26
may want to encourage the learner beforehand to come up with a few questions to ask native speaker. In any case, the resulting interaction
will provide a spontaneous sample from and for the learner to analyze. In a variation of the conversation, learners are required to tape-record
an interview with native speaker on a topic of their choices and then repot the result to the class.
4. The Assessment Grading Scale of Speaking
As most people say that testing speaking is the most complex to assess with precision. Many of teachers often feel uncomfortable when
handling speaking test since it is often difficult to be objective and consistent when testing a large number of students. But it doesn’t mean that
speaking test can’t be measured in correct way. The writer has found several resources that explain about the way to assess speaking test and its
technique. Hughes, as quoted by Endang Fauziati, listed three general formats for testing speaking ability that are interview, interaction with
peers and responses to tape recording.
42
Interaction with peers is the technique that will be used by writer to assess speaking ability. In the
interaction with peers, two or more students may be asked to discuss a topic. The problem with this format is that the performance of one student
may be affected by that of others. One student might dominate the conversation. Therefore, Heaton said that it is important to make pair
students with similar level of language proficiency. Meanwhile,
determining the rating scale used is the next step to do in assessing speaking skill. The writer found various books that presented the sample of
an oral English rating scale. J.B. Heaton in his book, Writing English Language Test, examined rating scale of six-point range. In addition,
Ingram and Elaine Wylie, in their article “Assessing Speaking Proficiency in the International English Language Testing System examined rating
42
Endang Fauziati, Testing Speaking Skill, A paper of the49th International TEFLIN Conference, English: A Prerequisite for Global Communication, Denpasar: English Department,
Faculty of Letters, University Of Udayana, p.4.
27
scale of nine-point range. Besides, Harris in his book Testing English as a Second Language examined rating scales of five-point range.
In this paper, the writer quoted the one used by Harris as it is the most applicable to our speaking class rating system, since we would have
1-10 or 10-100 range of point as stated in the guidelines of scoring speaking skill in 2004 curriculum. According to Harris, speaking is a
complex skill requiring the simultaneous use of different ability which often develops at different rates. Five components are generally recognized
in analyses of speech process that are pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency the ease and speed of the flow of the speech and comprehension
an understanding of what both the tester and the testee are talking about or the ability to respond to speech as well as to initiate it.
43
Harris presented the sample of an oral English rating scale that used 1-5 points. Below is the
frame of Harris’s oral English rating scale:
No Criteria
Rating Score
Comments
1. Pronunciation
5 Has few traces of foreign accent
4 Always intelligible, thought one is
conscious of a definite accent 3
Pronunciation problem
necessities concentrated listening and occasionally
lead to misunderstanding 2
Very hard to understand because of pronunciation problem, most frequently be
asked to repeat 1
Pronunciation problem to serve as to make speech virtually unintelligible
2. Grammar
5 Make few if any noticeable errors of
grammar and word order 4
Occasionally makes grammatical and or word orders errors that do not, however
obscure meaning 3
Make frequent errors of grammar and word order, which occasionally obscure
meaning 2
Grammar and word order errors make
43
David P. Harris, Testing English as A Second Language, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1969.
28
comprehension difficult,
must often
rephrases sentence and or rest rich himself to basic pattern
1 Errors in grammar and word order, so,
severe as to make speech virtually
unintelligible 3.
Vocabulary 5
Use of vocabulary and idioms is virtually that of native speaker
4 Sometimes uses inappropriate terms and
must rephrases ideas because of lexical and equities
3 Frequently
uses the
wrong words
conversation somewhat limited because of inadequate vocabulary
2 Misuse of words and very limited
vocabulary makes comprehension quite difficult
1 Vocabulary limitation so extreme as to
make conversation virtually impossible 4.
Fluency 5
Speech as fluent and efforts less as that of native speaker
4 Speed of speech seems to be slightly
affected by language problem 3
Speed and fluency are rather strongly affected by language problem
2 Usually hesitant, often farced into silence
by language limitation 1
Speech is so halting and fragmentary as to make conversation virtually impossible
5. Comprehension
5 Appears to understand everything without
difficulty 4
Understand nearly everything at normal speed although occasionally repetition
may be necessary
3 Understand most of what is said at slower
than normal speed without repetition 2
Has great difficulty following what is said can
comprehend only
“social conversation” spoken slowly and with
frequent repetition 1
Can not be said to understand even simple conversational English
Table 2.1
29
The oral ability test divided into five elements; pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. Each element’s
characteristics are then defined into five short behavioral statements as stated in the frames above. This helps to make the test reliable, since it
avoids subjectivity because it provides clear, precise and mutually exclusive behavioral statements for each point of the scale. The writer will
objectively see the characteristics of each student’s speaking ability whether they achieve 1,2,3,4 or 5 score. Then, it can easily calculate the
score. The amount of maximum scores gained is 25. It is gained from the five elements of speaking as stated above. This amount of score can be
described as follows: Pronunciation
: 5 Grammar
: 5 Vocabulary
: 5 Fluency
: 5 Comprehension
: 5 25
Since our speaking class rating system is used the range of point 1- 10 or 1-100, then, to make it easier to calculate, the score is converted into
100 point scale by multiplying it with 4. The rating system used here is based on the rounding off system. It is also in line with the statement from
Hazell. Hazell, as cited in Endang Fauziati article, stated that teachers could modify the range point scale based on their need. So, it is clearly seen that
the writer modify the range score because the need of the scoring system as stated in the previous page. According to the rounding off system, writer
concludes that 100 point is the highest score gained by a student and 20 point is the lowest score gained by a student.
30
C. Relevant study
There were researchers had been done by researchers about speaking. Firstly, Nurmilah by the title “The effectiveness of using information gap in
developing students’ speaking skill”. She used the experimental research. The writer did the research one class. Before did the activity, she gave pre-test to
find out the students’ basic competence. Then, she taught speaking by using information gap technique. Finally, she gave post-test to know whether there
was significant influence of implementation of information gap technique in teaching speaking achievement through the growth of the students’ pre-test
score. Based on the data analysis above, the result showed that the coefficient is 11.82. It meant that there was a significance increase in teaching speaking
through information gap. From the result of calculation, it was obtained the value of the t-observation t
is 11.82. The writer used the degree of significance of 5 the value of degree of significance is 2.04. If the to
compared with each value of the degrees of significance, the result is 2.04 11.82. The writer summarized that improving the students’ speaking by
using information gap technique had positive influence for the second grade of SMP Negeri 153 Jakarta.
Second, Nana Nurjanah by the title “The Relationship between Students’ Interest in Speaking and their Speaking Score” the method used is
correlational study, she takes only one class as the subject. She gave each of the students a questionnaire related to the students’ interest in speaking to be
collaborating with their speaking score. The result of the analysis in the research showed that there is positive correlation between students’ interest in
speaking and their speaking score. Interest gives positive influence in teaching- learning speaking skill. Students who have higher interest in speaking get a
better score than the lower one. Third, Nina Zuhairiah in her research Developing Students’ English
Speaking Ability by Using Contextual Teaching Learning the research used Classroom Action Research CAR as the method of research. The CAR was
