topics, students could expand the topics and make comprehensible dialogues easier.
3. Fluency
There were three students 37.5 who improved in the area of fluency of speaking. Student number 1, student number 3 and student number 5 improved
from halting speech and uneven with long pauses or incomplete thoughts to choppy speech andor slow with frequent pauses, few or no incomplete thoughts.
Students sometimes used Indonesian in their dialogues to show pauses. For example they said “apa.., ehm.., or eh salah…”
4. Pronunciation
In this area of speaking, one student 12.5 improved from speech frequently interfere with communication to speech occasionally interfere with
communication. There were students’ errors in pronunciation when they perform their dialogues. For example, in the second meeting November 5, 2007 students
pronounced h : for the word how, fen for the word fine, s
:ld for the word should and pronounced pret
I
for the word pretty and many more.
5. Vocabulary
In the area of vocabulary, one student 12.5 improved from inadequate andor inaccurate use of vocabulary to somewhat inadequate andor inaccurate use
of vocabulary and too basic for this level of speaking. The researcher found that students could only memorize a small number of words. It was proven by student
number 3 when he said, PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
”Sudah, hanya begini saja kan. Tidak perlu buka kamus, seadanya aja.” Student number 3, field notes on October 29, 2007
6. Grammar
In the area of grammar, three students 37.5 improved from inadequate and or inaccurate use of basic language structures to emerging use of basic
language structures. They were student number 1, student number 2 and student number 5. There were many grammatical errors in the dialogues. They made
mistakes in present tense, modals, and past tenses. Here are the examples of errors in grammar:
“She wash her hair every two days or so.” Meeting 1, Student number 6, October 22, 2007
She washes her hair every two days or so. “I will go to Paris by next month.” Meeting 1, Student number 3, October
22, 2007 I will have gone to Paris by next month.
Student 4: “Do you know Amel? I must to see her now.” Meeting 3, November 5, 2007
I must see her now “I lost my wallet yesterday in the toilet. Did you saw it?” Student number
7, November 5, 2007 Did you see it?
From the result, it can be concluded that the technique helped students to improve the content and comprehensibility of the dialogues. Nevertheless, the
researcher could not find any significant improvements in other indicators in the speaking rubrics.
Based on the scores that had been achieved by the students in the speaking rubrics, the researcher could see the result of their speaking ability. The scores
were converted into percentage to show students’ speaking ability. The improvement of students’ speaking ability can be seen in Table 4.1 as follows:
Table 4.1 The Increase of Speaking Ability in the First Cycle
Name Speaking
Ability Diagnosing stage
First Cycle Improvement
Student 1 65.3 74
8.7
Student 2 67.5 76.2
8.7
Student 3 63.2 67.5
4.3
student 4 63.2 67.5
4.3
Student 5 65.3 69.7
4.5
Student 6 65.3 71.8
6.5
Student 7 65.3 67.5
2.2
Student 8 65.3 69.7
4.5
By observing the improvement of speaking ability as written in Table 4.1 above, the researcher concluded that there was no significant improvement. There
was no student who reached 18 score or 87 in the cycle. The highest improvement, 8.7, was achieved by student number 1 and student number 2.
Nevertheless, the lowest improvement, 2.2, was gained by student number 7. Based on the result above, students could not achieve the indicators of the
research. The researcher concluded that cued-dialogue as the first technique
implemented in the first cycle did not work well. It could not maximize the students’ potentials in speaking. In fact, this technique could give students topics
to talk. Nevertheless, cued-dialogue was not able to enrich students’ vocabulary mastery and improve students’ pronunciation mastery. Even though the teacher
provided vocabulary list, students usually remembered the words that they used in the dialogues only. Finally, this technique could not solve the problems occurred
in students’ speaking ability.
e. Specifying Learning
Cued-Dialogue as a technique to be implemented in the first cycle of the research seemed to be ineffective to improve students’ speaking ability for
students of SMA Stella Duce Bantul. Students could not maximize their potentials in speaking. Students still had weaknesses in four speaking components, namely
fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar. They could not perform good dialogues in speaking because they could not express their ideas freely into
conversations.
