d. Giving feedback on the students’ performance
The students actively gave comment after the group performance. It was about the irrelevant content. It could help the students knowing their mistake and also treat
them to use the expression of asking and giving opinion appropriately. So, the researcher only gave feedbacks in the group discussion and in the end of the class in
terms of mispronounced of the words. Besides, she also corrected the wrong grammar such us like followed by verb 1.
Giving feedback was important not only for correcting the wrong things but also showing teacher’s participation in the teaching and learning process. It could be
used to improved students’ skill in learning English by giving the correct example and modeling.
D. The Scores of the Students and Discussion
The implementation of directed discussion games and its accompanying actions were successful in improving the students’ speaking skill through two cycles
consisting two meetings on each cycle as has been stated before. The finding could be regarded from the observations during the teaching and learning process, the
interviews with the students and the collaborator. Moreover, it was also supported by the result of the pre-test and post-test score of the students’ speaking ability. The pre-
test was conducted on Wednesday, November 6
th
, 2013. The students were asked to perform a debate game in front of the class. The class was divided into six groups and
the topic of the test was; smoking effect, doing final examination UNAS, and students riding a motorcycle to the school. In the pre test, the researcher did not imply
discussion phase and the students were allowed to bring a small note during the presentation but they could not read the paper all the time. The two groups had to
confront each other based on the given topic in ten minutes. Meanwhile, the post test was conducted on Friday, November 22
nd
, 2013. The topic of the post-test was the same with the topics during the actions; school uniform,,
and smoking habit, and riding motorcycle for school. The optimist pessimist game was implied in the post test. The students were given the time to discuss the topic
within the group for about twenty minutes to find necessary information and also to solve it. They did not bring a small note during the performance but they looked very
enthusiast and confident to speak up. They could organize well the presentation, the choice of words and correct pronunciation. To assess the students’ speaking skill in
the pre-test and post-test, the researcher used a rubric which involved four aspects of speaking, such as fluency, accuracy, vocabulary, and pronunciation.
Table 3. Students’ Speaking Mean Score
From the table 4, based on the researcher’s assessment, it was found that the mean of the students’ speaking score in pretest was 6.3. There were only six students
No Pre test
Post test 1
Mean 6.3
7.9 2
n 22
22
who got more than 7 and the rests got 5.25 to 6.75 from the assessment, it could be inferred that the students ‘ speaking ability was low because the minimum passing
criteria of English subject in this school was 7. However, after implementing the directed discussion games and its actions,
the score of the students’ speaking skill in the post-test improved significantly. Most of the students got the speaking score between 7.25 to 9. Thus, all of them had passed
the minimum passing criteria KKM. From those result, it could be concluded that the students’ speaking ability had improved since the means of the students’ speaking
skill score also had improved, from 6.3 in the pre-test to 7.9 in the post test. The complete scoring table of the students’ speaking skill could be seen in the
Appendices. Regarding the findings of Cycle II that all actions were successful in
improving the students’ speaking ability and the objectives of the research were achieved, the researcher and the collaborator agreed to end this research in Cycle 2.
In summary, the differences in speaking teaching and learning process during Cycle I and Cycle II could be seen in Table 4.
Table 4: The Differences in Speaking Teaching and Learning Process During Cycle I and Cycle II
Before actions After cycle 1
After cycle 2
The students were shy when they were asked
to express their ideas in English in front of the
Some students were stillshy and reluctant
whenthey were asked toexpress their ideas in
Most of the students were confident
and enthusiastic
to expresstheir ideas in
class. English in front of the
class. English in front of the
class The students were
not familiar with some English words
Some students were still not familiar with
some English words so that there were some
Indonesian translation The students were
familiar with the English words without the
Indonesian translation.
The students often mispronounced English
words. Some students still
mispronounced some English words.
Most of the students had
rarely mispronounced the
English words. The students were
not interested in the
speaking teaching and learning process.
There were still some students who were
not interested in the speaking teaching and
learning process. All of the students
were actively engaged in the activities and enjoyed
during the speaking
teaching and learning. The students
cannot say proper sentence and feel so hesitate
making mistake Some students still
made wrong grammatical sentence but they ignored
it Most of the
students spoke English fluently with less mistake
in grammatical.
