialogues
3 Students read the dialogues 4 Teacher called students’ name
5 Students performed the dialogue 6 Teacher recorded the test and noted the score for each category
c. Observing 1 Observing the students’ activities
2 Observing the students’ co operation in their groups d. Reflecting
Reflecting was done at the end of teaching learning activity II by observing and analyzing the results of observation in teaching learning activity I
and II. Reflecting in this step was done to discuss the results of observations to make a conclusion.
3.8 Scoring Technique
In this study, I gave oral tests and analyzed the scores to measure the improvement and only gave scores on fluency quality of communication,
pronunciation, and effort to communicate. The students would be called out in turn and the writer tested them by
giving dialogues relating to the material. In giving scores, I followed rating scale
51
developed by Walter Bartz Bartz cited in Valette, 1983:150. He showed four items that was important to be scored: fluency, quality of communication,
amount of communication, and effort to communicate. But in this study, I did not give score on amount of communication because the students did not create the
dialogue. They only memorized the given dialogues. The rating scale for the speaking test developed by Walter Bartz Bartz
cited in Valette, 1983:150 can be seen as follow: Scores Fluency
Quality of communication
Pronunciation Effort to
communicate 1 speech
is so
halting and fragmentary
that conversation
is virtually impossible
Speech consists mostly of
inappropriate isolated words and
or incomplete sentences with just
few very short complete sentences
Speech consists of
very poor pronunciation
Students withdraws into
long periods of silence, without
any apparent effort to
complete the task
2 Speech is very
slow and uneven except
for short or routine
sentences Speech consists of
many inappropriate
isolated words and or incomplete
sentences with some very short
complete sentences Speech
consists of mostly
inappropriate pronunciation
Students makes little effort to
communicate, what he does is
“half-hearted” without any
enthusiasm
3 Speech is
frequently hesitant and
jerky, Speech consists of
some inappropriate isolated words and
or incomplete Speech
consists some inappropriate
pronunciation Students makes
some effort to communicate,
but still shows a
52
sentences may be left
uncompleted sentences with
many very short complete sentences
rather “disinterested”
attitude 4 Speech
is occasionally
hesitant, with some
unevenness caused by
rephrasing and grouping
for words Speech consists of
hardly any isolated words and or
incomplete sentences with
mostly complete sentences
Speech consists of
hardly incorrect
pronunciation Students makes
an effort to communicate but
does not use any non-verbal
resources, such as gestures
5 Speech is
effortless and smooth, but
perceptibly non-native in
speed and evenness
Speech consists of isolated words
only if appropriate and almost always
completes sentences.
Speech consists of
always- appropriate
pronunciation Students makes a
real effort to communicate and
uses some non- verbal resources,
such as gestures
6 Speech on all
professional and general
topics as effortless and
smooth as native speaker
Speech consists of isolated words
only if appropriate, otherwise always
“native-like” appropriate
complete sentences Speech always
shows native- like
pronunciation Students makes a
special usually high effort to
communicate and uses all possible
resources, verbal and non-verbal,
to express himself or herself
53
Based on the table above, score 6 as the highest mark for the indicator of successful achievement. To find the scores of the test, the writer counted up all
score from the four indicators of the students. To facilitate the computation, the writer composed the data which are
needed in the computation using this following formula
1
2
− ∑
= N
N d
x Md
t
In which: Md
: mean from different pre-test and post-test xd
: difference between devians and means devians N
: numbers of subject df
: db or N-1 Arikunto, 2002:275
3.9 Validity and Reliability of the Test 3.9.1 Validity
