The researcher wrote everything that should be observed about the situation and students’ behavior. By doing so, the researcher would not miss every
progress that the students made.
D. Data Gathering Techniques
In gathering data for the research, the researcher obtained the data in several steps of two cycles. In the first cycle the researcher wrote field notes of the
events and presented an observer who would observe the details events and the materials.
The researcher observed the students’ improvement through observation checklist or speaking rubrics that were filled by the observer. Besides, the
researcher also had her own field notes. In this stage the researcher should be active in joining the implementation and activities. The researcher also observed
the students’ behavior, students’ interest, and their improvement in using the techniques in her notes. The researcher worked on the notes during the
implementation. The person who filled the speaking rubrics and observation had to observe students’ English speaking ability during the implementation.
The researcher planned the techniques to teach regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the previous implementation. The researcher eliminated the
weaknesses of the result by renewing the teaching technique. The researcher implemented the techniques of teaching in the next cycle in order to gain better
result. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
E. Data Analysis Techniques
The researcher analyzed the data gathered in the research in order to gain the answer to the question formulated in the problem formulation. In analyzing
the data from the instruments, researcher triangulated all the data gathered from the speaking rubric and field notes. The researcher conducted this step in order to
gain valid and reliable data. Bodgan and Bilken 2003: 107 explain that triangulation is used to “verify of facts”. This statement strengthens that a fact
needs more than one source of information. The researcher first identified the problems through observation checklist
or speaking rubrics and field notes. Based on the instruments employed in the research, the researcher identified problems faced by the students.
The data were analyzed based on some criteria of speaking components. They are as follows:
1. The content:
The content of the speaking is poor when students show minimal completion of the task and or responses frequently inappropriate. The content is
fair when students show partial completion and responses mostly appropriate yet undeveloped. Then, it is good when students could provide complete speaking.
The complete speaking consisted of opening, while, and closing. It also covers appropriate and adequately developed responses. The content will be very good
when students show superior completion and appropriate responses and with elaboration.
2. Comprehensibility: The comprehensibility of speaking is poor when students show barely
comprehensible responses. The comprehensibility is fair when the responses are mostly comprehensible and it is good when students show comprehensible
responses and requiring minimal interpretation on the part of the listener. It will be very good when students show readily comprehensible responses in speaking.
The responses required no interpretation on the part of the listener. 3. Fluency:
The fluency of speaking is poor when students show halting speech with long pauses. The fluency is fair when students show choppy and or slow speech
with frequent pauses. Then, the fluency is good when students show some hesitation but manages to continue speech. It will be very good when students
spoke continuous with few pauses or stumbling. 4. Pronunciation:
The pronunciation of the speech is poor when students’ speaking frequently interferes with communication. They are fair when the speech
occasionally interferes with communication. Then it is good when students’ speaking did not interfere with communication. It will be very good when
students’ speech show enhances communication. 5. Vocabulary:
The vocabulary in students’ speaking is poor when students show inadequate andor inaccurate use of vocabulary. It is fair when students show
somewhat inadequate use of vocabulary. Then, it is good when they show an PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
adequate and accurate use of vocabulary. In expanding the speaking content students showed the variety of vocabulary and did not use the same words again
and again. It will be very good when they use rich of vocabulary in speaking. 6. Grammar:
The grammar of the speaking is poor when students show inaccurate use of basic language structures. It is fair when students show an emerging use of
basic language structures. Then, it is good when students have an emerging control of basic language structures. Students were able to use basic language
structures such as present tenses, past tenses, perfect tenses, and future tenses. It will be very good when they have control of basic language structures.
The technique in the cycle was considered to be successful if the participants reached the indicators and increased their speaking ability. The
researcher evaluated the result of the implementation and found out whether or not the implementation had many weaknesses. If the researcher found many
weaknesses, she would refine the method in the next implementation. In order to see the achievement indicators, the researcher employed
speaking rubrics during the research implementation. The researcher monitored the progress of the students’ speaking ability including content, comprehension,
fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar. The percentage of the students who made progress in achieving the indicators could be seen using the following
formula:
n x
∑
x 100 PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
x = number of students who made progress in speaking ability.
n ∑ = the total number of students being observed
The progress of the students’ speaking ability was scored based on the criteria in the speaking rubrics mentioned in the research instruments. The
minimum score was 1 and the maximum score was 4 for each criterion. Each student would have total scores for his or her speaking ability. Thus, the total
score of the speaking ability in the speaking rubrics were converted into percentage using the following formula:
Table 3.2 The Percentage of Overall Speaking Ability
Score = Score =
Score = 1 = 50.2
9 = 67.5 17 = 84.8 2 = 52.3
10 = 69.7 18 = 87 3 = 54.5
11 = 71.8 19 = 89.2
4 = 56.7 12 = 74
20 = 91.3 5 = 58.8
13 = 76.2 21 = 93.7
6 = 61 14 = 78.3
22 = 95.7 7 = 63.2
15 = 80.5 23 = 97.8
8 = 65.3 16 = 82.7 24 = 100
Taken from: Foreign Language Program Studies, Fairfax Country Public Schools, 2004
The percentages above showed the students’ speaking ability. It included all the criteria such as content, comprehensibility, fluency, pronunciation,
vocabulary, and grammar in speaking. Students reached the criteria when they had 18 score or 87 at the minimum in their speaking ability or showed good level in
every speaking element. The score and percentage showed that the average of all components in speaking was 3 score. It means that students had already made
improvement in all components. The researcher then transformed the data into descriptive analysis.
F. Research Procedure
