55 and the other was CG. The number of students in each class was 21 students. So,
the total respondents of this study were 42 students. The respondents from both EG and CG share the same English ability since
they were placed in the same level, namely level 5. This placement was based on the score of placement test administered by the Language Teaching Center of
UMY. Level 5 in the Language Teaching Centre of UMY is equal to Level B2 of Common European Framework of Reference for Language CEFR. The students
who are placed in level 5 are able to justify and sustain their opinions in discussion by providing relevant explanations, arguments and comments. They
can present clear, detailed descriptions on a wide range of subjects related to their field of interest, expanding and supporting ideas with subsidiary points and
relevant examples. They can develop a clear description or narrative, expanding and supporting their main points with relevant supporting detail and examples.
During the semester, the students attend an English course to learn Integrated English Learning where they are supposed to learn four skills at one
time. However, since this study focused on speaking, the other three skills were put aside, especially in some topics where the three implementations of video-
recording were done. Both EG and CG had a parallel schedule. The students attended the English course twice a week, every Tuesday and Friday mornings,
for 90 minutes.
D. Research Procedures and Treatment
The main purpose of this section is to provide clear and understandable sequential stages of how the researcher conducted her research in the field. Before
the experiment was carried out, the first step was to identify the target groups. The researcher took two classes where the participants had been formerly set by an
56 administrator since in the language training centre of Muhammadyah University
of Yogyakarta, the students are leveled based on a placement test. The researcher chose two classes which had the same level as the participants in CG and EG had
to be equal in terms of their English ability. After identifying the target group, the researcher studied the syllabus of the level to see and select the topics the students
would learn during the semester. The first three topics were selected as the implementation of the video-recordings would be held for three times. The reason
of taking three-time implementation was because the researcher was afraid of distracting the teaching and learning process which had been officially planned in
the syllabus and the time constraint. The next step was designing lesson plans on the three topics both for EG and CG as seen in Appendices 03a and 03b. Best
1977 mentions that EG and CG should be made as equal as possible; therefore, the researcher designed similar series of activities for EG and CG, except for the
use of video-recordings. Finally, the researcher managed the schedule for pre-test, three-time video-recordings implementations, and post test. In this study, the
researcher was helped by a colleague who taught the CG. Since the schedule of English course of EG and CG was parallel, it was impossible for the researcher to
teach both classes at the same time. The following Table 3.5 illustrates the process of the research starting from pre-test to post-test.
Table 3.3 The Research Process from Pre-Test to Post-Test
March April
May June
Week Week
Week Week
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Pre-test EG
Pre-test CG Experiment EG
Non Experiment CG Post-test EG
Post-test CG
57 In general, the experiment or the treatment in the experimental group
consisted of several activities considered as a whole. Initially, pre-speaking activities were done to provide learners with a list of topic-specific vocabulary,
some potential language, and general information which students could use when performing speaking. The inputs were obtained from reading texts or dialogues in
the module. After the students were given prior knowledge, they were assigned to perform their speaking. Time for preparation was given to plan an outline and key
points of their talk. Then, the students spoke and videotaped their own speaking performance.
The next meeting, the students worked in pairs and viewed their video- recorded speaking performance on their laptops, notebooks, or tablets. In this
stage were two activities called self-evaluation and peer-feedback. First, the students were asked to evaluate their own speaking performance. Afterwards, they
asked their friends to give them some feedback on their speaking performance. Self-evaluation and peer feedback sheets were provided. Before self-evaluation
and peer feedback were carried out, the teacher initially explained how and what the students should fill in the sheet See Appendix 04.
The following meeting was for one-to-one consultation with the teacher. During this phase, the teacher and the students watched the video of speaking
performance together. While watching, the teacher gave immediate feedback through the screen. During the consultation the teacher did not always show the
students’ mistakes directly. Instead, the teacher prompted by giving clues to the students to be able to independently find their own weaknesses. Subsequently, the
students repaired their former speaking performance by making a new one which had to be handed in the following meeting.
58 The final stage was the video display where all the ‘repaired’ videos of the
students’ speaking performances were shown on the screen in the classroom. The students were allowed to give any comments, rate the videos, and decide which
videos they considered as the good ones. Those stages were regarded as a whole and represented one implementation. Figure 3.1. illustrates one implementation
which comprises several stages.
Figure 3.1 Stages of One Implementation of Video-Recording E. Data Analysis
The data of this research were taken from three different instruments, namely pre- and post-tests, questionnaires, and interviews. Both tests resulted in
numerical data showing whether the use of video-recording was successful in facilitating the students’ speaking accuracy and fluency. The numerical data were
the gain scores of each EG and CG See Appendix 8 which were calculated by subtracting the post-test scores from the pre-test scores of each CG and EG See
Appendices 5 and 6. The gain scores of accuracy and fluency of EG and CG were each compared to find if there would be a significant difference on the
1
• pre-speaking activities
2
• speaking performance video-taping
3
• self-correction
4
• peer-feedback
5
• one-to-one teacher evaluation
6
• speaking performance re-video-taping
7
• video display
59 Experimental group that received the treatment compared to the Control Group
receiving general treatment in terms of accuracy and fluency. The statistical significance of the difference was determined by ANCOVA and the analysis of the
validity test was done by a computer program called SPSS.
