able to reach at least 60 for their speaking ability. Due to that fact, the researcher and the teacher decided not to hold the next cycle.
Besides identifying the total scores of the students‟ speaking ability, the researcher also identified the students‟ scores of each component of speaking, that is,
pronunciation, fluency, grammar and vocabulary because this research used an analytical scoring to score the students‟ speaking ability see appendix 8. The
explanation of the table of students‟ score in cycle 2 is as follow:
3.1.1 Pronunciation
For pronunciation, there are 20 students 66.67 whose score can reach 20. Their pronunciation was good enough; it was only very slightly influenced by mother-
tongue.
Besides, there are 6 students 20 who reach 15. Their pronunciation was slightly influenced by the mother tongue and most utterances they said were
correct. However, their pronunciation was good.
In addition, 3 students 10 get 15. Though their pronunciation was still moderately influenced by the mother tongue but they did not have any serious
phonological errors. For that reason, their pronunciation was enough. So, based on table 3, there are 26 students 86.67 whose pronunciation scores
have achieved the target of the indicator.
Though the target of the indicator has been achieved but there is still one student 3.33 who gain 15. It means his pronunciation was still poor. His pronunciation
was influenced by the mother tongue but he had only a few serious phonological errors.
Meanwhile, for the words pronounced incorrectly by the students in Cycle II are not so much different from the mistakes they made in Cycle I.
3.1.2 Fluency
It is 12 students 40 who get 20. They spoke without a very great effort with a fairly wide range of expression and she searched for words occasionally but only
one or two unnatural pauses.
In addition, there are 14 students 46.67 who get 15. While speaking, they made an effort at times to search for words, nevertheless, very smooth delivery on
the whole and only a few unnatural pauses. This shows that their fluency was good.
There are also 3 students 10 who reach 15. Their fluency was enough since they made an effort and searched for words but there were not too many unnatural
pauses and it was fairly smooth delivery mostly.
Luckily, there is only one student 4.55 who gets 15. His fluency was poor since he made an effort for much of the time. He often had to search for the desired
meaning and rather halting delivery and fragmentary.
3.1.3 Vocabulary
For vocabulary, there were 10 students 33.33 who get 20. It means that their vocabulary was very good because it was easy for the listeners teacher, researcher,
and students to understand their intention and general meaning.
Besides that, there are 15 students 50 whose vocabulary was also good so they get 15. Their word and general meaning were fairly clear, though there were a few
interruptions by listeners for the sake of clarification.
There were also still 5 students 16.67 who reach 15. It means that their vocabulary was enough. In speaking, their words clear but there were several
interruptions by the listeners to help them to convey the message or to see the clarification.
3.1.4 Grammar