2. Second Cycle
The second cycle of the research was aimed to revise the technique in teaching and solve the remaining problems. By conducting this second cycle, the
researcher hoped that the problems could be solved. There were three meetings in this cycle.
a. Diagnosing
After evaluating what happened in the first cycle, whether there were any weaknesses in the previous method or the problems unsolved, the researcher and
the observer discussed everything she felt in the action whether it was good or which part was not quite good. The data identified in the observation sheets and
field notes were used as a basis to implement the next cycle or teaching learning activities. In this cycle, the researcher tried to solve the remaining problems which
still occurred in the first cycle. It was obvious when students did a cued-dialogue they no longer had dificulties in formulating the content of the conversation and
delivering the comprehensibility of the conversations. Yet, they could not enrich the vocabulary, grammar mastery, and pronunciation ability because they could
not develop and expand the conversation as they would like to have. Therefore, the researcher decided to implement a different technique.
b. Action Re-planning
Based on the problems identified in the second cycle, the researcher tried to find another technique which could eliminate the problems. The researcher
decided to use role-play as a new technique applied in the second cycle of the research. Here was the example of role-play used in the research.
Situation 1 Robby and Dianne are good friends. They work in the same office. Robby has
just finished moving into a new house and wants to invite Dianne over to celebrate. The celebration will be held on Saturday at seven in the evening in his
new house. make a dialogue about inviting to a celebration.
Figure 4.2 Role-play in making invitation
The reason why researcher decided to use role-play was because this technique gave students opportunity to express their ideas freely. Students could
make longer conversation and as a result they could enrich the vocabularies because students used more words from the vocabulary list provided on the
handouts.furthermore students could enhance pronunciation and grammar mastery. As in the example of role-playing above, learners were able to express their ideas
and made their own path in dialogues to come to the goal of the role-playing. In this role-play, Littlewood 1981: 55 explains that learners are initially aware only
of the overall situation and their own goals in it. They must negotiate the interaction itself as it unfolds, each partner responding spontaneously to the
other’s communicative acts and strategies. The researcher prepared three topics of role-play which would be administered in three meetings, they were offering help,
making invitation, and givingasking for advice.
c. Action Taking
After conducting the first cycle and the problems still occured, the researcher decided to use role-paly instead of cued-dialogue. The researcher
conducted the second cycle using role-play as a technique in three meetings. This technique, role-play, is time consuming. Nevertheless, the researcher had a
solution to use time effectively. The researcher told the students about the topic that would be discussed in the previous meeting. The topics for three meetings in
second cycle were offering help, making invitation, and givingasking for advice. Since this technique needed extra time to conduct in a class, researcher decided to
give the topic in the previous meeting. This aimed to prepare students in the lesson. Thus, students had already studied and been familiar with the topic during
the class discussion. It was beyond the researcher’s expectation that students had already made some expressions related to the topic in the first meeting. Before the
teacher gave the handouts to the students she asked about expressions related to PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
offering help. The researcher gave conversations as examples of the topics in the beginning of the lesson. She also explained about useful expressions and
vocabularies related to the topics. Students worked in pairs and performed their conversations in front of the class. Teacher gave the feedbacks on the students’
performaces in each role-play. It included on how they perfomed their plays.
d. Evaluation
In this second cycle, the researcher employed role-play as the second technique. Even though role-play had similar characteristics to cued-dialogue but
after conducting it the researcher could see the significant differences. During role-play activities the researcher and the observer monitored and wrote down any
significant improvement to the students who were in the researcher’s main concern. After three meetings were conducted in the second cycle and all pairs
performed their conversations, the researcher could see the improvements in speaking elements. All students made progress and achieved the indicators. The
progress was described as follows:
1. Content
In the area of content all students 100 made progress. Student number 1, student number 2 and student number 6 improved from partial completion and
mostly appropriate yet undeveloped responses to superior completion of the task and appropriate responses and with elaboration. Student number 3 improved from
minimal completion of the task to superior completion of the task and appropriate responses and with elaboration. Student number 5, student number 7, student
number 8 improved from partial completion of the task and mostly appropriate yet undeveloped responses to completion of the task.
The teacher asked the students about the expressions that should be used in the dialogues related to offering help. The students answered correctly even
though some of them still used Indonesian. ”Can you help me Ya kan Miss?” Student number 6, field notes on
November 12, 2007 “Help me” Student number 3, field notes on November 12, 2007
When teacher asked for polite ones, student number 5 said, “Di tambah please Miss.” Student number 4, field notes on November 12,
2007 The teacher gave situations about the topic and students were supposed to
expand it into conversation. Students felt excited when doing role-play because they felt that their work was precious. They made longer conversation than before
when using cued-dialogue. They could explore what they wanted to say.
2. Comprehensibility
Kategori