The next step was to analyze the data from the questionnaire. The analysis of the questionnaire was based on each aspect of the video recording, such as self-
correction, peer-feedback, one-to-one teacher evaluation, auditory and visual immediacy and feedback preciseness, repetitionrefinement, flexibility, and video
display. First, the researcher counted the raw data into percentage
and the result is presented in Appendix 11
. Initially, the researcher counted the numbers of ticks on each degree of agreement of each item in each aspect of video-recordings, “strongly
agree”, “agree”, ”not sure”, “disagree”, and “strongly disagree”, by putting them to a tally chart. Then,
the frequency was divided by the total of the respondents, and then the result was multiplied by 100. The formula is as follows:
Percentage =
100
Where: P : Percentage
f : Frequency
N : Total of Respondents
100 : Fixed Number
Then, the researcher also counted the mean of each phenomena gathering item in each category or indicator each aspect of video-recordings. This calculation was
aimed to inform the tendency of the respondents on each statement questionnaire item so that the researcher was able to have detailed discussion. Besides, it was also for
60
further calculation of the mean of each indicator. Initially, the frequency of each degree of agreement was multiplied by the value of each degree of agreement
Strongly Agree = 5, Agree = 4, Not Sure = 3, Disagree = 2, Strongly Disagree = 1. The results were totalized then divided by the number of respondents. The formula is
as follows:
X =
f SAx5 + f Ax4 +
f NSx3 + f Dx2 +
f SDx1 N
Where: f : Frequency
SA : Strongly Agree
A : Agree
NS : Not Sure
D : Disagree
SD : Strongly Disagree
N : Total of Respondents
After the mean of each phenomena gathering item was calculated, the mean of each category or indicator was calculated as well. The mean of all phenomena
gathering items within one indicator were totaled. Afterwards, the total was divided by the number of the phenomena gathering items within the indicator. This mean
calculation was aimed to inform the researcher of their tendency on each indicator.
Subsequently, the mean of each indicator is interpreted according to the mean criteria. This interpretation aims to bring clearer image of the students’ tendency
on which factors have given significant contribution to the improvement of their speaking accuracy and fluency. Initially, to define the mean criteria, ideal mean
Mi and ideal standard deviation SDi should be determined. The ideal mean is the addition of the highest ideal score and the lowest ideal score divided by two,
and the ideal standard deviation is subtracting the highest ideal score from the
61 lowest ideal score, and then divided by six. The formulas and calculations are
presented as follows: Mi ideal mean
= 12 Maximum score + minimum score = 12 5+1
= 3 SDi ideal standard deviation = 16 Maximum score - minimum score
= 16 5-1 = 0.6
Munadi, 2014 After the ideal mean Mi and ideal standard deviation SDi are calculated, the
mean criteria can be formulated. The formulation is adapted from Sudijono’s quantitative data conversion as shown in the following figure 3.2.
Very High Mi + 1.5 SDi
High Mi + 0.5 SDi
Fair Mi - 0.5 SDi
Low Mi - 1.5 SDi
Very Low
Figure 3.2 The Mean Criteria Formulation Sudijono, 2009: 175
Thus, the mean criteria can be seen in the following table 3.5.
Table 3.4 The Mean Criteria
Score Range
Criteria 4
Very High Mi + 1.5 SDi = 3 + 1.5 0.6 = 3.9
3.4 – 3.9 High
Mi + 0.5 SDi = 3 + 0.5 0.6 = 3.3 2.8 – 3.3
Fair Mi - 0.5 SDi
= 3 - 0.5 0.6 = 2.7
2.2 – 2.7 Low
Mi - 1.5 SDi = 3 - 1.5 0.6
= 2.1 2.1
Very Low
62 The mean criteria above are used to interpret the mean of every indicator in order
to know the respondents’ tendency on the elements of the use of video recordings which help them enhance their speaking accuracy and fluency.
In other words, the researcher would be informed which aspects of video-recording had high and less
contribution towards the students’ accuracy and fluency.
The very high score indicates that the indicators receive the most favorable opinions from the
respondents. In line with it, the high score shows that the respondents agree with the indicators or that the indicators are just favorable. Next, the fair score tells the
researcher that the respondents are not sure whether the indicators are advantageous. The low score points out that the respondents disagree with the
indicators. The last, the very low score specifies that the respondents do not strongly favor the indicators. The interpretation of each indicator is illustrated in
Appendix 11.
The data from the questionnaire were later validated by the data from the interviews which were visually reported.
The last step was to analyze the data from the interviews. Initially, the interview recordings were transcribed. Then, the researcher sorted the students’
statements from the interview transcript into the corresponding categories or aspects of video-recordings. The supporting statements were used to substantiate the results
of the questionnaire.
63
CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
